Plutocracy pros and cons3/25/2023 He adds an unfortunate coda that the small grants plus sweat equity mean “more of every dollar will go directly towards art creation (as opposed to administration and overhead).” Given how wacky private funders and government agencies are in their efforts to shortchange nonprofits on overhead, some will tend to draw the wrong conclusions from that one sentence of Hickey’s. The downsides? Hickey suggests that “most scaled solutions achieve efficiencies by reducing personnel” and “require more layers of management, firm hierarchies, task specialization, and centralization of resources and decision-making.” Admitting his history as a promoter of the benefits of scale, Hickey writes that “scale is not an answer in and of itself, and that sometimes scaled solutions leave even larger problems in their wake.”ĭriving the movement toward scale are a number of factors cited by Hickey: the lower “cost per transaction…if you make fewer, larger transactions,” the “bias within philanthropy…to be associated with well-recognized, highly visible organizations,” and the fact that there are some “things that cannot be accomplished without being bigger.” All of those reasons equate scale with size and size with efficiency. Writing for the community development journal Shelterforce, Michael Hickey was inspired by a forum on the blog of Americans for the Arts to write about the inefficiencies of scale.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |