“Don’t dismiss Philanthropy, its crucial during the corona virus crisis” proclaims Beth Breeze in the Guardian, extolling Bill Gates for donating $100 million to establish a centre to investigate pandemics. Bravo! Lets genuinely applaud this and Gates’many other significant donations to global health. Here’s a question though:.
Who would you choose to run your health system-
A) De facto head, World Health
A ) Bill Gates, business savvy techno-geek,
B) Eion Musk business savvy engineering-geek
C) A conglomerate of billionaires. All, by definition, business and inequality savvy.
D) All of the above- whichever happens to seize the moment.
E) Ashley Bloomfiled, medicine and systems savvy public health doctor, with a team of well trained public health experts
E) New Zealand Director General, Health
New Zealand chose E. The country publicly funded Bloomfield’s education, public health specialisation and Health Department career. When praised for New Zealand’s Covid response (active cases today- 216 and falling) Bloomfield humbly said he is lucky to be with an excellent team. A publicly funded team. Option E- A highly trained NZ public servant using New Zealanders’ money to serve us- is a good choice. In contrast at global level we choose A, B, C and generally D for major policy decisions, using billionaires’ money (wait, maybe its actually our money?) to serve, er… them (and maybe us?). Globally, active corona cases are 2 million today and rising.
But don’t we need billionaire philanthropists? Yes! We’re grateful dependent, indebted to them- just as they‘d have it. It shouldn’t be like that. Bloomfield’s health department decisions are well considered best responses to 5 million New Zealanders’ health needs. That’s all. Billionaires’ health philanthropy is never just about health. They fund if they have social consciences and if economic conditions are favourable (i.e. low taxes and high inequality) and if health solutions promote or at least don’t impede their business interests. Oh and publicity for them is part of the deal. They deliberately don’t fund structural change-they’re doing well out of present structures. They fund business as usual.. There is a heap of other caveats. All those criticisms also apply to Princess-Diana-style-celebrity-funding-of-social-development - its basically private sector funding with a pretty face. Somehow business skill gives rich men (it’s almost always men) influence way beyond their health skills and training. Today Eion Musk tweeted wild opinions criticising lockdowns. He understands markets and electric cars so he understands pandemics, right? Last week, the billionaire moron US citizens chose to lead them bizairely suggested injecting disinfectant or UV light (!!!) to kill corona. He’d know, right? Wrong.
What of the Guardian article? Yes we desperately need our Gates and Musks and Mittals (Mittal hasn’t funded or tweeted anything) and the rest to save us. But we shouldn’t. What we need is that they fairly pay tax. Taxing wealth generated from magnates’ business accumen or celebrities’ pretty faces could fund a global health department and careers of unassuming, publicity avoiding experts within it. They’d make informed decisions on the best response to 7.5 billion humans’ greatest health needs. So simple. All that’s in the way is the world’s richest 1%. They think (wrongly) that they have much to loose and nothing to gain from global taxation and governance and they’re accustomed to making what they think happen from their tax havens. So difficult!
Isn’t the WHO meant to be our global health department? Yes, it is meant to be. But it is deeply flawed. WHO decisions are influenced by global politics and economics and its functioning is far from transparent. Its not secure either. Last week a petulant USA announced it will stop funding WHO, perhaps forever. Rich New Zealanders cannot unilaterally stop the health component of their taxes. Philanthropists can cut their magnanimous funding if a recession (like the one that is surely coming) should lop a zero or two off their bottom lines.
So far so good. Most of you are nodding in agreement. Let’s torpedo that by applying similar reasoning to NGO development:- patchy, piecemeal, at the whim of those with money, subject to other agendas, sometimes driven by publicity not justice. Funds do not necessarily go to where there is most need. Decisions are not made by those with the most expertise, just those who happen to be there- some NGOs have highly skilled staff, some have highly interested staff with low skills, others have well-meaning staff with the right faith but no skills. Multiple competing influences cloud interventions e.g. donors’ religious preferences, what might get top-ups from donating countries governments, language, subject areas on the current agenda, geographical areas on the current list etc. Our development defines distant black-and-white stuff- malaria in Africa, the melting Arctic- as its target. It specifically avoids structural change in the centres of power (aka sources of funding). NGO development currently comes with all the flaws of philanthropist funded projects. Donors sometimes even go for celebrity-style-act-where-it-attracts-attention approaches which might get more funding later. But but but… aid agencies, funding agencies, and individual NGOS do so much great and committed work. Surely they are crucial, not only for Corona but all global crisies- FGM, landmines or TB. Aren’t NGOs the only way to mitigate the effects of the acute neo-liberal economic pandemic of inequality sweeping the world for five centuries? No. They aren’t the only way, just the only way we have.
It’s with a deep sigh I say “Yeah, NGO based development is crucial- but it shouldn’t be”. I have spent much of my life working with NGOs, deeply believing it is the way to contribute to a better world. There are other ways, ways to do development much better, less patchily, more systematically, with more expertise and justice. Human/environment coherence, global health, equality, snow leopards- those things close to our hearts- are too important to leave to the whims of billionaires- or NGOs.
Take 90 seconds to hear economic historian Rutger Bregman tell the billionaires- and us- the answer: “…taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit.”
Ok guys, many of you work in the NGO world as funders or at the coal face… Hit me with your criticisms, tell me why NGOS are and should be, crucial. There’s another blog in the pipeline on what I think the legitimate role for NGOs is…. But rip this one up for me first.