Dr. Gayle explains the significance of the commitment and explains why "scaling up" is an important buzz word this week; we also discuss the role of international NGOs like Care in Pakistan flood relief efforts. Have a listen.
All too often, the stream of life saving medicines or other health goods intended for recipients in the developing world becomes interrupted for one reason or another. Funds sometimes dry up unexepectedly forcing the supplier to hold shipments. People suffer as a result.
An unexpected bit of good news I encountered at the end of my day: a new report Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Prosperity says that US giving overseas held steady in 2008. Despite the financial crisis, Americans continued to donate to international charities.
You start by knowing what you care about. International Development, as a single topic, is almost impossible to access. It’s too big, and it’s hard to think about the theory without an example to work from. The best way to start learning about it is to look at one or two issues that you feel passionate about. Those issues could be child labor, maternal health, improving agriculture, or a hundred other topics. They key is to choose things you’re excited about, so your research is interesting to you.
At the Center for Global Development’s Global Health blog today, Ruth Levine takes a new look at the Gates Foundation’s ten billion dollar vaccine promise. Her concern is that this huge funding commitment will crowd out other donors on immunization. She also has some suggestions for how to spend the money without pushing out other donors.
This morning at the World Economic Forum, Bill and Melinda Gates announced a new $10 billion, 10-year commitment to support vaccine development and delivery. They called for the 2010s to be the “Decade of Vaccines” and asked other donors to step up their own commitments to vaccines.
The Gates Foundation published Bill Gates’ annual letter yesterday. His focus was on innovation, and its importance in the future of our planet. It’s a long letter, and it covers all of the areas the foundation works in.
President Clinton just asked Neville Isdell, chairman of the Board at Coke, a question that he was mulling over in a private briefing I was lucky enough to attend on Tuesday. He asked whether the economic crisis would cause companies to cut their philanthropic activities. Isdell believes that the business philosophy that leads to that prediction is outdated, and this is, in part, due to the benefit that employees get from working for a company that is engaged in good works. Common economic theory states that the higher a salary (plus benefits) a company offers -- to a point -- the better an applicant pool they'll get, the higher quality employees they'll have, and the more profit they'll make. If you consider the desire to work for a company that does good a tangible benefit, then aggregate salary will be higher for companies that are engaged in philanthropy, and their profits will be higher. This, of course, presumes a broad desire among the populace to work for a conscientious company, which I believe to be true, and that the knowledge of this benefit is widespread among business leaders, which I hope to be true. It's also fails to compare the relative benefits of a company spending on good works and of it spending its money elsewhere. If profits continue to constrict, that will certainly be prove to be even greater a consideration. How do you make sure that this benefit is properly considered? Simple. If you care that your company is engaged in good works, let them know about it.