The British debate on aid to India, triggered by a rejection of the UK’s Typhoon aircraft, is very short-sighted. India should unilaterally preempt it by banning aid from Britain. You keep your aid money, we will keep our freedom to make our own decisions which we gained when you left the country in 1947.
The Huffington Post carries a rare critique of big-ticket philanthropy. As philanthropists gain more influence and tread on issues previously in the public space, does the taxpayer have to subsidize their view on how public financing should be spent?
The OLPC project will launch its third iteration at this years CES, but 6 years after launch it may still not reach the elusive USD 100 target. Meanwhile, a small startup in Canada has orders to ship 2 million of its USD 50 tablets to Indian consumers. It is time the OLPC was put to rest.
The catalytic philanthropist seems to have arrived. But is that a good thing? By putting faith in individuals is society not delegating responsibility for improving its lot to wealthy individuals rather than to the elected representatives that are usually mandated that task?
Financing for global public goods remains dangerously low. Yet the Gates Foundation shows there is a case for an international institution to invest in the needs of developing countries. Subramanian suggests the World Bank should do this – will the developed world agree?
The Economist debate on foreign aid and philanthrocapitalism entirely misses the point. Neither is perfect, but to switch one for the other is simply to change one benevolent patriarch for another.
The WSJ promotes a World Bank proposal to create a new “vulnerability fund” for poor countries to offset lost remittances. But such a fund would do more harm than good. A better idea would be to just pay the migrant workers this money and let them send it to their home countries.
This article presents an analysis of grantmaking by Google.org – just how does Google spend its philanthropic dollars? And what does that tell us?