Matt writes:
Bill Clinton, at the opening ceremony for his meeting, defined the purpose of the Clinton global initiative as to tackle problems that "government won't solve, or that government alone can't solve." A worthy purpose, indeed, for a charity. And I really think there are things that fit that category. Direct government sponsorship of the arts, for example, is a great way to preserve classic works and make them available to a broad audience. But if you want to encourage new, innovative works of art it makes much more sense to rely on a vigorous philanthropic sector that won't face political pressure to avoid anything that offends the sensibilities of anyone.
That, though, isn't what this event is about. Instead, it's really about political issues: education, poverty alleviation, global public health, and climate change.
This is exactly right. Charity, of course, is good. We like it. It makes us feel virtuous. But just as there are public and private goods (i.e, water and banisters, respectively), and just as there are goods that are better delivered by the public sector and goods that are better delivered by the private sector (national defense and Q-tips), there are causes that are better addressed by the public or private sectors. It makes a lot of sense for the private sector to spearhead limited initiatives that a) address localized, contained problems or b) create models that can be scaled up by government action. So it's great when businesses institute green policies and it's great when individuals and foundations provide funding for drug treatment centers, or maternal health clinics.
But the private sector really can't address global warming, really can't guarantee broad access to health care. In part, it's a question of money: Everyone was very impressed when, at last year's Clinton Global Initiative, Richard Branson pledged $3 billion to fund renewable energy respurce. That's great! And to us mortals, who are used to thinking in sums of a couple hundred, or thousand, it's an almost inconceivable sum. But on the scale of creating new sources of energy, it's actually rather small. Very useful, but small. And it's certainly not a substitute for collective action that caps the total carbon output. The private donations can drive some technology, but they really can't do the job. Only collective action can, and the virtuous momentum of the CGI and various corporate press releases can't be allowed to serve as a substitute for public action.
