Post by nickd on Mar 1, 2011 8:42:29 GMT 1
Here's an interesting, if somewhat philosophical, point of view on the way we seem to be headed. There's no doubt that the current accent is towards shrinking the State and increasing powers of capitalism, predominantly by increasing business activity as a way of fueling the economy - but what effect will it have on the welfare state and in particular the work of the not for profit sector?
Philanthrocapitalism often acts as a smokescreen to cover 'business-as-usual': by Michael Edwards
15 Nov 2010
Business will achieve much more impact in the world by fixing itself than by trying to fix philanthropy and the not-for-profit sector, where it has little expertise or experience, says Michael Edwards to d-sector.
Michael Edwards believes development isn’t only about providing goods and services to poor people
Author of the bestseller Small Change: Why Business Won't Change the World, Michael Edwards is an authority on civil society, philanthropy and social change. A doctorate from the University of London, Michael has spent a significant part of his career managing international relief and development organisations, including Oxfam, Save the Children and the Word Bank. Author of thirteen books and numerous articles and op-ed pieces, Michael lives with his wife, Core, in Swan Lake, a small community in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains of New York, where they have painstakingly rebuilt and renovated one of the first houses built by settlers who arrived in the 1830s to establish a tanning industry in Sullivan County. Sudhirendar Sharma picked his mind on several of the issues baffling the connection between for-profit and not-for-profit sector.
Q. When the developed countries have failed to meet their ‘development commitments’ towards the southern countries why should the role of businesses be suspect in this regard? Should businesses be expected to hold the high moral ground under the situation?
A. That’s a good point, but I don’t think the argument turns on whether business “should be expected to hold the high moral ground”, and after all, “two wrongs don’t make a right” as the old saying goes, so the poor performance of the industrialized world in meeting its commitments on foreign aid, trade liberalization and climate change should not divert attention away from the costs and benefits of involving business in addressing the challenges of development.
As I make clear in “Small Change”, business does have a crucial role to play in fostering a healthier form of economic growth and in holding itself accountable for the social and environmental costs of its activities, but this has nothing to do with corporate philanthropy or “philanthrocapitalism”, which too often acts as a smokescreen to cover the continuation of “business-as-usual.” Business will achieve much more impact in the world by fixing itself than by trying to fix philanthropy and the not-for-profit sector, where it has little expertise or experience. So let’s be clear about where business can help and where it can’t.
Q. On one extreme you argue that advance of capitalism promotes inequality and individual alienation and on the other extreme you favour fight and negotiation for solution to social issues. Isn't capitalism preparing ‘alienated individuals’ to ‘fight’ for their just cause?
A. Ideally that would be true: it’s an argument that I hear quite a lot, and I’m certainly sympathetic to anything that helps people, especially marginalized people, to stand up for their rights, and things like jobs, small enterprises and micro-credit loans are an important part of breaking that dependency. But history suggests that people’s commitment to fight for social justice and the radical transformation of society often doesn’t increase as their incomes grow – leading to what J. K. Gailbraith called “a culture of contentment” – and that, unless injustice, power relations, pollution and so on are tackled as an integral part of efforts to create economic wealth, then those problems will remain, so inequality will grow even as absolute poverty goes down. That’s exactly the pattern we see in most countries today. So I think we should combine the struggle for social causes with our efforts to transform capitalism. Then we might really get somewhere.
Read the full article for the full view....
www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1429
Philanthrocapitalism often acts as a smokescreen to cover 'business-as-usual': by Michael Edwards
15 Nov 2010
Business will achieve much more impact in the world by fixing itself than by trying to fix philanthropy and the not-for-profit sector, where it has little expertise or experience, says Michael Edwards to d-sector.
Michael Edwards believes development isn’t only about providing goods and services to poor people
Author of the bestseller Small Change: Why Business Won't Change the World, Michael Edwards is an authority on civil society, philanthropy and social change. A doctorate from the University of London, Michael has spent a significant part of his career managing international relief and development organisations, including Oxfam, Save the Children and the Word Bank. Author of thirteen books and numerous articles and op-ed pieces, Michael lives with his wife, Core, in Swan Lake, a small community in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains of New York, where they have painstakingly rebuilt and renovated one of the first houses built by settlers who arrived in the 1830s to establish a tanning industry in Sullivan County. Sudhirendar Sharma picked his mind on several of the issues baffling the connection between for-profit and not-for-profit sector.
Q. When the developed countries have failed to meet their ‘development commitments’ towards the southern countries why should the role of businesses be suspect in this regard? Should businesses be expected to hold the high moral ground under the situation?
A. That’s a good point, but I don’t think the argument turns on whether business “should be expected to hold the high moral ground”, and after all, “two wrongs don’t make a right” as the old saying goes, so the poor performance of the industrialized world in meeting its commitments on foreign aid, trade liberalization and climate change should not divert attention away from the costs and benefits of involving business in addressing the challenges of development.
As I make clear in “Small Change”, business does have a crucial role to play in fostering a healthier form of economic growth and in holding itself accountable for the social and environmental costs of its activities, but this has nothing to do with corporate philanthropy or “philanthrocapitalism”, which too often acts as a smokescreen to cover the continuation of “business-as-usual.” Business will achieve much more impact in the world by fixing itself than by trying to fix philanthropy and the not-for-profit sector, where it has little expertise or experience. So let’s be clear about where business can help and where it can’t.
Q. On one extreme you argue that advance of capitalism promotes inequality and individual alienation and on the other extreme you favour fight and negotiation for solution to social issues. Isn't capitalism preparing ‘alienated individuals’ to ‘fight’ for their just cause?
A. Ideally that would be true: it’s an argument that I hear quite a lot, and I’m certainly sympathetic to anything that helps people, especially marginalized people, to stand up for their rights, and things like jobs, small enterprises and micro-credit loans are an important part of breaking that dependency. But history suggests that people’s commitment to fight for social justice and the radical transformation of society often doesn’t increase as their incomes grow – leading to what J. K. Gailbraith called “a culture of contentment” – and that, unless injustice, power relations, pollution and so on are tackled as an integral part of efforts to create economic wealth, then those problems will remain, so inequality will grow even as absolute poverty goes down. That’s exactly the pattern we see in most countries today. So I think we should combine the struggle for social causes with our efforts to transform capitalism. Then we might really get somewhere.
Read the full article for the full view....
www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1429