A new buzzword has been in vogue, for several years now, both in popular media and in more serious academic literature on management studies, namely, ‘philanthro-capitalism’. A closely related word ‘venture philanthropy’ has been used almost in the same breath. An book entitled ‘Philanthrocapitalism – how the giving can save the world’ was published in 2008 by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green summarizing the new avatar that capitalism is believed, by some, to have been in the process of morphing into, so as to be in sync with the social progress rather than be in antagonism with or be indifferent to it. Bishop, US business editor and New York bureau chief of The Economist, has ever since been propagating this marriage of capitalism and philanthropy with evangelist zeal as the source of a resurrection and a way forward for capitalism. The authors blog regularly on the subject at http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/.
Predictably, there are detractors, though much fewer, of this starry-eyed and, some might say, naive and glib espousal of the capitalism in a modified form. Michael Edwards, director of governance and civil society at the Ford Foundation, wrote a book ‘Just another emperor : the myths and realities of philanthrocapitalism’ (2008) to point out the fundamental flaws in this new ‘ism’.
Debating on the ideology and the practical needs driving capitalism in its new mutations would be interesting. But we would postpone that to some other time. It is, however, noteworthy to find journals like Economist or Wall Street Journal publishing articles not just speculating about dark intents behind philanthrocapitalist endeavours but pointing out, what many independent activists on ground in areas of agriculture and health (the two areas to which significant investments have been made over the last several years by Gates Foundation in Africa and India as a part of their global humanitarian aid programmes), have called a very negative long term and insidious impact on the countries concerned and the world organizations like WHO, resulting from this ostensibly philanthropic effort.
A couple of issues need to be emphasized. The correlation between the investments of the philanthrocapitalists like the Gates Foundation with Monsanto and the foundation’s huge support in Africa to biotech research (through the AGRA programme) promoting GM food as an almost exclusive option veering towards effective future domination of agricultural development in third world countries by certain MNCs can not be wished away. In the same vein the ground level activists are concerned about the promotion of the vaccine programme by the same foundation in India being predicated to the profit motive of certain prominent pharmaceutical MNCs in not-so-hidden commercial relationships with the Gates Foundation.
The second issue is of even greater significance. Philanthrocapitalists like the Gates Foundation by their sheer monetary clout has come dangerously close to the interface of philanthropy, business and public policy. Especially in the poor third world countries starved of funds (even in developing countries like India). “Take the money, ‘save’ your people from hunger or diseases, but be a little nice and listen to what we suggest. Or else!”. Reminds one of IMF bailouts, doesn’t it ? The manipulation of policies, acts of omission and commissions (for instance, in the clinical trials) is done in persuasive and indirect manner, not in brutally upfront IMF style. But the deleterious effect on long term national interests in health issues should not be lost sight of. Same caution should be exercised in respect of tendentious promotion of GM food under the cover of philanthropy.
No comments:
Post a Comment