tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5979923.post4017019961629198079..comments2024-03-28T04:39:53.720-07:00Comments on Tech Matters: Using tech for positive social change: More debate on Just Another EmperorJim Fruchtermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08214396954972460844noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5979923.post-19040567457193981832008-08-09T15:31:00.000-07:002008-08-09T15:31:00.000-07:00Thanks Jim, since everything I say is dismissed as...Thanks Jim, since everything I say is dismissed as “spin” this will be my last post on your blog. I asked you for evidence that “the new elite philanthropists are more likely to give globally and to social sector causes and leaders drawn from disadvantaged communities.” In response you have produced figures for the geographical location of “social entrepreneurs” supported by three organizations - Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll - many of whom do great work, I agree. But the statement you make isn’t about these three organizations, it’s a general claim, and to substantiate it, you would need to collect comprehensive information on the giving patterns of the two groups, and then present it for scrutiny on your blog. I look forward to reading it.<BR/><BR/>On “ad hominem attacks”, it’s important to clarify that my pamphlet does not call anyone a “tax evader.” It says that an important component of corporate social responsibility is to pay your taxes, and that “corporate tax evasion (which costs developing countries $385 billion a year) is an Achilles heel of the philanthrocapitalist claim to pursue the public good,” raising the prospect that what is given with one hand may be taken away with the other. I think that’s a fair, general point to raise.<BR/><BR/>And on voluntary improvements in philanthropy as opposed to legislation, my recommendations rely strongly on the former. The only cases where legislation is mentioned are those where it has already been proposed by others, as in the case of embedded giving (where Congress may act based on some particularly egregious examples where very little money reaches the intended beneficiaries), Board diversity (the subject of a major recent debate in California), and the requirement that “all foundations and social enterprises above a certain size should compile a publicly available summary of all evaluations every five years, and solicit feedback from grantees and beneficiaries, and independent experts in the field,” as part of the accountability that goes with preferential tax treatment. It would be interesting to know why you think these are bad ideas.Michael Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509947934403500969noreply@blogger.com