On 24/07/2008, va <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have heard and read negative reports regarding BMGF, I wonder why > ngo's accept the philanthropy first and cry foul later.
I'm curious. How did you reach the conclusion above? I'm not aware of any NGO, in India or elsewhere, that has accepted BMGF funding and then complained about their approach. http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/02231409/Bill-Gates-and-Indian-NGOs.html?d=1 > > Bill Gates handed over charge of Microsoft last week, and — after a > brief summer break — will return to a full-time role at the Bill and > Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). As the world's largest private > philanthropic entity, BMGF has more than $35 billion from the Gates > and an additional $30-odd billion from Warren Buffett. > Bill Gates the philanthropist is likely to be an even more > controversial figure than Bill Gates the capitalist In fact, much of the reaction appears to have come from the corporate sector, where some have accused him of preaching a 'creative capitalism' far removed from the strategies he adopted in accumulating the wealth he now chooses to deploy to social rather than financial ends. Bill Gates the philanthropist is likely to be an even more > controversial figure than Bill Gates the capitalist. Part of this is > because of the approach that BMGF has taken in trying to solve global > issues, such as eradicating malaria. But a lot of the conflict will > stem from more fundamental challenges that the non-governmental > organization (NGO) sector faces; BMGF only adds fuel to an already > raging fire. And India will be a key country in how this conflict > plays out. > India has more than one million NGOs of varying sizes, operating > across a vast spectrum of social issues. Only a small handful of these > challenges can be solved with market-based approaches — with revenue > models that can create self-financing entities run by social > entrepreneurs. A majority of our social challenges will always need > grant-based support. Mid-day meal schemes, the care of challenged > children, women's rights programmes — these are examples of the kinds > of complex social challenges that don't have "revenue-model" > solutions. Such NGOs will need donor funds to hire good people, > develop systems and build strong institutions to create sustainable > change over long periods of time. I have seen no evidence that BMGF advocates 'market-based approaches' to their philanthropic activities. They do limit their support to more 'tangible' service delivery models with measurable impact rather than relatively intangible advocacy-type initiatives. This does not, in my view, constitute a market-based or self-financing revenue approach. While the NGO sector has a significant role to play in addressing > social issues, it is under tremendous pressure, not just in India, but > worldwide. The forces of globalization and technology are not only > posing challenges for governments and markets, but also for NGOs. > Traditional distinctions between state, markets and society are > blurring; questions about accountability, transparency and impact of > NGOs — which were always being asked — are now being demanded with > greater frequency and vigour in the past few years. > In a report titled The 21st century NGO: In the Market for Change, > consulting firm SustainAbility states, "New forms of competition are > evolving in the 'NGO market', with new entrants like companies, > business networks, NGO networks and social entrepreneurs blurring > traditional boundaries." In 2002, the United Nations constituted a > panel of eminent citizens under the chairmanship of former Brazilian > president Enrique Cardoso to address UN-civil society relations. The > panel's report — submitted in 2004 — received substantial criticism > from the NGO sector, centrally around the suggestion to expand the > current UN-NGO dialogue to multi-stakeholder consultations that > included businesses. Most NGOs I'm familiar with actively welcomed the Cardoso report and lament the fact that it has not been implemented. These trends are indicative of the increasing scrutiny of NGOs, their > governance systems and the measurement of their impact. Rajesh Tandon, > chairman of a respected NGO called PRIA and one of the founders of an > NGO network called VANI — Voluntary Action Network of India — has made > several attempts over the past two decades to develop a > self-regulatory framework for the NGO sector. VANI developed a "code > of conduct" for NGOs, which identified key parameters such as mission, > governance, accountability, transparency and financial management for > non-profits. > But implementing and enforcing such voluntary self-regulations is > difficult. In a paper titled The Guardians Guarding Themselves..., > Mark Sidel, professor of law at the University of Iowa, writes of the > Indian experiments: "It is notoriously difficult to develop > substantial, detailed, explicit adherence to non-profit norms and > codes, particularly where there is no incentive mechanism to back them > up." Message: no financial teeth, little enforcement possibility. > Many experts take strong exception to what they term attempts to > muzzle NGOs into a straitjacket of measurement criteria and impact > assessments, especially since the practice of measurement is so > complex: what to measure, and who decides—the NGO, the donor or the > beneficiary of the work of the NGO? There have been several other self-regulation initiatives in India that the author does not mention including some, like the Credibility Alliance, that are up and running. Globally, there are the International Advocacy NGO Accountability Charter and others. NGOs have collaborated actively with the Global Reporting Initiative to develop a sector-specific reporting norms on par with those adopted by the corporate sector. Most NGOs dependent on external funding must, in any case, continually convince donors of their efficacy and efficiency if they are to survive. Corporate and private foundations, OTOH, must only satisfy their own boards. The debate on NGO accountability is not going to get resolved any time > soon. Not unlike the corporate or political accountability debates? But, there is consensus on one point: NGOs are facing pressure > to remain relevant. And it's here that Bill Gates in his new avatar > will create enormous friction, globally as well as in India. Many NGOs > in India are still uncomfortable with market forces, either as > legitimate players in the social change space, or as funders of social > initiatives. Why is that a problem as long as they operate in consonance with their beliefs? By being the 800lb gorilla in the donor space, BMGF will > force such NGOs to make tough choices: Will they oppose > market-based/market-funded social change, or accommodate this new > dynamic? Or, worse still, hold their noses as they reluctantly accept > funds from the most successful capitalist of the 20th century? > BMGF are big. They do not, however, enjoy even the same levels of dominance in the non-profit sector that Microsoft, for instance, enjoys in its domain. If the author actually subscribes to any kind of market-approach he might wish to view the entry of such a dominant player into a sector unprotected by anti-trust or anti-monopoly regulation a negative development. -- "You can only be young once. But you can always be immature." – Dave Barry
