Skip to main content

Profit-Motivated Capitalism as Philanthropy

I love reading the editorial page of the WSJ. I came across an article a couple weeks back by William Easterly, an economics professor at NYU, about how Bill Gates' recent push at Davos for what Gates called "creative capitalism" was, although admirable, not really going to help anyone. (It's a 36 min video, so it takes some time to watch).

The main point that Gates makes in his speech is that traditional capitalism only benefits those that have money - i.e. those that can participate in the system at all. He was trying to push corporations to to look for innovative ways to incorporate the poorest people of the world into the global economy. He suggested that "recognition" might be one reason a company might want to do that. If companies are recognized for their philantropic works more, that's good PR and free marketing and would motivate them to do more. He used "tiered pricing" as another example for how they might go about it. For example, many products have very small marginal production costs. Instead of selling those products at the same price to everyone, vary the price based on what people are capable to pay. Let's say a vaccine normally sells for $2 per dose in the developed world. You might sell that in the third world for $0.50 per dose instead. He also used the RED campaign as an example. For a commodity product, you could use your RED status as a differentiator to sway civic minded consumers to buy your product over competitors. Sounds good, right? What's the problem with it?

The problem is that it's not sustainable and that it doesn't even remotely leverage the potential of the masses that traditional capitalism does. The "white knight" of corporate philanthropy is not going to solve the underlying problems that are preventing these countries from joining in the world economy. Capitalism works, but you need an environment that is conducive to it. Most countries in Africa and in the developing world just simply aren't conducive to capitalism. An excerpt from Easterly:
The parts of the world that are still poor are suffering from too little capitalism. Foreign direct investment in Africa today, although rising, amounts to only 1% of global flows. That's because the environment for private business in Africa is still hostile. There are some industry and country success stories in Africa, but not enough.

I talked about this in a previous post as well - Life, Liberty, and (above all) Property. Property rights, including the absence of corruption that undermines them, are a critical first step towards long-term, sustainable solutions to poverty where the poor help themselves. Another excerpt from Easterly around how that works:

Profit-motivated capitalism, on the other hand, has done wonders for poor workers. Self-interested capitalist factory owners buy machines that increase production, and thus profits. Capitalists search for technological breakthroughs that make it possible to get more output for the same amount of input. Working with more machinery and better technology, workers produce more output per hour. In a competitive labor market, the demand for these more productive workers increases, driving up their wages. The steady increase in wages for unskilled labor lifts the workers out of poverty.

These kinds of changes take a long time. And they're changes that are led by the people themselves and not "saviors" from the outside. We don't need more "creative" capitalism, we just need more capitalism, plain and simple.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Fortunate 400

So there's rich, and then there's super rich. I recently read an article in the WSJ about the top 400 taxpayers based on income. Pretty incredible statistics. Those top 400, or what they call the "Fortunate 400", pulled in $85.6 billion in income in 2005. That's over $200 million each ... in one year! Here's a quick graphic to drive that home: Very impressive. There's all the obvious jaw-dropping statistics to go with that. For instance, to make the cut to be in the 400 you had to pull in at least $100 million. With an average of $200 million, that means there's people pulling in well over that number. Obviously, quite crazy numbers, and generally speaking not necessarily anything to be concerned about. I'm all for capitalism. But one of the more disheartening statistics was that adjusting for inflation, the minimum income to make the cutoff into the Fortunate 400 has nearly tripled since 1992. That's probably not a good sign as I imagine that...

Nine Prescriptions for Building the Duke Entrepreneurial Community

I think Duke can have one of the strongest entrepreneurial communities in the world. Are we there yet? Well, not yet. But there's a tremendous amount of momentum that I saw build in just the past two years while I was getting my MBA at Duke. While leading Duke's 10th annual business plan competition, the Duke Start-Up Challenge (DSC) , last year, I witnessed a near doubling of participation on campus in just a single year. The interest on the ground was clearly there and building rapidly. But now that I'm an alum, I'm looking back and wondering ... how do we rev-up the Duke entrepreneurial community even more? I read a great article by Daniel Isenberg, a professor of management at Babson, called " How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution " in the June edition of the Harvard Business Review. Isenberg outlines nine prescriptions for governments that want to create entrepreneurship ecosystems in their countries. Although he was focused on governments an...

A Possible Solution to the Mortgage Crisis

Came across this one on Mankiw's blog as well (... someone has been stealing my WSJ's each morning before I can pick them up outside). Martin Feldstein, a professor at Harvard and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for Reagan, had an opinion article in the WSJ yesterday that outlined a possible solution to the mortgage crisis. Criteria for the plan is: don't shift burden to taxpayers, don't force banks to eat all the losses, and create an incentive for homeowners to stay in their homes. The idea is that the US government would provide loans to homeowners up to 20% of their mortgage amount, with a 15 year pay-back period and adjustable interest rate based on the two-year treasury note. The whole thing would be funded by selling more two-year treasury notes. This would obviously not stop anyone from walking away from their home if they have negative equity, but it might prompt those that are worried about that scenario happening to them in the future to sti...