The concept of venture philanthropy has matured in the last few years. A recent report entitled High-Engagement Philanthropy: A Bridge to a More Effective Social Sector (PDF) does much to demonstrate this maturity
Interestingly, the paper, by social venture pioneers, Mario Morino and Bill Shore, ends by suggesting that government funding is the only viable answer to the capital needs of social ventures. The "market only" or "donor only" approach are not, in the view of the authors sufficient. I wish what these two have learned could be ported over to the conservative policy intellectuals who, like Lenore Ealy, Bill Schambra and Jay Hein, consider philanthropy, markets, and government policy.
The dream of venturesome entrepreneurs taking up the slack as government withdraws from social programs is wearing thin - even among the early advocates. As one participant in the study noted, charity work is like a business in which a customer can't pay for your product. Hard to make that work on a business basis alone. Compassion can fill some of the gaps, but to raise "compassionate money" is never ending and often fruitless work. Taxes are more direct and efficient. Rather than a few paying dues for all, the tax system can be apportioned to ability to pay, and can effectively and efficiently extract cash even from uncompassionate, free-riding curmudgeons. Given the failure of Great Society delivery systems and the paltry successes of individual social ventures, perhaps the answer is tax money, raised equitably, and used to bankroll entrepreneurial social benefit ventures for the good of all, particularly the least advantaged.
Comments