Comments on: Michael Edwards Responds http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/michael-edwards-responds Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:41:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Leyla Farah http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/michael-edwards-responds/comment-page-1#comment-2997 Leyla Farah Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:51:09 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/michael-edwards-responds#comment-2997 Before "philanthrocapitalism" became the new trend, "social entrepreneurship" - where organizations founded and ran businesses to fund their social missions - was considered the next wave of the non-profit world. In this new iteration, power rests in the hands of the few. The philanthrocapitalists are the ones in charge and are the ones dictating the use of their funds. The earlier model at least allowed for some flexibility for those willing and able to run a business alongside their social mission. In the best case scenario, successful social ventures found themselves unfettered from the requirements of funders who assumed they knew better than those actually running the programs. Perhaps there's a happy medium? The capitalists could help run embedded businesses that provide funds for the organizations who could, in turn, focus on their missions and not have to be business owners as well. That way, everyone gets to focus on their strengths - and no one is presumed to be qualified outside of their own area(s) of expertise. ------- Leyla Farah Cause+Effect - Public Relations with a Purpose Before “philanthrocapitalism” became the new trend, “social entrepreneurship” - where organizations founded and ran businesses to fund their social missions - was considered the next wave of the non-profit world.

In this new iteration, power rests in the hands of the few. The philanthrocapitalists are the ones in charge and are the ones dictating the use of their funds. The earlier model at least allowed for some flexibility for those willing and able to run a business alongside their social mission. In the best case scenario, successful social ventures found themselves unfettered from the requirements of funders who assumed they knew better than those actually running the programs.

Perhaps there’s a happy medium? The capitalists could help run embedded businesses that provide funds for the organizations who could, in turn, focus on their missions and not have to be business owners as well.

That way, everyone gets to focus on their strengths - and no one is presumed to be qualified outside of their own area(s) of expertise.

——-
Leyla Farah
Cause+Effect - Public Relations with a Purpose

]]> By: Meghan http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/michael-edwards-responds/comment-page-1#comment-2956 Meghan Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:23:30 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/03/michael-edwards-responds#comment-2956 Nothing major to add just yet (I'm midway through the article myself), just a word of encouragement. This thread of posts has been very interesting and helpful as I'm trying to keep tabs on the shifts in public discussion around philanthrocapitalism and metrics. Thanks for it. Nothing major to add just yet (I’m midway through the article myself), just a word of encouragement. This thread of posts has been very interesting and helpful as I’m trying to keep tabs on the shifts in public discussion around philanthrocapitalism and metrics. Thanks for it.

]]>