Stone keys

Just wanted to quickly highlight this report from Keystone on online philanthropy markets. The author, David Bonbright, quickly gets to the nub of the argument: the markets are only going to drive change when there is robust and comparable evaluation of project outcomes.

But I'm afraid the idea that these markets will collaborate to produce common evaluation standards is rather fanciful. It seems more likely that one of the more enterprising websites will develop its own evaluative approach and then capture market share. Whatever, happens, let's hope it happens soon.

In response to the report, Perla Ni of GreatNonProfits.org wrote a shameful piece in the Financial Times, arguing against the use of measures of charitable effectiveness. Amazingly, her argument seems to rest on the idea that "presenting potential donors with metrics suppresses donations", as if that were therefore a reason to resist them. Did you ever think such self-serving collusion could be possible?

Small place; big idea

Look at this cool website called MicroPlace. It allows members of the public to select 'investments' in microfinance institutions around the world and directly invest in them. It's a great idea because it puts donors in the driving seat.

This is the way the whole development sector must go. People in developed countries want to have control over their donations and see exactly where it is going. They want to read an evaluation report of the specific project they are supporting. They want to read the honest opinions of the project's beneficiaries on the website.

The first step in building this kind of system must be greater transparency on the part of governmental and non-governmental development agencies.