Philanthropy 2.0

http://mobile.nytimes.com/art/134197/23

An interesting piece on the the new Google foundation. I love that the head of it is Dr. Brilliant - I am convinced he was picked for hids name.

I know two people who have been involved in setting it up, so I am not surprised the direction they have gone in terms of aligning the charitable and business sides of Google.

However, the decisions for their initial investments are a bit odd for an organization that is trying to be game changing. From giving a chunk to Brilliant's ngo to dropping $10m to some solar firm up the road to the India reports, they seem more driven by personal preference than anything else. When Brilliant says he's met 4.5b people and 4.4b have asked him for money, it came off pretty condescending about those he is supposed to be helping.

And that they are talking about splitting $175m over a dozen initiatives makes me think they are stuck in the google programmer mentality. On the business side, you can develop a dozen ideas for $100k each and the one that pans out will be worth millions/billions. But these low investments are predicated on the existence of massive capital stocks - from ubiquitous broadband to high levels of computer literacy to the expensive education of the programmer - that do not exist in poor countries. Development isn't about finding a single killer app, it is about filling a huge capital investment gap. Stupid government reports, early warning tools, and pathetic investments in energy industries don't accomplish that.

And lest I be accused of demanding billions, there are plenty of great initiatives in the sub $10m range that accomplish this - Nothing but Nets at the UN Foundation and the Wikipedia projects to support languages other than english and write quality open source text books immediately come to mind.