Tag Archives: United States

Why are so many non-profit salaries so low?

Homeless person, with shopping cart

a nonprofit mobile office?

Dan Pallotta’s book Uncharitable continues to move me; it is changing my views of where the nonprofit sector needs to go. In the first portion of the book, Pallotta delves into the origins of strongly held American beliefs about the nonprofit pay. He writes:

“In Puritan times, people gave directly to the needy, without using brokers. This is no longer possible on any meaningful scale. Charity is no longer an exchange between the non-needy and the needy. It is an exchange between the non-needy (donors) and the non-needy (the charity workforce) to provide services to the needy. Is an exchange between equals to help the needy. It is no different than the exchange between those who buy cars and those who make them. A law that was meant to provide an economic discount to the needy in face-to-face transactions is now improperly exploited to expect nonprofit sector workers to provide wage discounts to wealthy donors who are in essence buying a service from them, which they use their labor to provide. The donating public expects the nonprofit workforce to extend to it the law of mercy. But it was never intended that such a law be applied in this way.”

This is a big aha for me—over time two distinct dynamics have become confused as one. The first dynamic is the wealthy giving charity to the needy. The second dynamic is nonprofit employees (the non-needy but non-wealthy) working at below market rates, thus also giving charity to the needy. But in doing so, the nonprofit employees are in a way also giving charity to the *wealthy* as well, in the form of their under-priced labor. And this practice of low nonprofit wages is not just common, it’s widely considered to be the only acceptable situation.

I’ll never forget attending a mixer of the San Francisco chapter of YNPN and overhearing several discussions of nonprofit employees who have no health insurance. They were talking about where to go in the city to find free health clinics! These are smart, young, energetic people who could easily find work in the for-profit arena. They are living lives of poverty in order to work for nonprofits. It just doesn’t seem right to me, it doesn’t seem sustainable, and I absolutely can’t see this being good for the field. It doesn’t take much imagination to see many of these young people going and finding “real jobs” and only doing social benefit work on weekends. What a loss for the field.

So what’s going on here? My guess is that there are two factors in play.

One factor is that there are a few markets for the kinds of social benefit that nonprofits generate. These are organizations that are creating real value to society, but which society isn’t currently willing to pay for, at least not proactively. It’s a lot easier to get money to build prisons than it is to build programs that prevent the need for more prisons. I hope that over time as the underlying math and science of how societies work is better understood, the value of the right types of social investments will become obvious and uncontroversial.

The second factor is that there are huge discrepancies in the nonprofit world when it comes to pay—people at some organizations get paid extremely well, even if the impact isn’t clear. My guess is that this links to the relative lack of market mechanisms in the nonprofit world, where pay and impact can be worlds apart.

I wonder: if we can better understand and measure impact, and if we can create markets for that impact, can we find ways to fairly compensate talented individuals for the positive social impacts that they drive?

De Soto on how and why institution building works

Photograph of Hernando de Soto, which he had t...

Hernando de Soto

Hernando de Soto is a very intelligent economist from Peru who has had a great positive impact on development in Peru, and around the world. Building from his cornerstone book The Other Path (to contrast with The Shining Path), he advised the government of Peru on over 178 institutional reforms related property rights, democracy, and constitutional reforms for freedom.

In this nicely produced video interview with de Soto, he eloquently describes his major ideas about how to best support the healthy growth of a developing country.

Early in the interview de Soto shares an interesting “metric” of how he knew he was having an impact on Peru, saying “If we hadn’t been shot at, it would have been an indication that we weren’t having an impact. We had an impact.” Talk about standing by your ideas.

Was it worth it? Consider that Peru’s GNI per capita PPP grew 37% between 2005 and 2009, compared to 6% growth for the United States. I bet institutions played a key role in Peru’s rapid growth. Watch the interview to learn more about de Soto’s ideas—definitely food for thought.

Egypt: Democracy is interesting, but ownership is critical

Egypt: Register your land in just 14 years and 77 easy steps!

Don’t get me wrong—I’m excited and optimistic about the historic events of the past several weeks in Egypt, and the potential for the country to get onto a real path of renewal. And furthermore, I think that democracy can be an important force for bringing about citizen engagement, transparency, and hope to the people.

However as many people have pointed out, history tells us that Egypt’s success is far from certain. The book At War’s End by Roland Paris makes a strong argument for first investing in strong state institutions, before rushing to hold elections. He makes the point that democracy and freedom of speech are often held out as a panacea for transforming a society, although too often historically such an approach hasn’t worked.

And so it was with great interest that as I watched online as the government of Egypt fell, I happened to be reading Hernando de Soto’s classic book The Mystery of Capital. Much of De Soto’s work revolves around the power of capital, and shows how in many developing countries people are hamstrung by how difficult it is to officially register their land. As a result of this lack of official ownership, they are not able to use their land as leverage for investing in business or education. His work has led to reforms—and progress—in Peru, among other places.

In Egypt, however his team found that it takes anywhere from 6 to 14 years to officially register a piece of land for building purposes, navigating 31 agencies and 77 procedures. Wow.  Furthermore an Egyptian who goes ahead and builds a house, and then tries to register it after the fact, faces large fines and even demolition of the house. Not surprisingly, a lot of Egyptians live on “illegal” land, and are left with property that they can’t leverage. De Soto calls such land “dead capital.”

Consider that in many countries, home ownership is a common path to not just building wealth, but also to “dealing people in” to society. In fact in Lee Kuan Yew’s book From Third World to First he talks about how in the 1960’s Singapore decided that it was critical to bring home ownership to as many people as possible, as he put it “to give every citizen a stake in the country and its future.”

Incidentally, Singapore’s per capita income as a percentage of the USA’s per capita income has gone from 18% in 1965 to 82% in 2010. Apparently they are doing something right.

And thus it’s fascinating to note that the protesters in Egypt have taken pains to clean Tahrir Square, saying things like “For the first time, we feel now that this homeland is ours.” There is clearly something powerful about ownership.

Democracy is interesting, but feeling like a true stakeholder of your country? Now that’s powerful. And remaking Egypt’s institutions, such as land registry, is a critical step towards progress.