View previous stories
	Philanthropic Power and Development by Global Policy Forum, agencies   Global Policy Forum study examines influence of large philanthropic foundations on global development.   For the last few decades, increasing globalization of the world economy and waves of deregulation and privatization have facilitated the emergence and increased the power of private actors, particularly of large transnational corporations. However, it is not only “big business” but also “big philanthropy” that has an increasing influence in global (development) policy, particularly large philanthropic foundations. They have become influential actors in international policy debates, including, most importantly, how to address poverty eradication, sustainable development, climate change and the protection of human rights.   The scope of their influence in both past and present discourse and decision-making processes is fully equal to and in some cases goes beyond that of other private actors. Through the sheer size of their grant-making, personal networking and active advocacy, large global foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have played an increasingly active role in shaping the agenda-setting and funding priorities of international organizations and governments. So far, there has been a fairly willing belief among governments and international organizations in the positive role of philanthropy in global development.   Philanthropic Power and Development – Who shapes the agenda examines the role and impact of philanthropic foundations in development. It addresses the impacts and side effects of philanthropic engagement by taking a closer look at the priorities and operations of two of the most prominent foundations, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in two crucial sectors, health and agriculture.   The findings of the study range from the foundations application of a business model to the measurement of results, their influence on policies and agenda-setting, the fragmentation and weakening of global governance, and the lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms.   The key message it seeks to get across in the concluding chapter is that governments, international organizations and civil society organizations must carefully differentiate among foundations in the philanthropic sector, assess the growing influence of the large global philanthropic foundations, on the political discourse and agenda-setting.   http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/270-general/52829-philanthropic-power-and-development-who-shapes-the-agenda.html   Philanthropy: Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth, by Gary Olson.   Whenever I hear a powerful philanthropist piously proclaim, “I just wanted to give something back,” my first reaction is “Why not give it all back?” I say that because “giving back” is all about first taking away. Immense fortunes are derived from random luck, class background, tax avoidance schemes, off-shoring jobs, publically-funded research, inheritance, a low-federal minimum wage, and especially, from the labor of countless men and women who produced it.   In Chris Rock’s pithy words, “Behind every great fortune is a great crime.”   As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stressed, “Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice that make philanthropy necessary.” And that’s the rub.   The one thing that Big Philanthropy must overlook is the green elephant astride the boardroom’s conference table, the economic system that causes and extends these injustices in perpetuity.   We know that the munificence of the rich is rarely directed toward those most in need but to donor alma maters and limited access cultural institutions. This enhances the giver’s status among his or her peers while providing generous tax advantages.   According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, in New York State not one of the top 49 gifts of at least $1million went toward improving the lives of needy people. More typical was a gift of $190 million for Columbia University’s business school and another of $40 million for an indoor cycling track. Often the donor’s name is attached to the edifice.   Private philanthropic mega-foundations are tax exempt which means 40 percent of their wealth has been siphoned off. The top seventy foundations have assets in excess of seven hundred billion dollars and in one recent year the tax subsidies amounted to a loss of $53.7 billion dollars to the U.S. treasury (Bob Reich, Boston Review, 2013).   Just to be clear, some Big Philanthropists have done some good work. However, as Peter Buffet (Warren Buffet''s son) has argued, philanthropy is largely about letting billionaires feel better about themselves, a form of “conscience laundering” that simultaneously functions to “keep the existing system of inequality in place...” by shaping the culture.   Gara Lamarche, a veteran grants administrator for large foundations, comes closer to candor than most by advocating forms of giving that go beyond laudatory volunteering at soup kitchens or reading books to underserved children. Echoing Dr. King, he says we need to “expose the root causes and structural conditions that result in hunger or lack of access to education in the first place.”   Tellingly, Lamarche goes no further. Why not? Because philanthro-capitalists believe and want us to believe they’re indispensable, that only their fundamentalist, free market system can save us. Above all, we should never look to a democratically accountable government to insure every citizen has a social right to quality health care, first-public schools, free universities, employment security, dignified retirement, and an environmentally safe planet.   This anti-government narrative is prompted by fear that a robust government pursuing these ends could also curb their control of the nation’s resources.   Finally, it’s terminally naive to expect the new Gilded Age plutocrats, 16,000 individuals or .01 percent with as much wealth as eighty percent of Americans will commit class suicide. Their wealth won’t midwife a world into existence in which they and their progeny no longer rule. The rest of us shouldn’t hesitate in undertaking this long overdue transformation.   * Gary Olson, Ph.D. is chair of the Political Science Department at Moravian College in Bethlehem, PA. Philanthropic foundations provide much needed funds in a number of important arena''s. However Government institutions cannot ignore the economic structural realities required to fulfill common public needs.
	Industry Deregulation leading to thousands of deaths each year by Centre for Crime and Justice Studies United Kingdom   Thousands of British citizens are dying needlessly each year because of the government’s failure to tackle food poisoning, health and safety breaches and pollution, a new report from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies claims. The report – Better Regulation: Better for whom? – by Professor Steve Tombs of The Open University, argues that lax regulation and weak enforcement has created avoidable business-generated, state-facilitated ‘social murder’.   Each year, the report notes, some 29,000 deaths are attributable to airborne pollution. A further 50,000 people die as a result of injuries or health problems originating in the workplace. Food poisoning leads to some 20,000 people being hospitalised and 500 deaths each year. These staggering figures, Professor Tombs points out, are probably underestimates. They are also largely avoidable.   Just last week, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee called for the government to take urgent action to tackle the ‘public health emergency’ of thousands of pollution-related deaths each year. The Conservative chair of the Committee, Neil Parish MP, said that ‘Poor air quality is damaging the UK’s environment and harming the nation’s health’.   Successive governments have undermined the independent inspection of business over many years, the Better Regulation report points out. An average business can now expect a local authority health and safety inspection only once in every 20 years. Between 2004 and 2013, there were: 34% fewer food standards inspections and 28% fewer prosecutions; 53% fewer health and safety inspections and 40% fewer prosecutions; 56% fewer environmental health inspections and 40% fewer prosecutions.   More recent figures, not included in the briefing, show that between 2004 and 2015, at Local Authority level, there were:   35% fewer food standards inspections and 35% fewer prosecutions; 69% fewer health and safety inspections and 60% fewer prosecutions; 55% fewer environmental health inspections and 30% fewer prosecutions.   Recent years have also seen the privatisation of regulatory and enforcement activities, and a shift to business self-regulation. But as the diesel emissions scam currently engulfing Volkswagen and other motor manufacturers, or the recent scandal over horsemeat in food tell us, businesses cannot simply be trusted to act in the public interest without robust, independent, state-backed regulation.   That said, and as the report documents, the cumulative trends away from regulation and enforcement may ‘mark the beginning of the end of the state’s commitment to, and ability to deliver, social protection’.   Professor Steve Tombs, author of the report, said: ‘This is not about rules, regulations and red tape. It is about lives lost and shortened and the health of communities, workers and consumers made poorer.   ‘This is avoidable business-generated, state facilitated social murder. And quite remarkably, it proceeds daily, met largely by political silence.’   Will McMahon, Deputy Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, said: ‘The public is led to believe the greatest harms faced by citizens are dealt with by the police and courts. Professor Tombs’ Briefing makes clear that this is far from the case. The harms he writes about are not random happenings but the result of political and economic decisions. Policy makers need to urgently address the radical reduction in local authority inspections and enforcement’. Visit the related web page
	View more stories