Blogs and Stories

Matthew Bishop

Michael Green

Start at the Top

BS Top - Bishop Start at the Top Gabriel Bouys, AFP / Getty Images Giving Beast columnists Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, co-authors of Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World, say grassroots efforts like microfinance can improve lives, but real social impact requires changes from the top down. What the campaign for maternal health can learn from Bill Gates and George Soros.

It is fitting that the plight of women should be emerging as the paramount focus of efforts to improve lives in the developing world. The call to action is coming from many quarters—the Clinton Global Initiative, a special U.N. event convened by Wendi Murdoch and Queen Rania of Jordan, and the terrific new bestselling book by Nick Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky, which declares, “In the 19th century, the central moral challenge was slavery…In this century, the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality in the developing world.”

Yet few of the efforts now directed at women in the developing world are likely to bring about this desperately needed emancipation. For example, Kristof and WuDunn argue for mass charity from America to support female social entrepreneurs and other grassroots activists (as well as a $10 billion check from Congress to fund schools for girls). But there is only so much that can be achieved by bottom-up approaches. Fighting the discrimination and deprivation that women suffer is about changing entrenched attitudes and policies within societies. More than charity, it needs a bold, politically savvy campaign by a grand coalition of grassroots organizations, governments, and philanthrocapitalists—just like the one that defeated slavery.

How about creating a new prize for the political leader who has done most to improve maternal health? And don’t confine it to Africa.

The campaign against the slave trade was guided by a group of wealthy businesspeople with a conscience. Led by a member of parliament, William Wilberforce, they lobbied for a ban on the slave trade (which Parliament finally enacted in 1807), rather than attacking slavery per se. Wilberforce and his backers understood that this was a focused fight they were more likely to win and that, crucially, this victory would lead inexorably to the end of slavery, not least by recruiting the then most powerful government on earth to the cause.

In a similar spirit, the campaign for women’s emancipation should initially focus on just one goal that can be achieved on the level of government policy. Bottom-up solutions, like providing schools for girls or microfinance for women, can do a lot of good. But real change requires political change—and improving maternal health is the issue most likely to lever that change.

Campaigning for mothers not only has an obvious universal appeal (we all have a mother); it is also a massive problem that is easy to solve—if there is the political will to do so. Half a million women and girls die each year in pregnancy and childbirth, with a devastating ripple effect on their families. Yet stopping these deaths does not pose some complex medical challenge, like preventing HIV/AIDS. Eighty percent of these maternal deaths could be prevented with basic health care that governments in the developing world are failing to provide.

The problem is not a lack of medicines. It is lack of political commitment. Change that, so politicians make mothers a priority for health care, and it will likely be the catalyst for a much broader change in the status of women.

The good news is that this campaign is already under way, thanks to seed funding by Bill Gates. As so often throughout history–and not just in the abolition of slavery—behind a successful mass movement stands an intelligent philanthropist willing to fund risky strategies and take a long-term approach. But the uniquely political demands of improving maternal health means that lessons need to be learned from several other philanthrocapitalists as well.

One is George Soros, the controversial hedge-fund billionaire, who goes further than most big donors by describing himself as a “political philanthropist.” Soros’ enormous financial outlays in Eastern Europe during the fall of communism gave him valuable lessons in how to seed and grow locally led organizations into powerful forces for political change. By funding dissident groups in Eastern Europe and, more recently, supporting the "color revolutions" in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine, Soros showed that philanthropy can change policy. Ask him how to create civil society organizations to lobby for maternal care in developing countries.

Back to Top
October 16, 2009 | 1:11am
Comments ()
Tieger

Conservative vs the so called liberal as I see it

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn&t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

|
|
Reply
|
12:26 pm, Oct 16, 2009
frandolph

my goodness! Who died and left you the judge of all mankind

|
|
Reply
2:02 pm, Oct 19, 2009
johnmcenroe

Tieger, what kind of nonsense is this?

How about:

If a conservative is against abortions, who wants to ban them all.
If a conservative suspects the other is not with him, he goes to war.

|
|
Reply
8:53 pm, Nov 16, 2009
YesNoMaybe

Bill Gates and a nazi collaborator a team to trust

|
|
Reply
8:45 am, Oct 17, 2009
rpitkin

For some frightening statsitics on maternal health, see my blog on the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-m-pitkin/our-greatest-health-succe_b_1 57347.html

|
|
Reply
4:29 pm, Oct 20, 2009
Leave a Comment
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments
Leave a comment

Please log in to leave comments.

Start at the Top

by Matthew Bishop

Info
RSS
Matthew Bishop

& Michael Green

Info
RSS
Michael Green
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |