[p2p-research] Defining Altruism ? Normative vs Autonomous ? Liberal Vs Conservative ?

[Michel Bauwens]

More material on the gates foundation,


1. http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/20/4582506.html

Very wealthy individuals have an even more unbalanced record when it comes
to philanthropy.

They give their biggest donations almost exclusively to universities and
colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and arts institutions. They rarely
make large gifts to social-service groups, grass-roots organizations, or
nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities.

While a few wealthy people have made big gifts to advocacy or activist
organizations, such donations are rare. Even in these trying financial
times, most big gifts from individuals go to colleges and universities or to
their own foundations, far surpassing their big gifts to other institutions.

It can be argued that philanthropy not only perpetuates inequality but also,
in recent years, has actually increased the inequities that we find in the
nonprofit world and indeed across the United States.

The financial gap between large and small nonprofit groups appears to be
growing. Regional disparities in grant making have widened, especially in
already starved rural areas. Private organizations now raise money for
public schools in many of the nation’s wealthy school districts, a practice
that makes a mockery of the principle that all children in public schools
deserve equal financial support.

And while the collapse of America’s financial institutions and the global
economic downturn have created mass unemployment, an increase in hunger and
homelessness, and reduced nonprofit budgets and programs, particularly at
the local level, foundations and wealthy donors have done little to shift
their grant-making priorities.

The infusion of additional great sums of money by very wealthy individuals
is likely to increase societal inequities, the gap between large and small
nonprofit organizations, and the disparity between privileged and
disadvantaged citizens.


2. http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/14/4577671.html

The way Gates and his elite staff have chosen to try to do so is by running
their charity as a kind of business. Edwards calls this approach –
increasingly popular at private foundations funded by business-people –
philanthrocapitalism; others call it "venture philanthropy". Steiner
explains: "Sitting here in Seattle, we're not going to solve Africa's
problems. Africans are going to solve Africa's problems. We've got to find
the Africans." Often, this means the foundation mounting competitions for
grant applications, and giving money to the winners, which usually means the
most "pioneering" (Steiner's word) and those that promise to fulfil a need
not met by other charities.

Foundation staff describe this process, and indeed all their work, in
business-school language: achieving "leverage", building the foundation
"brand", serving "markets" and "customers". Or they use the language of
management consultancy and computing: "Bill is about numbers," says Steiner.
"He wants to see the data. He values data more than ideology."

Like all the foundation staff I meet, Steiner is personable and thoughtful,
sitting tieless in his modest office. And like the others, he is both
intensely idealistic and close to disdainful about the older, less
business-orientated charity models. In his field of agricultural aid, he
says, "We need a lot of smarter ways of doing things. We can't do things the
same old way . . . The people who've been in the field for so long [for
other charities] don't embrace how much transformation can happen. You walk
in there as clear-eyed as you can . . . And [you] are basically optimistic
that people want to improve their lives. You enable them with technology and
knowledge, and great and wonderful things can happen."

3. http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/12/4576215.html

The WHO is expected to be an international health agency that would set
global public health priorities, provide uncompromised technical expertise
and fortify the international community's ability to confront global health
risks.

But with more and more of its operational budget dependent on donors, the
danger of WHO becoming an instrument to serve donor interests is a huge
concern.

Ruth Levine, a health economist, put it quite succintly in an open letter
published in British Medical Journal in November 2006: "… because
maintaining WHO's budget requires pleasing constituencies, the agency's main
product-impartial public health expertise-is undermined."

The Global Health Watch Report-2 (GHW2) published in October 2008 points out
that the Gates Foundation is governed by the Gates family with no board of
trustees; nor any formal parliamentary or legislative scrutiny. "There is no
answerability to the governments of low-income countries, nor to the WHO.
Little more than the court of public opinion exists to hold it accountable,"
says the report.This lack of   accountability and transparency is cited as a
major problem by health experts.

The ties between the Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical industry has also
come under scrutiny as Gates funded organisation like the Global Alliance
for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) has many pharmaceutical companies,
especially those from the vaccine industry, as its members. GAVI has pushed
many expensive vaccines into national immunization programmes in developing
countries. This according to GHW2 has led "health activists to question if
the Foundation is converting global health problems into business
opportunities" for the pharma industry.

The Gates' Foundation's position on intellectual property (IP) rights is
also a cause for concern. After all, Microsoft, along with other
corporations, is pushing to strengthen IP rights and patent laws even
further. Stronger IP rights will affect developing countries' right to allow
generic companies to manufacture essential medicines at affordable prices.
Patents and monopolies only make medicines more expensive and inaccessible
to majority of the people.

In October 2007, without consulting the WHO, other international bodies or
so-called partners, the Foundation launched a new campaign to eradicate
malaria. For many, this was an example of how the Foundation was setting the
global health agenda and making the international health community follow.


On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:

> Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > Bill Gates is heavily into promoting GMO's,
>
> Yes, this is much more scary than software.  He is helping to stop
> User Freedom for food when he funds legislation and the production of
> "Copy Protection" techniques used in plant and animal lifeforms.
>
> "'Gates Gives $300 million - but with a Catch'" --
>
> http://OpenDotDotDot.BlogSpot.com/2009/10/gates-gives-300-million-but-with-catch.html<http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/10/gates-gives-300-million-but-with-catch.html>
>
>
> He is also heavily involved in the 'giving' of pharmaceuticals while
> simultaneously working to stop countries from making their own copies
> of that so-called "Intellectual Property".
>
> "'BILL  GATES: KILLING AFRICANS FOR PROFIT AND P.R.'" --
> http://GregPalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=232&row=0<http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=232&row=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100721/ac2535cb/attachment.html>