Here’s a slightly depressing story. I was having dinner last week with a couple of old friends, both of whom work in the international development sector for large, high-profile UK charities. Both have been deeply committed to development since I met them nearly ten years ago, and both are smart people with a good deal of experience in their field. I mentioned I was interested in the role of venture capital to reduce poverty by supporting businesses in developing countries, creating wealth, jobs and so forth.
“Hmm… not more of those venture capitalists” came the deeply sceptical response. “Always sticking their nose in. We’re forever having venture capitalists coming in and trying to tell us what to do.”
My friend went on to tell two stories, both concerning a British charity called ARK, or Absolute Return for Kids. Now ARK was formed a few years back by a group of former investment bankers to add a bit of private sector “rigour” (their words) into the sleepy UK charity sector. And the two stories ran as follows: firstly, ARK had approached her charity for advice, saying that they wanted “to go into education in Africa”, despite having no prior experience or expertise in the field. A fairly clear case, I think, of mission creep or unwise over-diversification by ARK. Secondly, at a recent charity dinner for super-rich city types they had included a diamond in the goody bag presented to all guests. An equally clear case of unwise and unnecessary ostentation.* She was therefore able to quote at least some good circumstantial evidence that the virtues of lean management and focused activity preached relentlessly by the private sector to the charity world are not always practised with such dedication.
Of course, this disappointing personal experience of the private sector’s charitable ventures merely reinforced her existing professional and philosophical suspicion of private sector charitable efforts – one that runs something along these lines. We work to help people; they work to make more money (perhaps, maybe, helping people along the way). They talk of economic forces and think of big-shots; we think of the personal, the little guy, and know that their economic forces are in fact self-serving and distort the truth. We have years of experience in our field; here they turn up like Johnny-come-lately, re-inventing the wheel and instructing us in how to do our job. You would likely meet similar views talking to most doctors, teachers or other public sector professionals.
In many cases, there is a good deal to this; I am by no means denying that there is often substance to these complaints, and I will try to come back to this argument another time. But for now, what seemed depressing to me was the way that an instinctive personal distaste of the private sector seems to obscure any chance of compromise or dialogue or understanding between the two sides. (The reverse is also true - it is not as if the private sector is blameless on this score). And it seems so counter-productive. Both sides share common goal; they share the same mission, if you like. Both want to improve the world they live in. Yet a difference in approach, in philosophy, in temperament almost, produces a rift between people who should be sharing ideas enthusiastically. It is all very well for academic theorists of development or economics, Marxists and Neoliberals and the like, to sit in their libraries writing yah-boo-sucks to each other. But practical people taking practical action for the benefit of others should be more, well, practical. At least as a start, could we have a recognition that each side is sincere, each has similar aims, and each could learn something from the other?
* There is an illuminating clarification to this story: no diamonds were in fact given away. The most recent ARK gala dinner concluded with a charity auction, one of the prizes being the chance to name (not own) a 100 carat diamond. Fairly ostentatious, I agree, but not exactly the same as giving gemstones away. The antagonism between charity & private sectors seems to have done the rest, distorting the rumours in the telling until the version that reached my friend involved some Marie Antoinette-style largesse.
Yet even here there is sincerity on both sides: my friend’s, that money should not be wasted so frivolously by the rich on each other, and ARK’s, that as much money as possible should be donated to helping children and that some glamorous enticement may help. Sadly, neither side is likely to see it like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment