tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5979923.post7543327015885747732..comments2024-03-28T04:39:53.720-07:00Comments on Tech Matters: Using tech for positive social change: A critique of Just Another EmperorJim Fruchtermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08214396954972460844noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5979923.post-27490332200299003172008-08-08T10:07:00.000-07:002008-08-08T10:07:00.000-07:00I am grateful to Jim Fruchterman for focusing his ...I am grateful to Jim Fruchterman for focusing his attention on my pamphlet “Just another Emperor?” However, since Jim distorts, misrepresents or ignores the arguments I make in the book at almost every turn, I hope that readers of this blog will check out the book for free at www.justanotheremperor.org and make their own minds up.<BR/><BR/>The extract that Jim has re-posted above (“Part Seven and Conclusion”) is a good example of the gap between fact and fiction that underlies the rest of his critique. In my pamphlet I recommend that we should not attempt to legislate for reforms in philanthropy, but that we should certainly increase funding for work that addresses the root causes of social injustice, strengthen foundation learning and accountability, give “beneficiaries” a greater stake in governance and strategy, and have more humility in the way we approach our work.<BR/><BR/>In Jim’s version this becomes “the Emperor’s tax” that “seeks to ensure that no good deed goes unpunished” and will simply “kill the patient.” The conceptual and empirical arguments marshaled in the pamphlet are dismissed as “political spin”, despite the fact that they are faithful renderings of a large body of objective evidence which shows that there are trade-offs and contradictions between business thinking, market mechanisms, and social transformation. All of this evidence is foot-noted so that readers can follow-up and check my sources if they wish. <BR/><BR/>Conversely, Jim states that “the new elite philanthropists are more likely to give globally and to social sector causes and leaders drawn from disadvantaged communities”, an astonishing statement for which I can find no evidence at all. If you have some Jim, please post it on your blog so that we can all read and discuss it in a spirit of open and democratic debate.<BR/><BR/>The tremendous (and overwhelmingly positive) worldwide reaction to “Just another Emperor?” is evidence that a great many people are hungry for a different and more honest conversation about the future of philanthropy. This doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with the arguments I make. After all, the definition of “debate” is a contest between different views and voices. However, there is no virtue in de-legitimizing the views of those with whom you disagree by labeling them and their work in ways that no right-thinking person would support. <BR/><BR/>The good news is that a global network of scholars, funders and activists is already in formation to take this debate to the next level, focusing initially on in-depth evaluations of the impact of different approaches to the funding of social change. Readers of this blog are welcome to contact me for details.Michael Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509947934403500969noreply@blogger.com