Dear Colleagues, Lee Thorn, Peter Burgess, Ursula Huws, Gena Fleming, Vickram Crishna, Andy Lieberman and others have all given useful contributions to the issue of how to finance "grassroots" projects.
The current debate on "more Aid" (Jeffrey Sachs and the UN, Tony Blair's Commission for Africa, the recent decisions by the EU and the expected ones by the coming G8) is all nice and well. But as you probably know, some people believe that aid (especially official aid from Government - or the World Bank - to Government), the way it is given, has little benefits and could even do harm (William Easterly, etc.). Personally, I have been wondering if there could be a more productive form of aid, both official and private. More effective and less distorting (dependency, corruption, waste, etc.) After all, aren't economies - throughout history - driven more by entrepreneurial drive than by Governments? At least, I believe so (having been both a Government bureaucrat and an entrepreneur). I have nothing against good Governments. But it is VERY GOOD to talk about how to develop forms of support that could reach DIRECTLY to the people and their own projects, as we are doing. Channeling A LOT MORE MONEY to viable, sustainable, projects by communities and small private entities, in a poor country, makes a lot of sense. In addition, empowering local (poor) people to do their own development, doesen't necessarily include only entities such as CBOs, cooperatives or micro-enterprises; it could extend to (poor!) Local Governments too. And it wouldn't have to "cut out" NGOs.... just that the projects or businesses would be started, "owned" and managed directly by the people. Of course, the NGOs would help, could provide credibility, etc. But I am under the impression that most big private donors (principally Private Foundations and Corporations in the US), are not donating that much, overall, internationally (where are the numbers?); and, in any case, they give primarily to big, established NGOs, not directly to single "grassroots" projects. Isn't this so? Again, where are the numbers? I don't think they would even bother checking out (forget financing...) some project by some small entity, say in rural India, even if they produced a full, well documented, business plan and grant proposal. Or would they? If this is the case, would "Showcasing" projects on the Internet (with simple descriptions, some photos, etc.) bring us far? Do you think people would donate much? Maybe some individuals could. There are web sites doing this... But I wouldn't think the big donors would, and one wouldn't be able to determine a SIGNIFICANT flow of money. Am I wrong? For one, what would prevent silly, wrong projects, or even downright scams and frauds, from being posted? My impression is that credibility, reliability and transparency issues may be the most important, here. If so, how can they be addressed? I hope that some other GKD Members that know this world (of fundraising + donors, etc.) better, will dwell on the matter. Best regards to you all, Arrigo della Gherardesca ItAfrica - Italian African Alliance srl Milano ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
