Global Philanthropy Forum: towards a new social contract with whom?

Crystal Hayling

This was my first time attending the Global Philanthropy Forum and I am not disappointed. The conference theme ‘Toward a New Social Contract’ was provocative from the beginning. Rousseau’s concept of the social contract was the ground from which flowered our modern notions of citizenship of nations. What can be the meaning of the social contract at a global conference? 

In her opening remarks, Jane Wales made clear her intent to push our collective thinking about the realities of globalization and the inherent ties that now bind us all to one another, not just to those in our own country.

Rajiv Shah, who heads up USAID, kicked off the conference with bold excitement about the new charge of aid agencies to partner with the private sector. While his examples glossed over the real danger of aid becoming overly linked to corporate promotion, which may decrease rather than increase local control, Shah asserted a refreshing intention to re-focus USAID on listening better, partnering more, and building local capacity.

Perhaps most impressively, presenters and participants cheered the headline themes but pushed back against rhetoric to explore the nitty-gritty of making things work. Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, general secretary of the World YWCA, reminded Shah that women are not victims, but need to be engaged as participants in development. Srivalli Krishnan, founder and CEO of eFarm, based in Chennai, India, reminded everyone that ‘putting capital to work’ requires a lot of on-the-ground preparation such as training for small farmers to increase yields and sell for maximum profit.

Tony Blair echoed his belief in the dawn of a new era of cross-country, trans-continental links when he stated, ‘Globalization is a fact, not a debate. The debate is how to make it work for the many, not the few.’ He too pointed out our wrongheaded obsession with what to do when what is required is a laser-like focus on how to do.

The fact that conference speakers and panellists included leading philanthropists from Africa, Asia and Latin America disrupts the notion of ‘donor countries’. As outgoing president of the World Bank Robert Zoellick noted, the term ‘third world’ is no longer a meaningful descriptor. Solutions can come from anywhere.

One clear highlight was the evening panel entitled ‘The New Egypt and the Core Responsibilities of Governance’ with Hossam Bahgat, founder of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, and the incredible couple Barbara Lethem Ibrahim and Saad Eddin Ibrahim, all of whom are at the forefront of shaping post-Tahrir Egypt. They shared heart-wrenching stories of sacrifice and hope. Keen activists that they are, they used those stories to illustrate the challenges of building a functioning democracy and the partnership and patience they need from those of us who would be allies.

Almost all of the speakers talked about the value of partnerships between corporations, foundations and aid agencies. While this is not new, it is clearly gaining steam.

And Jacqueline Novogratz threw a firecracker into the middle of that discussion with the release of Acumen Fund’s latest report with Monitor Institute entitled From Blueprint to Scale: The Case for Philanthropy in Impact Investing. Novogratz did something few leaders of emerging, much-hyped and adored fields are willing to do: she told the truth. Namely that investable deals are scarce and that very few are making any money in impact investing. But by being honest, the report may bring more people to the impact investing table. Rather than pitting philanthropy against impact investing (old vs. new), Novogratz recognizes the role philanthropists have played as angel investors, willing to take initial risks for enterprises that may take years before they are ready for private capital and scale. The strength of the report may be the discomfort it causes impact investors as well as philanthropists in calling for each to leave behind distrust and ideology to work together.

Key take-aways: the centrality of women as community builders and problem-solvers; the importance of donors and grantees acting as partners; philanthropy (and development) fundamentally being focused on local capacity building; innovation of processes and collaborations and not just products.

Overall, the conference challenged orthodoxies on all sides. It acknowledged that no sector can do it alone. Nor can any one country. And it pushed us to think about our social contract with one another, as human beings and global citizens.

Crystal Hayling is a consultant working with social enterprises and foundations in south-east Asia, and author of the blog www.crystalhayling.com.

This entry was posted in Conference reports and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Global Philanthropy Forum: towards a new social contract with whom?

  1. Pingback: Global Philanthropy Forum: Toward a New Social Contract with Whom? « crystalhayling

  2. Thanks for this article Crystal !! This is a fantastic account of what’s happening at this meeting of philanthropists who are working together from a global perspective. It’s such a relief from all we hear in the US about many multi-national gatherings…for example the recent IMF meeting in DC which closed out with little resolved.
    It’s wonderful to read this report.

  3. Hi Crystal! Great summary! I like what you wrote about Jacqueline Novogratz’s new book. I will be releasing Insights and Innovations: A Global Study of Impact Investors + Institutional Investors at the US State Department’s Global Impact Economy Forum this Thursday, April 26, 2012 (the report will be up then at http://www.impactinvestingconference.com). The study synthesizes the impact investing practices of 51 leading asset owners representing $2.5 trillion combined. I agree with Jacqueline that philanthropy can do much – and that returns and scale are hard to come by. Indeed, our interview participants said talent was the main obstacle in the field. Much depends, however, on one’s definition of impact investing – different investors hold very different viewpoints and face different constraints. Thus, the definition of impact investing is very broad right now, which, frankly, I think is a good thing for a growing industry. My conclusion is yours: we need to align different investors so we can actually solve the big global issues we face. Everyone can play a role. Hope you and the family are great! – Georgette

  4. Crystal says:

    Georgette,
    You are always at the forefront of it! Looking forward to reading your report! Indeed, the great definitional debate matters, even though it’s hard to resolve. But it will be good to learn from your research–there is still so much hype and not a lot of data out there. Thanks for the head’s up.
    Crystal

Comments are closed.