philanthropy

Update on Greg Mortenson and ‘Three Cups of Deceit’

Wikimedia

Greg Mortenson

Author and philanthropist Greg “Three Cups of Tea” Mortenson is back in the news with his attorneys asking a judge to toss out a lawsuit that accuses him of defrauding readers and donors.

For a quick reminder of what Mortenson is accused of, you can read Jon Krakauer’s devastating critique and online booklet Three Cups of Deceit – or my synopsis of it, Ten Sips from Three Cups of Deceit.

According to the Associated Press, Mortenson is basing his defense on another author, James Frey, who was made infamous on the Oprah Winfrey Show where he was first celebrated and then later exposed for fabricating much of his story.

“Plaintiffs should not be allowed to create a world where authors are exposed to the debilitating expense of class action litigation just because someone believes a book contains inaccuracies,” contends Mortenson’s attorney John Kauffman.

In Mortenson’s case, however, the alleged fictional accounts in his books were used to not just sell the books but also to raise funds for his philanthropy, the Central Asia Institute, which builds schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As stated in the AP story:

The lawsuit accuses the Montana resident of being involved in a racketeering scheme to turn him into a false hero, defraud millions of people out of the price of the books and raise millions in donations to the charity. The other defendants allegedly in on the scheme are co-author David Relin, publisher Penguin Group and Mortenson’s Bozeman-based charity, Central Asia Institute.

FILED UNDER: Basics, Greg Mortenson, philanthropy, Three Cups of Tea

January 17, 2012 | 8:45 AM | By Tom Paulson

China: Philanthropy on the rise but human rights on the decline?

Flickr, Peter Fuchs

Two stories out of China:

Bill Gates lauds the Chinese for becoming more philanthropic, though many might say they could hardly have become less so. In Xinhua, Gates says:

Many people he met in China acknowledged that philanthropy was still in its early stages of development in the country, but they already had ideas about things they wanted to do, he recalled, adding that this impressed him very much.

Meanwhile, former Washington state governor and now U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke says China’s human rights track record is getting worse lately. On the Charlie Rose Show, Locke said:

Locke told Rose that the human rights “climate has always ebbed and flowed in China, up and down, but we seem to be in a down period and it’s getting worse.”

FILED UNDER: Politics, Bill Gates, China, Gary Locke, human rights, philanthropy

January 4, 2012 | 12:04 PM | By Tom Paulson

BBC looks at “secretive” and powerful Gates Foundation

News analysis

Tom Paulson

Bill and Melinda Gates speak at Malaria Forum, with moderator ABC News' Richard Besser

The BBC has done an extensive (40 min) report on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation titled “Fortress Bill.” It is available for six more days online and will be rebroadcast on Sunday, Jan. 8.

The BBC introduces the Gates Foundation as the world’s largest philanthropy aimed at helping the poor:

“Yet it remains an often secretive and hard to penetrate organization, which arouses suspicion on some sectors of the aid community.”

My friend and colleague Laurie Garrett, with the Council on Foreign Relations, is interviewed by the BBC and notes that the influence of private philanthropy in global health and development is on the increase — which means policy is often set behind closed doors by a select group of people:

“What we think is global health, how we define this mission, is increasingly decided by a relatively small number of Americans living in Seattle, Washington.”

The dominance of the Gates Foundation has led to a bias toward scientific, technological and private-sector solutions, says Garrett. Science and technological improvements are needed, she says, but this focus ends up crowding out all of the other — social, political and economic — changes necessary to defeat the diseases of poverty. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, Alliance magazine, BBC, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Laurie Garrett, philanthropy

December 23, 2011 | 11:27 AM | By Tom Paulson

End of the year question for you, humanosphere

Happy Holidays.

Humanosphere is taking the week off since so is much of the rest of the humanosphere. I feel compelled to close out 2011 with a reminder that humanosphere is, in fact, a real word — coined to describe that part of the planet ‘inhabited or influenced by people.’

Yeah, kinda vague.

That’s why I have a key question for you, you humanospherians. But first, the northern lights ….

Flickr, Beverly & Pack

The northern lights

End of year thought: This is a news blog, or an online news website if you don’t like the word ‘blog,’ aimed at covering what seems to me to be a critical moment for humanity. It’s hard to summarize, but I believe our amazing, wonderful, frighteningly innovative and sometimes highly destructive species is at an unprecedented crossroads.

There’s no question anymore that we have evolved the capability to seriously soil our own nest — what with our nuclear weaponry, our climate-altering industrial practices and a level of hubris that (as seen from outer space … yes, I know ET) threatens to be our undoing.

Planet Earth likely will muster on, as it always has. But the humanosphere may be at risk, of a seriously deteriorating quality of life if not worse.

As someone of Scandinavian extraction, I’m happy to accept such a gloomy prognosis — especially as it fits in with my Norwegian-Lutheran holiday traditions of guilt, anxiety and staring off into cold space.

Yet there is just as much evidence to contradict this fatalistic view. A few observations:

In many ways, the world is actually a better place than it was even just 10 years ago with lower rates of extreme poverty, lower maternal and child mortality, more people on anti-HIV drugs and much less malaria in poor countries thanks to major initiatives funded by rich nations.
Most world leaders, even top military commanders, say that the best way to achieve global peace and stability is not through warfare but by reducing poverty, fighting inequity and promoting development. (I can’t say we are yet practicing what we preach, but recognizing you have a problem — whether it’s excessive drinking or killing people — is the first step.)
Something unusual is happening with young people. They are incredibly aware of global issues and they are leading the way on many fronts in the battle against poverty and injustice.
The business community has recognized it has a responsibility and a role to play in making the world a better place. Only the dinosaurs of business now say their only responsibility is to the bottom line. The idea of corporate social responsibility, however imperfectly practiced, no longer sounds so incongruous — or like dressing up a pig in a tuxedo.
Some of our past damage is fixable. A local creek I couldn’t have gone swimming in as a boy (unless I wanted to experiment with chemicals and genetic self-mutation) is now brimming with fish.

End of year question: So what do we call this trend, this new phase for humanity?

As a journalist attempting to cover this phenomenon, I often find myself at a loss for adequate words to describe what is happening and who is making it happen.

This isn’t really about charity, or just philanthropy. We seem to have entered a new phase of human development in which many, if not yet most, recognize global inequity and injustice threatens all of us. We have a much stronger sense of connection to each other today, I think.

But the language used to describe this new phase for humanity is horribly squishy and soft. Advocates often sound like one of those late-night TV pitches asking you to sponsor a starving child. And calling the people who work at making the world better ‘humanitarians‘ sounds a bit floofy. I don’t mind the simple clarity of ‘do-gooders,’ but many see that as slightly pejorative if not smart-ass.

So what do we call you people? What do we call this new phase in the evolution of the humanosphere?

I await your thoughts. Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah and here’s hoping for a Joyful New Year.

Tom

FILED UNDER: Basics, charity, corporate social responsibility, do-gooders, humanitarian, philanthropy

December 20, 2011 | 12:56 PM | By Tom Paulson

More Fighting Over (the meaning and purpose of) Philanthropy

Question: Is philanthropy a means for reducing inequity in the world or just another vehicle used by the super-rich to justify the inequity?

Gates Foundation

Bill Gates in India, checking on polio eradication

Answer: It depends upon what you mean by philanthropy.

Oddly enough (or maybe not), there is wide disagreement about some of what many would see as the most basic assumptions and characteristics of philanthropy. I’ve written about these confused semantics before, such as this argument between two experts over whether philanthropies should seek profits — a debate which ended up promoting an even more heated exchange of words.

The battle has been rejoined in a debate going on between the advocates of the more business-oriented, profit-seeking approach they’ve dubbed “philanthrocapitalism” and those who think philanthropy needs to be more precisely defined by its ability to effect positive social change.

Stanford

Kavita Ramdas

Leading off in the debate online at the Stanford Social Innovation Review is Kavita Ramdas, former chief of the Global Fund for Women now based at Stanford University. Ramdas opens with a tale of Bill and Melinda Gates in India seeking more billionaires for their Giving Pledge initiative.

The problem here, writes Ramdas, is that such well-intended acts of charity usually do nothing to solve the fundamental problems they are trying to solve:

In fact, as a recent Wall Street Journal article suggests, the same factors that helped create the billionaires may have also exacerbated social injustice and inequality, malnutrition, and dis-empowerment for millions of poor people cross India.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Justice, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Global Fund for Women, Kavita Ramdas, Matthew Bishop, philanthrocapitalism, philanthropy

November 29, 2011 | 12:05 PM | By Tom Paulson

Worries about for-profit and policy-making philanthropy

Flickr, by AMagill

Circle of money

First off, you should know that philanthropy in the United States is a growth market.

As the New York Times noted recently in an analysis piece on philanthropists using their foundations to push policy changes:

Over the past 30 years, as the gap between wealthy and poor grew ever wider, total philanthropic giving almost tripled….

This was one of a number of articles this week that looked at how philanthropists are increasingly putting their tax-sheltered money behind for-profit or personal ventures — sometimes aimed at achieving a social good and sometimes not.

The New York Times led the examination starting with an excellent article by Stephanie Strom (published on Thanksgiving Day) entitled To advance their cause foundations buy stocks.

Strom opened her article with an example of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation investing in a biotech company that works on vaccines — a portfolio management strategy known as “program-related investing”:

A growing number of foundations are using such investments, known as P.R.I.’s, to connect with profit-making ventures that advance their missions. But as they become more popular, some officials in the nonprofit field worry that this and other newer mechanisms are blurring the lines between profit-making businesses and charitable work.

Strom quotes Jeff Raikes, CEO at the Gates Foundation, as saying the idea is to make sure their investments serve the same goals — improving health, fighting poverty — as their philanthropy.

This is an interesting about-face for the Gates Foundation, which in response to a high-profile critique in 2007 by the Los Angeles Times had taken the position that its stock investments would be based solely on their financial attributes and were not selected with respect to the philanthopy’s humanitarian missions. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, investments, philanthropy

September 7, 2011 | 10:00 AM | By Tom Paulson

Magazine shines a (sometimes harsh) spotlight on the Gates Foundation

Flickr, ucumari

The 800-lb gorilla of philanthropy?

Alliance magazine, a London-based publication focused on philanthropy and social investing, has published a series of articles giving special attention to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The series is called Living with the Gates Foundation. A photo of a gorilla (presumably weighing 800 lbs) is the cover photo for the series.

Editor Caroline Hartnell, in her introductory statement accompanying the series, says the primary reason for shining a (sometimes harsh) spotlight on the Gates Foundation is its size and influence. Says Hartnell:

It’s not that Gates isn’t doing good, or that it is doing harm; it’s more that the resources the foundation brings to bear are so huge and the scale of its ambitions so great that it clearly could do serious harm – by distorting the fields in which it works. (Lancet editor) Richard Horton talks of Bill Gates becoming ‘one of the most – if not the most – powerful voice in setting the research agenda’ for global health.

Hartnell highlights one of the articles in the magazine, which I linked to last week, raising the concern that the Gates Foundation is becoming a benevolent dictatorship in global health and development. She adds that many experts in the world of aid and development contacted for this series expressed great interest, but declined to be interviewed.

Timothy Ogden, co-founder and editor-in-chief of Philanthropy Action, served as editor for the series. Ogden points out that the Gates Foundation is big when it comes to private philanthropy’s (the world’s biggest, in fact) but relatively small when compared to the U.S. government’s role in aid and development — and positively tiny when considered in terms of total economic clout even in poor countries.

Still, Ogden says, the Seattle philanthropy is widely regarded as highly influential in ways not solely measured in dollars — and the level of influence has some folks concerned because of a few worrying trends or characteristics repeated by many of those interviewed.

Here are Ogden’s three main take-aways in his opening article:

Truth to Power — “The first is that it is increasingly difficult for anyone to speak truth to power at the Gates Foundation.”

Lack of Accountability — “There was also a widely expressed view that the foundation still has a long way to go in terms of openness and accountability.”

Intensely Focused, Shifts in Focus — “No one can dispute that the Gates Foundation has shown extraordinary focus for such a young and large institution. But it also has seen shifting strategies.”

Other articles in the Alliance series include looks at how other donors view the Gates Foundation, the philanthropy’s influence in Europe, its work in financial services for the poor, interviews with Gates Foundation CEO Jeff Raikes, Lancet editor Richard Horton and others.

Many articles are only available to subscribers but some are fully accessible on the Alliance website.

NOTE: In response to the “Benevolent Dictator” concern, Jessica Keralis blogging at IH-Blog (the weblog of the international health section of the American Public Health Association) comes to the Gates Foundation’s defense.

Keralis argues it’s the Gateses money to do what they will and if priorities are being distorted it is up to the global health and aid community to re-set the priorities — rather than simply follow the money.

FILED UNDER: Basics, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, philanthropy

June 27, 2011 | 10:32 AM | By Tom Paulson

Update: Fighting over (meaning of) Philanthropy

Felix Salmon

Economist

Matthew Bishop

Two of my favorite writers or “thought leaders” on economics and philanthropy, Felix Salmon of Reuters and Matthew “Philanthrocapitalist” Bishop of the Economist, continue their war of words here and here.

Excellent!

As I noted earlier, this all started when Salmon felt compelled to emphasize that the point of philanthropy is not to make a profit. Yeah, I know that sounds obvious. But, as he noted, there are lots of folks out there — he included Matthew Bishop among them — who seem to confuse business with philanthropy.

“All of this is profoundly silly,” Salmon said.

Matthew Bishop responded that it is, in fact, Salmon who is the muddle-headed one. He called Salmon a “bigot,” which I still don’t quite understand in this context. Bishop’s point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with profit-making and trying to help poor people.

Anyway, you can read their arguments for yourself.

philanthropy

RECENT POSTS