Social Engineering by Private Sector Liberals

PhilanthropyDaily.com ^ | 8/19/2013 | Scott Walter

[Edmunds mom]

If social science, as employed by America’s largest foundations over the last century, were so wonderfully productive of human flourishing, why don’t Kramer and Brest toss out numerous instances of its successes with such non-bacterial human problems as unwed motherhood, the declining work force participation of men, or “income inequality”? Why haven’t foundations conquered those challenges as straightforwardly as cholera and hookworm? Could it be because human beings differ in kind from bacteria and parasitic nematodes?

[Edmunds mom]

The Hewlett Foundation’s current and past presidents are trying to defend billion-dollar liberal foundations from a recent criticism of their social engineering approach to giving.

This article explains why free markets and ordinary citizens help the needy far better than social engineers, whether the engineers are federal or foundation bureaucrats.

[maryz]

Excellent article! But I think I'm going to have to come back and read it again -- it's just that full of food for thought.

I did enjoy and appreciate the author's summing up by example the two different approaches:

. . . . For expertise “based on local knowledge and experience,” imagine a wizened grandmother who didn’t finish high school but who has for decades helped neighbors in her struggling neighborhood with her own money and advice on everything from childrearing to drug abuse to job training. For expertise “based on broader study and more systematic analysis of data,” imagine a twentysomething, unmarried young man fresh out of grad school with multiple graduate degrees paid for by the affluent parents who have provided him a life of ease. He’s crunched social science numbers from all over the world but just yesterday stepped foot for the first time in the grandmother’s neighborhood.

Is Schambra’s inclination to favor the grandmother’s wisdom over the young man’s social science “merely” a matter of taste, like a preference for barbecue over sushi?

And I was disheartened by the author's reference to "the appalling support by numerous large foundations for eugenics." I guess eugenics is like the hydra, the many-headed monster. As I understand it, eugenics was very big among the ruling class (to target the "country class," of course) in the 1920s and 1930s -- until Hitler "gave it a bad name." I didn't realize it was making a powerful come-back!

[maryz]

Excellent article! But I think I'm going to have to come back and read it again -- it's just that full of food for thought.

I did enjoy and appreciate the author's summing up by example the two different approaches:

. . . . For expertise “based on local knowledge and experience,” imagine a wizened grandmother who didn’t finish high school but who has for decades helped neighbors in her struggling neighborhood with her own money and advice on everything from childrearing to drug abuse to job training. For expertise “based on broader study and more systematic analysis of data,” imagine a twentysomething, unmarried young man fresh out of grad school with multiple graduate degrees paid for by the affluent parents who have provided him a life of ease. He’s crunched social science numbers from all over the world but just yesterday stepped foot for the first time in the grandmother’s neighborhood.

Is Schambra’s inclination to favor the grandmother’s wisdom over the young man’s social science “merely” a matter of taste, like a preference for barbecue over sushi?

And I was disheartened by the author's reference to "the appalling support by numerous large foundations for eugenics." I guess eugenics is like the hydra, the many-headed monster. As I understand it, eugenics was very big among the ruling class (to target the "country class," of course) in the 1920s and 1930s -- until Hitler "gave it a bad name." I didn't realize it was making a powerful come-back!