March 26, 2008 | Read Time: 1 minute
An opinion column by New York Times’ writer David Brooks has Kelly Kleiman, of The Nonprofiteer, boiling.
Mr. Brooks celebrates the growing class of social entrepreneurs, but he notes that “their problem now is scalability.” “How do the social entrepreneurs replicate successful programs so that they can be big enough to make a national difference?” Mr. Brooks asks.
He describes how America Forward, a consortium of social entrepreneurs, wants the federal government to expand national service and create semipublic investment funds. The government wouldn’t operate these programs, he says, but would “create a network of semipublic Gates Foundations that would pick winners based on stiff competition.”
Mr. Brooks warns, however, that there are dangers to getting government involved. “Government agencies are natural interferers, averse to remorseless competition and quick policy shifts,” he says. “Nonetheless, these funds are worth a try.”
Ms. Kleiman criticizes Mr. Brooks’ aversion to using public financing to expand such programs. That would mean that wealthy taxpayers “would have to consult something other than their own attitudes, prejudices and needs before deciding what’s best for the rest of us,” she says.
What do you think? Is government key to helping national-service and other social-entrepreneurship programs expand? Is there too much resistance to federal financing? Or should there be more awareness of the dangers of government playing such a role?
