Tuesday, July 26, 2011

We Should Expect Good Giving To Be Hard

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

Great giving opportunities are few and far between; rather than offering to help donors "check the legitimacy" of particular groups, I believe in urging them to give to only the very best charities. In fact, it's fundamentally very difficult for an individual donor to meaningfully help people.

When you want to help people as a donor, you have to get in line behind all of the groups below.

For-profit companies. I believe that most of the things you can do that make strangers' lives better are things you can get paid for. Every day people help each other send packages, prepare food, recover from illness, etc. via market transactions. This may seem like a trivial and obvious point, but it's the reason we are so focused on helping the very poor. When you're trying to help people who aren't poor, you're competing with for-profit enterprises.

And even the very poor get a lot of help from for-profit services. For example, when people started realizing that cellphones could be useful to the very poor, the result was expansion of for-profit cellphone service into the developing world. There were some nonprofit attempts to contribute to this dynamic, but we're skeptical that they added much value on top of the profit-driven ones.

I am certainly not saying that all profit-making enterprises are helpful nor that all forms of help are profitable. But a lot of the easiest help to provide—even for the poorest—is already provided by people who are doing it to make money.

Governments. When a market failure is clear and severe, the government often steps in. Many feel it does not step in enough or that it does more harm than good, but the fact remains that much of the "lowest-hanging fruit" for helping people where markets won't is covered by governments. Low-income people in the US get free education with high teacher attendance rates, free emergency medical care, and cash, among other things. People in the developing world get far less from their governments, but most governments still provide a good deal of free medical care.

Local philanthropy and community. When it comes to market failures that the government fails to address, there are still often local nonprofits—and just local people—who are well placed to step in quickly and effectively. This is not an endorsement of small, community-based organizations as giving opportunities for individual donors outside the community. If you're outside the community you're trying to help, you're going to have trouble figuring out what the real problems are and who ought to be funded to address them; the people in the community will often be better placed to help, by donating and otherwise, than you are.

Big foundations.There are opportunities to help that are missed by for-profits, governments, and locals. There are many extremely well-funded and well-staffed foundations looking for just these opportunities.

Other donors. If you want your donation to have an impact, you need to find opportunities that have been missed not only by all the groups above, but also by other individual donors. Our focus on room for more funding is an attempt to deal with this situation.

In my view, the wealthier the community, the more effective the first three items above (for-profits, government, and locals) will be in addressing their problems. Therefore, if you want to find opportunities to provide help that isn't already being given, you probably need to look at the world's poorest communities—but doing that probably means helping people who are very far away and very culturally different from yourself, and you have to find opportunities that haven't already been found by the big foundations or other donors.

When a donor says, "I have $1,000 that I'd like to use to help someone," it may not sound like they're asking for much. But on reflection, I think they're really saying, "I'm looking for someone who needs help that they can't get from a company, their government, their community, or any other donor big or small—and I expect to provide this help just by sending a $1,000 check, despite having very little experience or knowledge of the situation."

Put this way, the donor's request sounds somewhat exorbitant, and it seems that we shouldn't expect them to be able to accomplish much with their $1,000. Yet as it turns out, I believe that (if they take the rare opportunities that we highlight at GiveWell, for example) they can often use that money to save a life. I think this is a somewhat shocking observation and that it reflects serious problems with the nonprofit ecosystem.

I also think we shouldn't expect this to be the situation indefinitely. I hope that as the world gets better at providing help to those who need it, all the opportunities to save a life for $1,000 will be snapped up more quickly. That will leave GiveWell customers—individual donors looking to help people they've never met and know little about—with much less exciting options, and that's how it should be.


imageHolden Karnofsky is co-founder of GiveWell, an independent charity evaluation group. GiveWell identifies and recommends top charities in causes such as international charity, microfinance, and disaster relief.

Sent with Reeder


 

Monday, July 25, 2011

Report from the field: SafeSave, a different kind of microfinance methodology

Financial Access Initiative Blog

Last week I had the pleasure to visit SafeSave, an unconventional microfinance institution operating in Dhaka, Bangladesh. SafeSave was founded by Stuart Rutherford (among other things, author of The Poor and Their Money and co-author of Portfolios of the Poor) and puts a very interesting twist on the traditional model of credit-led microfinance institutions. (To see Stuart Rutherford discussing SafeSave, see Video IV, at the 5:30 mark.)

SafeSave provides financial services to very poor clients without relying on group meetings, joint liability, guarantors, or even fixed weekly loan repayments. It was set up as an experiment, to learn whether a flexible, non-group lending methodology would be sustainable. In practice, a lot of the common microfinance wisdom is challenged, and it works: the repayment rate, for example, stands at 95 percent. This is just one statistic. More importantly, I think SafeSave's methodology is a great way of serving clients with a flexible and convenient system that matches their needs in a unique way.

At the heart of SafeSave's methodology are the 66 collectors, who visit clients at their homes or workplaces every day and provide them with an opportunity to make savings deposits or withdrawals, and repay their loans (clients need to go to the branch for loan disbursement and large savings withdrawals). All collectors are women who come from the same neighborhoods that SafeSave serves. To match clients' irregular income flows, savings and loan repayments are optional, and clients choose how much they want to save or repay on a given day. Loans therefore do not have a definite term. The collectors record all transactions on smartphones, to help in the accounting.

SafeSave collects savings and extends loans. Savings earn clients six percent interest per year, and interests on loans cost three percent per month. Quick repayment of loans is encouraged by conditioning the increase in the clients' credit limit by how fast they repay their existing loan. The other product is a long-term savings product. Savers receive higher interest rates by agreeing to not withdraw their money for three, five, seven or ten years.

In the country where Grameen Bank, BRAC, and ASA tower over the microfinance landscape with millions of clients each, SafeSave definitely appears

Sent with Reeder


 

Clever Solutions: Zero-energy light

Innovations for Poverty Action Blog
Nathanael Goldberg


Just a bottle filled with water (and a bit of bleach): it's amazing how much light it appears to give off. Obviously only works during the day but for homes without electricity it can be surprisingly dark inside even in the middle of the day. I wonder how well it holds up to rainstorms though (Personally I'd aim for the peak of the roof where you could flash the sheeting to shed water away from the hole).


http://isanglitrongliwanag.org/
video here

Sent with Reeder


 

No such thing as business ethics

Seth's Blog

The happy theory of business ethics is this: do the right thing and you will also maximize your long-term profit.

After all, the thinking goes, doing the right thing builds your brand, burnishes your reputation, helps you attract better staff and gives back to the community, the very community that will in turn buy from you. Do all of that and of course you'll make more money. Problem solved.

The unhappy theory of business ethics is this: you have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. Period. To do anything other than that is to cheat your investors. And in a competitive world, you don't have much wiggle room here.

If you would like to believe in business ethics, the unhappy theory is a huge problem.

As the world gets more complex, as it's harder to see the long-term given the huge short-term bets that are made, as business gets less transparent ("which company made that, exactly?") and as the web of interactions makes it harder for any one person to stand up and take responsibility, the happy theory begins to fall apart. After all, if the long-term effects of a decision today can't possibly have any impact on the profit of this project (which will end in six weeks), then it's difficult to argue that maximizing profit and doing the right thing are aligned. The local store gets very little long-term profit for its good behavior if it goes out of business before the long-term arrives.

It comes down to this: only people can have ethics. Ethics, as in, doing the right thing for the community even though it might not benefit you or your company financially. Pointing to the numbers (or to the boss) is an easy refuge for someone who would like to duck the issue, but the fork in the road is really clear. You either do work you are proud of, or you work to make the maximum amount of money. (It would be nice if those overlapped every time, but they rarely do).

"I just work here" is the worst sort of ethical excuse. I'd rather work with a company filled with ethical people than try to find a company that's ethical. In fact, companies we think of as ethical got that way because ethical people made it so.

I worry that we absolve ourselves of responsibility when we talk about business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Corporations are collections of people, and we ought to insist that those people (that would be us) do the right thing. Business is too powerful for us to leave our humanity at the door of the office. It's not business, it's personal.

[I learned this lesson from my Dad. Every single day he leads by example, building a career and a company based on taking personal responsibility, not on blaming the heartless, profit-focused system.]

Sent with Reeder


 

Fulfilling the Promise: Social Investment

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

Social investment can offer social entrepreneurs the chance to scale up their impact tremendously, fulfilling the promise and potential of their organizations. It can also lead to unintended consequences when there is a mismatch between the investor and the entrepreneur, or between the financing terms and the dynamic aspects of the social enterprise.

We at the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship collected data and narratives from several dozen social entrepreneurs around the world about their experiences with social investment. Social investment is a means to provide capital, in a business practical approach, to organizations that bring social change. While the general consensus is that social investment is an overwhelmingly positive force, a handful of social entrepreneurs have reported less glowing experiences.

I offer here two examples, not to point fingers or question intentions, but rather in the spirit of collaborative and continual improvement. With this discussion, we give voice to the dissenting, often unheard but equally valid perspective. My hope is that we can use our collective power to address the barriers that now may be small cracks in the wall but in the future could cause a backlash against what otherwise has vast potential to make a positive difference in the world.

One social entrepreneur described a year-long "dance" with social investors. Given the rigor of the due diligence process and the already stretched bandwidth of her staff, she had to put internal projects on hold in order to meet the demands of the investors. At the same time, since the conversations with the social investors seemed to indicate the investment was almost certain, she did not focus on courting other prospective investors or writing grant proposals. At the eleventh hour, the deal fell apart. The investors told the social entrepreneur: "Sometimes these things happen." She was left not only without the anticipated capital infusion, but also scrambling to make up for lost time on other projects and fundraising.

Another social entrepreneur told us about social investors who chose to work with her because of her organization's theory of change, strategy for reaching the target audience, and measurable social impact. Yet over the years of the investment, the investor demanded that her organization pay for supplement costs, such as in-kind services and regular travel expenses, and used their decision-making rights to steer the enterprise away from the core values guiding its community engagement and mission. Her organization was left in the red and forced to downsize. This affected her team's morale and the community's esteem for her social enterprise.

During the Summer Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum in September 2010, forty social entrepreneurs met to share their experiences with social investing. From this, social entrepreneur Andreas Heinecke launched a taskforce to create useful insight for social entrepreneurs considering social investment, beginning with collecting a baseline of quantitative and qualitative data from the social entrepreneurs in the Schwab Foundation community.

Much has been written in recent years about the potential impact of the estimated 1 trillion USD impact investing—or social investment—sector. Yet little has been written for social entrepreneurs about the process of forming productive relationships with social investors, and whether receiving an investment is the right growth approach for each social enterprise.

Over the past year, with the support of the Center for Entrepreneurial Finance at the Technical University of Munich, the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship created a free guidebook for social entrepreneurs on social investment.

It was not until we posted this document and received more than 1,000 downloads in the first 48 hours that we understood the pent-up global demand for this knowledge. The guide provides a launching point for social entrepreneurs to begin conversations—both with prospective investors and among themselves—around the challenges and opportunities represented by the social investment space. 

Here are two tools from the guidebook for social entrepreneurs to explore which financing instrument and which investors best suit the needs of their organization. These tools can help the social entrepreneur begin discussions internally and then inform their work with prospective investors.

Diagram based on Achleitner, Spiess-Knafl & Volk (2011) (See full document for detailed descriptions of terms.)

Source: Spiess-Knafl (See full document for more information on the criteria and investor landscape.)

Are you a social entrepreneur or social investor who has had experiences with social investment?  If so, we want to hear from you about what needs to be done to make the process work better. What knowledge, processes, or platforms do we need to ensure the social investment sector can achieve its potential for positive impact?


imageAbigail Noble is head of Africa and Latin America for the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship and a Global Leadership Fellow with the World Economic Forum. Previously, she worked in Latin America and Africa with social enterprises and in the US as a management consultant. She received a B.A. in Economics from Tufts University, a Fulbright Scholarship to study economic development in Uruguay, and a Master's in International Development (MPA/ID) from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Sent with Reeder


 

on malawi

Texas in Africa
Last week's 20 July protests in Malawi were met with a violent response from the country's police force, leading to 19 deaths and to President Bingu wa Mutharika to deploy the army to restore calm and openly threaten to "smoke out" the protest leaders if they continued. The horrible famine in the Horn of Africa and the tragic events in Norway have largely eclipsed this story, but it's one that needs telling in the international press in order to prevent more deaths and ensure that democracy remains strong in Malawi.

If you're looking for more resources to help tell this story, Global Voices' Steve Sharra wrote an excellent backgrounder that's available here. Malawian scholar Paul Zeleza provides excellent analysis of the politics behind the crisis here. Texas A&M political scientist and Malawi politics expert Kim Yi Dionne is keeping close tabs on events there; I highly recommend following her blog, Haba na Haba, especially the following posts:
On Friday, I was scheduled to be on the BBC's World Have Your Say 1pm show to discuss the famine in the Horn and piracy in Somalia. The topic was changed to the Malawi at the last minute, and given that it was 5:45 in the morning in Professor Dionne's time zone and therefore too early to call to get her to do it :), I did a quick read-up on the latest and jumped in on the show. You can listen to it here; it's worth listening to for the comments of Malawian journalists, protesters, and civil society leaders far more than for anything I had to add. It was a great treat to be on the show and I was so moved by the courage of the civil society leader and protester who spoke to the world about their country's troubles, thereby putting themselves at great risk.
Sent with Reeder