In late July of 2013, I frantically wrote and rewrote sections of an influence study I was conducting with two of my colleagues at Digital Green. Stress ran high-not only was the deadline for our paper in a couple of days, but a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation report was due as well.
For those of you who are not familiar with the Gates Foundation, they are the largest transparently operated foundation in the world, focused on reducing poverty through four divisions: global development, global health, United States education policy, and policy and advocacy (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do).
Digital Green, my practice organization, is currently funded by a multimillion dollar grant from the Gates Foundation to run a massive randomized control trial (reaching 10,000 new villages and 1,000,000 new farmers) to obtain the causal impact of Digital Green on agricultural production and adoptions of proven, sustainable practices. Thus, they are held accountable by the Gates Foundation and must submit quarterly reports on progress.
I watched my colleagues rapidly put together a presentation for representatives of the foundation. There was a lot of talk about how the Gates Foundation only saw numbers, how this was taking time they did not have, to make the presentation aesthetically pleasing, to make sure they were kept happy, etc. I could not help but feel as if the Gates Foundation was akin to a rich relative that one did not necessarily like or agree with, but who commanded obedience, if only to stay on their will.
I don't have a problem with philanthropy, and I believe it's great that one of the world's wealthiest families has decided to give back. However, partnerships with Monsanto and Cargil, two of the world's largest agribusinesses whom are notorious for destroying livelihoods of small farmers everywhere, makes my faith waver. They have invested over 23 million dollars in Monsanto and make profits from the company (http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html). Again, there is nothing wrong with a foundation investing in private stocks-in fact, if it leads foundations and NGOs to become sustainable, it would be great. But when the investments are made in companies that keep people in poverty in the first place, it seems a tad hypocritical.
Further criticisms revolve around the Gates Foundation's obsessive need for numbers and increases in performance. Understandably, they want accountability for the large amounts of capital they invest in programs. However, this can produce one dimensional measures of progress, limited by decontextualized results, leading to well meaning, but perhaps uninformed policy.
The question, then, is whether or not "meaning well" is enough. There is no doubt that the Gates Foundation has made a substantial impact on global poverty. They have mobilized influential and wealthy figures around the world, required metrics of accountability to mainstream development work, and invested billions of dollars in programs working to alleviate poverty. However, they are a single foundation, yielding a massive amount of power in international and domestic development, with a single perspective-they're not at all a participatory organization. They often implement western metrics to evaluate programs, and have partnerships with some of the very organizations that are causing millions of people to struggle. The good may outweigh the bad, but when you're this powerful, that isn't enough.
I don't believe the Gates Foundation is evil, but perhaps misguided. An internal restructuring would go a long way to improve the long term impact it has the potential to have on global poverty. Though undeniably difficult, it would be irresponsible not to try.
For those of you who are not familiar with the Gates Foundation, they are the largest transparently operated foundation in the world, focused on reducing poverty through four divisions: global development, global health, United States education policy, and policy and advocacy (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do).
Digital Green, my practice organization, is currently funded by a multimillion dollar grant from the Gates Foundation to run a massive randomized control trial (reaching 10,000 new villages and 1,000,000 new farmers) to obtain the causal impact of Digital Green on agricultural production and adoptions of proven, sustainable practices. Thus, they are held accountable by the Gates Foundation and must submit quarterly reports on progress.
I watched my colleagues rapidly put together a presentation for representatives of the foundation. There was a lot of talk about how the Gates Foundation only saw numbers, how this was taking time they did not have, to make the presentation aesthetically pleasing, to make sure they were kept happy, etc. I could not help but feel as if the Gates Foundation was akin to a rich relative that one did not necessarily like or agree with, but who commanded obedience, if only to stay on their will.
I don't have a problem with philanthropy, and I believe it's great that one of the world's wealthiest families has decided to give back. However, partnerships with Monsanto and Cargil, two of the world's largest agribusinesses whom are notorious for destroying livelihoods of small farmers everywhere, makes my faith waver. They have invested over 23 million dollars in Monsanto and make profits from the company (http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html). Again, there is nothing wrong with a foundation investing in private stocks-in fact, if it leads foundations and NGOs to become sustainable, it would be great. But when the investments are made in companies that keep people in poverty in the first place, it seems a tad hypocritical.
Further criticisms revolve around the Gates Foundation's obsessive need for numbers and increases in performance. Understandably, they want accountability for the large amounts of capital they invest in programs. However, this can produce one dimensional measures of progress, limited by decontextualized results, leading to well meaning, but perhaps uninformed policy.
The question, then, is whether or not "meaning well" is enough. There is no doubt that the Gates Foundation has made a substantial impact on global poverty. They have mobilized influential and wealthy figures around the world, required metrics of accountability to mainstream development work, and invested billions of dollars in programs working to alleviate poverty. However, they are a single foundation, yielding a massive amount of power in international and domestic development, with a single perspective-they're not at all a participatory organization. They often implement western metrics to evaluate programs, and have partnerships with some of the very organizations that are causing millions of people to struggle. The good may outweigh the bad, but when you're this powerful, that isn't enough.
I don't believe the Gates Foundation is evil, but perhaps misguided. An internal restructuring would go a long way to improve the long term impact it has the potential to have on global poverty. Though undeniably difficult, it would be irresponsible not to try.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.