I just finished reading Jeff Rubin’s new book, “Why Your World is About To Get a Whole Lot Smaller”. His message that the way we currently live in a global economy is not sustainable is not new to the grantmaking community. But it is a good reminder that we all need to revisit everything we take for granted from the bananas on our breakfast table to the weekend jet-away trips or visits to family in different corners of the planet.
His thesis that we will turn back to local from global got me wondering about what this means for grantmakers. I thought of at least three themes out of his analysis:
- Local communities will become a stronger anchor than ever before for ensuring there is a vibrant local economy that replaces the imported global economy we currently rely on. And local will need strengthened human connectivity as our ability to jet to far-away places to build community connections becomes more difficult and expensive. The quality of life in neighbourhoods will be a dominant factor in the more closely-knit communities we are going to experience. Funders who are working on neighbourhood development strategies are ahead of the coming curve as more and more of us come to realize the value of maintaining and building strong, vibrant and safe local communities. But it also raises the spectre of increasing neighbourhood striations related to income and class with the potential to increase protectionism and decrease broader integration and tolerance for diversity.
- Small, micro-initiatives will be the way to strengthen community, one family and one neighbourhood at a time. As Julie mentioned in her post on GPS and planning (”Increasingly, effective funders are moving from categories of funding to a more comprehensive strategy that cuts across several different program areas to maximize impact and sustainability“) multi-input approaches will replace the siloed ways that we’ve developed for tackling issues. These will need to integrate social, economic, educational, cultural and recreational aspects that touch our lives. Micro-credit and micro-enterprise, which we currently associate largely as “developing world” solutions, will soon grow stronger shoots in our own back yards. The Hamilton Foundation figured this out a while ago. They have an interesting set of interconnected initiatives focusing on Poverty Reduction, Neighborhood Focus and Environment Focus. Many of the grants are tiny, some just a few hundred dollars. But if that is all a group needs to get a meeting off the ground, more power to them. That is how the glue that bonds communities works, filling in a crack here or a gap there so the overall picture is held together more tightly. We are seeing more direct giving such as Kiva encourages globally. This trend is going local with the rise of micro-grantmaking. I am sure we will see more of this in the smaller world of the future. (Watch for a guest post in October by Ruth Richardson on The Small Change Fund, an exciting initiative she is working on in this new field.)
- Funders and institutions will need to completely re-imagine how they respond to the changing landscape. Sure, re-vamping grants programs will make a difference. But what about the broader structural issues about how communities are supported? How do you integrate ways of supporting so that all efforts are aligned towards the same end goals, those of the community being strengthened? This has always been a bit of a puzzle to me and was crystallized in this wonderful quote by Peter MacLeod, recipient of the 2008 Public Policy Forum’s Young Leaders Award: “We are trying to run 21st-century software on 18th-century hardware”. The problem, he says in an interview, is that all our democratic institutions, not just our electoral processes, are rooted in an era when people were illiterate, disconnected and immobile. Philanthropy is part of this dilemma in a world where people are much more literate (”literacy” now including social, cultural and emotional competence or intelligence in addition to the 3 Rs), connected (wired up, almost to the point of having implanted technology in our bodies) and mobile (both physically and virtually while glued to our computers).
Smaller world perhaps, but what an opportunity for philanthropy to help build stronger local pathways of the future.
More information:
Peter MacLeod journal MASS lbp: Reinventing Public Consultation
I am happy to see your mention of both “local” and “small or micro” as important components of philanthropy in the brave new world. These are both concepts that are at the heart of grassroots grantmaking and the network of place-based funders that are serious about scale-appropriate investments that support and encourage people to connect with their neighbors via a common community-strengthening interest. The Hamilton Community Foundation is one of the exemplary place-based funders associated with our network. I appreciate this post and encourage you to check out our website (www.grassrootsgrantmakers.org) and my blog, Big Thinking on Small Grants (http://janisfoster.blogspot.com), for more brave new (but smaller) world perspectives.
Thanks for your comment Janis. This movement caught my eye since I am also involved with Aga Khan Foundation Canada (www.akfc.ca) We have witnessed over some 25 years, the transformative power of tapping local wisdom and giving a voice and control to the people intended to be affected. Providing the necessary tools, resources and technical know-how, as well as new perspectives, help the community manage the effort and ensure impact beyond our intervention. This enables effective and sustainable development. It does also take place within a broader development context and agenda, and the interplay of local impact and systemic change is an interesting part of the grassroots-development continuum. I’d be interested to hear your experiences of connecting grassroots and systemic change.