• vote
    11
    0 starstigerexotique | Shared With: Everyone - Mar 11 2008 | health, research, money
    Global health | The side-effects of doing good | Economist.com

    Fantastic article. While I believe that WHO does a phenomenal job in maintaining a high level of public health standards for all nations, let's face it...it's still a bureaucracy. We know bureaucracies are mostly slow, and for the large part inefficient since there are no "market solutions". But with a NGO structured like the Gates Foundation (more a for-profit business model than the typical NGO), it is driven by the market...there is a supply and demand for better health systems, addressing public health concerns, and cutting edge research.

    While the Gates Foundation may appear monopolistic, in the sector of non-profits, I think it encourages more, generous philanthropy and competition -- isn't that better for non-profits in the end? After all, one of the biggest downfalls of non-profits, and reasons why many of them wither away is that they are bad managers of monetary and human resources, thereby making them less efficient.

    Quoted: The audacity of the Gates Foundation may have unintended consequences, but things would be worse if UN bureaucracies still dominated the field

    Showing 1 - 2 of 2 comments
    • hbhanoo - Mar 12 2008

      cool article.

    • tigerexotique - Mar 12 2008

      thanks! for me, it's very helpful to have both sides of how philanthropy works...since clearly it's becoming more of a business of "doing good" than just doing good.

    You must be Arun's friend before you can comment on this Fave.
    Send Arun a friend request or a personal message instead.

Related Faves from tigerexotique