Foundations are important, but they have their limits.
Federal Government office workers searching files in Washington D.C. 1939. (Shutterstock)
“For almost forty years our economy has bred stagnant wages,
long-term unemployment, huge disparities of wealth, and fewer escalators
of social mobility.”
These are the opening words of social scientist Daniel Yankelovich’s book
Wicked Problems, Workable Solutions: Lessons from a Public Life. They describe a set of facts that, in ways often unrecognized or unacknowledged, dominates almost every issue.
This list also is a reminder, in an age of disruption and social
entrepreneurship, of the importance of government. Technological
advances and innovation are rightly prized, and yet the problems
Yankelovich lists remain largely undiminished. And they are massive in
scale. As Alan Greenblatt wrote in Governing back in 2011, “Public
education is a $600 billion enterprise in the United States. All the
private money that goes to support it, from bake sales to the Gates
Foundation, represents less than 1 percent of that amount.”
It would seem to follow, then, as Hilary Pennington of the Ford
Foundation put it at a recent symposium, that “the path to scale is
through the government.” I was surprised to hear this from an executive
in the philanthropic community and followed up with her. She thinks that
the degree of attention paid by foundations and the public to
individual social entrepreneurs is problematic because they tend to
position government as the problem. She wishes that foundations would
devote as much attention to social entrepreneurs
within
government. Yes, government needs to change, but I agree with her that
the path to scale, especially on issues of social justice, is indeed
through government because there are limits to what the market will do.
Pennington went on to say that it would be wonderful if young people
who are so in love with social entrepreneurship and public service saw
government as a credible sphere in which to pursue these ideals.
Instead, as she noted, they are skeptical of government as an agent for
progress. As Paul C. Light reported in his book
A Government Ill Executed, only 28 percent of college seniors who were surveyed saw working for government as the preferred form of public service.
So if it must fall to government to tackle the “wicked problems,”
then what should be the role of foundations? For Pennington, the answer
depends on the relationship between government and the governed, since
it is the public that should determine public priorities. Foundations
can help governments be more effective and accountable. They can fund
experimentation and then help government make wiser decisions about what
programs it should fund. And foundations can rally attention to
neglected problems or unifying goals.
Near the end of his book, Yankelovich writes that the central
challenge we face is this: “How do we reinforce the human bonds that
hold society together?” It seems to me that the only answer is effective
and accountable government.
No comments:
Post a Comment