Making Philanthropy Work
US Billionaire Ted Turner, best known for (1) creating CNN (2) winning the America Cup and (3) marrying actress-turned peace-activist Jane Fonda, went one better the other day. On a visit to the United Nations (UN), he announced a personal donation of US$ 1 billion (US$ 100 million for 10 years) for UN sponsored socio-economic projects. Having increased his approximate wealth from US$ 2.2 billion to US$ 3.2 billion, mainly because of the rise of Time-Warner stock, the multimedia company of which he is now Vice Chairman, Turner felt an urgent need to do something constructive for the world’s poor. By this dramatic initiative he put the world’s rich on notice that they have a moral and social obligation towards the “not so fortunate”. By channelling his largesse through the UN, he has tried to instil a modicum of fairness in its distribution since the UN’s socio-economic agencies generally allocate their resources in an equitable manner to alleviate the sufferings of the poverty-stricken population of the poorer nations i.e. if they are not throwing money at special projects of no real relevance.
While we in Pakistan have the least percentage of population in South Asia below the poverty line, a significant number still do not have proper housing, potable drinking water, electricity, sewerage, education, transportation, health, hygiene and sanitation, etc. On the other hand, a significant number of our population have been blessed with enough material wealth that they should seriously contemplate the sharing of that largesse, particularly in the near vicinity of their immediate communities, so that a direct relationship remains between philanthropy and achievement. The “adequately rich” can be classified as “urban” and “rural” residents. As the projected census in October will probably show, the urban population has taken over in numbers from the rural. In Pakistan we have a tendency not to pay our taxes and yet expect the government to provide all the socio-economic facilities that people living in western countries accept as a matter of routine but third world-ers arriving in the 21st century perceive it as a bonus to their living.
There are distinct ways to alleviate the suffering for the poor viz (1) to give them money directly and thus the means thereof to look after themselves (2) deliver the required items in kind (3) create the institutions needed to care for their needs i.e. schools, water treatment plants, sewerage schemes, etc and (4) create jobs, thus allowing them to earn their own living. Experience has shown that even during emergencies such as disaster relief, etc, cash money should rarely be an option, since most likely this will not be used for disaster alleviation but for other purposes. Rations and necessary commodities delivered in kind are much more useful, though it is a fact that the distribution agencies mainly government, manage to skim off a significant part. Invariably, philanthropy has focused on delivering items in kind such as dry-rations, drinking water, tents, blankets, medicine, etc. However, it is far better to create institutions and jobs. The creation of institution requires money, very few individuals can spare that kind of money but more than money, it requires constant monitoring and active management. Similarly job creation is the highest level of philanthropy, by opening up employment opportunities you add a force-multiplier to the ability of the individual to look after his/her own family and making both direct/indirect contribution to the economy.
