Comments on: NGOs as Philanthropy? http://hausercenter.org/iha/archives/10 The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:32:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Steven Lawry http://hausercenter.org/iha/archives/10#comment-15 Steven Lawry Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:34:23 +0000 http://hausercenter.org/iha/?p=10#comment-15 I agree that there are similarities between philanthropies and international NGOs, but I wish that there were fewer! International NGOs are at their best when, as you say, they work to defined goals and have "concrete ideas about the strategies and implementation needed to reach them." Philanthropies are at their best, in my view, when they pursue broad goals but use their funding to give rein to the creativity and leadership of others, that is, their grantees. Too many philanthropies over-specify their goals and over-define the scope of acceptable action by grantees, to the extent that grantees become more like contractors and less like the sources of independent thinking and action that society really needs. Muhammad Yunus was able to persuade commercial bankers to lend money to the new Grameen bank because of a Ford Foundation Program Related-Investment that relieved the commercial banks of the initial risk of investing in a new and untested idea. Grameen and its new model for securing loans were Yunus's idea, not Ford's. Ford leadership had the judgment and self-confidence to get behind the ideas of others. I'm not convinced this happens enough in philanthropy today. On the other hand, international NGOs, because their missions and goals are fairly specific, and because they work to internally agreed programs of change and best practice, are going to support through their sub-granting arrangements local NGOs that work under the same general rubric. This is as it should be. So while there are similarities, I would want to accentuate these important differences. I agree that there are similarities between philanthropies and international NGOs, but I wish that there were fewer! International NGOs are at their best when, as you say, they work to defined goals and have “concrete ideas about the strategies and implementation needed to reach them.” Philanthropies are at their best, in my view, when they pursue broad goals but use their funding to give rein to the creativity and leadership of others, that is, their grantees. Too many philanthropies over-specify their goals and over-define the scope of acceptable action by grantees, to the extent that grantees become more like contractors and less like the sources of independent thinking and action that society really needs. Muhammad Yunus was able to persuade commercial bankers to lend money to the new Grameen bank because of a Ford Foundation Program Related-Investment that relieved the commercial banks of the initial risk of investing in a new and untested idea. Grameen and its new model for securing loans were Yunus’s idea, not Ford’s. Ford leadership had the judgment and self-confidence to get behind the ideas of others. I’m not convinced this happens enough in philanthropy today. On the other hand, international NGOs, because their missions and goals are fairly specific, and because they work to internally agreed programs of change and best practice, are going to support through their sub-granting arrangements local NGOs that work under the same general rubric. This is as it should be.

So while there are similarities, I would want to accentuate these important differences.

]]>