NextBillion.net - Development Through Enterprise - A Dialogue on Philanthrocapitalism: The Importance of Listening - Comments

Wants and Needs

Mike Edwards — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:09:38 -0400

Thanks Francisco, over the next year or two I will be working with a nascent network of universities, think-tanks and NGOs/foundations to undertake empirical research on the impact of different approaches to philanthropy and social change (not just "philanthrocapitalism"), so there should be plenty to share and exchange. There are clearly many instances where wants and needs coincide and others where they don't, and the same would go for democracy and markets. I think the key is get clearer on these synergies and trade-offs so that we have the information we need to invest wisely in different strategies. That's where I will be focusing most of my attention so I look forward to collaborating with you. Mike

Thanks Mike

Francisco Noguera — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:46:32 -0400

Thanks Mike for your comment and I'm glad we're able to keep this dialogue going. You make a very interesting point and I'm honestly not sure if I share your view of markets as a vehicle for the satisfaction of wants only, and not needs. However, I totally agree with your emphasis on the importance of both governments and markets to address poverty in a sustainable and transparent fashion. Again, thank you for The Last Emperor? and look forward to reading more from you in the future. All best, Francisco

Kumbayah

Michael Edwards — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:03:48 -0400

Amen Brother! Mike

the "missing middle" otherwise known as "shades of grey"

Tayo — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:02:15 -0400

As I finished reading the series of posts on Edwards' book "Just a Another Emperor", it occurs to me that it's human nature to categorize, generalize, and stereotype. I don't mean this in a critical way---placing people, events, and ideas into boxes helps us to make sense of the world of around us. However, it also occurs to me that when we put polarizing "stakes in the ground", we fail to play in the proverbial "grey area" where strengths, weaknesses, inconsistencies, hypocrises and opportunities all exist, rather unhappily, together. (In fact, many of the commenters preceding me have pointed this out.) To be fair, the stakes tell us where the grey area exists, which is valuable in and of itself. However, part of me wants the emperor, his subjects, and the dissidents outside the walls of the city to engage in a bit of gap analysis. If each party has shortcomings, how can the strengths of one mitigate the weaknesses of the other? Perhaps we should we all sit together and sing "kumbayah"? Overly simplistic, I know, perhaps it's just my stake in the ground. : D

democracy and markets

Michael Edwards — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:39:13 -0400

thanks Rob and Francisco, you make some important points in your post, and I agree that measuring the social impact of market-based interventions should be one of our key priorities moving forward. But I also think you conflate two very different forms of "listening" in a way that needs to be challenged. The first is the signalling role of markets that connects producers and consumers around their wants (not needs), and enables resources to be utilized more efficiently in terms of rates of economic (not social) return. The second is the role of politics (and specifically democratic politics) in listening to the voices of poor people and responding to their demands, especially around distributional issues. You have to have both to address poverty and marginalization successfully, as many constructive critics of BOP strategies have pointed out. Thanks and keep up the good work, Mike

A Dialogue on Philanthrocapitalism: The Importance of Listening

Rob Katz — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:33:06 -0400

This is the fifth and final installment of our series reviewing Michael Edwards' Just Another Emperor and the concept of 'philanthrocapitalism'. Follow the links to read part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.

By Rob Katz and Francisco Noguera

Philanthrocapitalism – harnessing business and the market to the goals of social change – is a controversial term. First introduced by The Economist's Matthew Bishop, then expounded upon by the Ford Foundation's Michael Edwards, philanthrocapitalism has been the subject of no fewer than four major online discussions and debates. Here at NextBillion.net, we have dedicated five blog posts to the topic, offering a range of opinions on Edwards' new book, Just Another Emperor: The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism.

Derek, Moses, Manuel and Nitin – who authored the first four entries in this series – offer a range of viewpoints, mostly critical of Edwards' argument that market strategies are inappropriate tools for driving social change. Edwards, of course, makes many salient points, and is not to be criticized as a hack. (Over at the Global Philanthropy Forum blog, Benetech's Jim Fruchterman deconstructs Michael Edwards in no uncertain terms, and comes close to making this very criticism. Edwards responds.)

As I read through the NextBillion.net posts and comments, the Global Philanthropy Forum debate, the OpenDemocracy forum and other discussions on philanthrocapitalism, I wonder if we aren't talking past each other at least a little bit.

(This post continues past the break; click "Read More" to continue)