Mutual Interest as Self-Interest: A Shorter Blog Reflection (back by popular demand)

This week’s readings present divergent views on market-based changes to the nonprofit sector. Eikenberry criticizes marketization as anti-democratic activity driven by self-interest, encouraging a variety of democracy-building countermeasures instead. Crutchfield and McLeod Grant endorse cross-sector and business activity to increase nonprofit impact and to encourage change in capital markets. So who is right? Is one wrong? Are both a little right, both a little wrong? Get your clickers out, it’s time to vote!

Eikenberry cites research suggesting that market activity does not in fact lead to significant, sustained revenue. Such enterprise, argues Eikenberry, is anti-democratic as it diminishes nonprofits’ dependency on networks and multiple revenue sources. In looking forward and recommending a different direction, nonprofits should focus energies not on revenue generation but on cultivating meaningful discourse among the populace. Eikenberry suggests measures such as democratic management strategies in lieu of efficiency and business-like approaches, more democratic funding opportunities such as giving circles (which engage and connect communities), and increased classroom discussion on participatory and deliberative mechanisms to promote student appreciation for democratic values. I find the latter recommendation fitting. Though academic subject matter appeases accreditation standards, true democratic deliberation would cultivate the creativity and potential of forthcoming nonprofit administrators. Will further class discussions actualize the author’s advice?

Crutchfield and McLeod Grant present several examples of nonprofits fruitfully engaging in market activity such as through partnerships with for-profits. The authors explain how nonprofits “recognize what economists have long known: tapping into the power of self-interest is more effective than appealing to altruism” (p. 58). I struggle with this statement. With the inherent wealth-generation of the business sector, nonprofits should clearly recognize revenue opportunities (given the voluntary sector’s inherent capacity/impact issues). Yet, what do the authors mean by “effective”? Effective from whose perspective? From the viewpoint of the victim of this nation’s attempt at capitalistic democracy, the individual who suffers without a job, health care, or hope for the “good life”/”American dream”? Or effective from an organizational standpoint? Do nonprofits not exist for the public good, more so than the organizational good? Yes, Crutchfield and McLeod Grant describe organizations which appear to improve the lives of their beneficiaries through marketization. However, many unassisted demographics still suffer from the “effectiveness” of self-interests. If economists readily accept that self-interest trumps collective interest, are economists all knowing? Or perhaps is such an understanding of self- and collective interest skewed? I click my clicker for the latter.

Through market participating, nonprofits gain a presence in the business sector. Thus, this involvement reduces the dominance of purely self-interested/profit-generating campaigns. This is a step in the right direction. Through collaborating with nonprofits, for-profits give the image or façade of social responsibility, which is good marketing. We have heard the adage, “marketing is everything,” yes? Naturally, some businesses (or portions thereof) will sincerely support social causes. With more nonprofit market involvement, we can image that more businesses will recognize the need to assume more communal interests, just as many nonprofit organizations have recognized the need to participate in the market. Here, nonprofits’ interest in capacity and for-profits’ concern for profit will hopefully yield an advanced mutual interest in, and capacity for enhancing the public good. Optimistically, more individuals and agencies will recognize that mutual interest is self-interest, as we are all part of, and directly affected by the community. City Year co-founder Michael Brown echoes these sentiments in stating, “self-interest and the common good – you can’t separate them” (Crutchfield & McLeod Grant, p. 68).

To me, Eikenberry and The Forces for Good authors share an appreciation for mutual interests, though their recommendations are antithetical. We may face challenges in applying Eikenberry’s democracy-building measures: the market is very dominant; resource distribution is extremely uneven; and individuals have competing perceptions and interests, potentially resulting in deliberative stalemate rather than democratic progress. Additionally, Eikenberry did not appear to consider the use of social media in catalyzing democratic discourse. We should clearly recognize the democratic effect of social media through the Middle East rebellions, connecting individuals by providing a forum for expression, much like this blog (and if you’ve read this far, you will find that I’ve slightly bent the truth-value of my title. Whoopsie. Actually, the readings deal with weighty subjects that deserve significant deliberation. Consider that I have in fact abridged this post from the full discussion warranted by the material. Is it a disservice to quickly wash over these ideas, or do we have a time/attention resource issue?).

Altogether, this literature is encouraging as it reflects a growing (collective) interest in necessary and broad changes to our traditional institutions (and our perceptions of such conventions). Academics and practitioners (among the masses) recognize the need to advance beyond unsustainable and ineffective means. “The times they are a-changin’.” We need to be more tactical, collectively understanding that current social and technological developments encourage significant transformations to long-held traditions. Hopefully, subsequent changes will amount to a more harmonious world, where individual and collective interests are mutually satisfied. Let us all be hopeful and proactive together.