The New Washington Consensus: Millennial Philanthropy and the Making of Global Market Subjects

Katharyne Mitchell and Matthew Sparke Department of Geography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract: This paper outlines the emergence of a New Washington Consensus associated with leading philanthropies of the new millennium. This emergent development paradigm by no means represents a historic break with the market rationalities of neoliberalism, nor does it represent a radical departure from older models of early 20th century philanthropy. Rather, it is new in its global ambition to foster resilient market subjects for a globalized world; and new in its employment of micro-market transformations to compensate for macro-market failures. Focusing on reforms pioneered by the new philanthropic partnerships in education and global health, the paper indicates how the targets of intervention are identiﬁed as communities that have been failed by both governments and markets. The resulting interventions are commonly justiﬁed in terms of “return on investment”. But the problems they target keep returning because the underlying causes of failure are left unaddressed.

Keywords: neoliberalism, philanthropy, development, education, global health

We believe every person deserves the chance to live a healthy, productive life (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

“They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionaryanddisintegrating elements.” This is how Marx and Engels (2004:44) described the “socialistic bourgeois” in The Communist Manifesto,includingeconomists,philanthropists,and humanitarians in a long list of 19th century liberal reformers. Today in the 21st century does the description still stick? We live inanerawhenanextraordinarilydiversified cast of characters are involved in humanitarianreformeffortsaroundtheworld.From celebrities such as Bono and Angelina Jolie, to politicians, social enterprise leaders, microfinance developers, corporate social responsibility planners, and a vast array of NGOs, we hear many different voices echoingtheegalitarianargumentsforphilan- thropic humanitarianism made by the Gates Foundation. But can we describe the contemporary global expansion of care as anefforttopreservetheexistingstateof global society, while eschewing its revolutionary and disintegrating elements? Our answer here is broadly affirmative, and yet we argue that the historical and political-economic shifts of the years since Marx and Engels penned their famous polemic also make for important differences in how humanitarian reform is currently envisioned and implemented. Much of contemporary philanthropy might still be

Antipode Vol. 00 No. 0 2015 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 1–26 doi: 10.1111/anti.12203 © 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode summarily described as capitalists rescuing capitalism from capitalism. But there is something new about the ways in which a vast variety of people today are being philanthropically enlisted into entrepreneurial market-mediated partnerships, and pulled away from making demands on the stateforprotectionandrelieffromsocial injustice. We suggest that to understandthesedevelopmentsitisnecessaryto analyze how new millennium interventions by liberal philanthropists reflect the ways in which liberal capitalism has itself mutated since the 19th century. From the first gilded age of late imperial liberalism, through Keynesianism, and on to neoliberalism, the general trajectory of liberal capitalism has been well traced in the scholarly literature (Amable 2011; Foucault 2008; Mirowski and Plehwe 2009; Peck 2010; Peck et al. 2012). But, as has also been highlighted by its scholars, the contemporary term neoliberalism is a confusing neologism for the complex assemblage of pro-market ideologies, rules, ties, and orientations associated with globalization (Harvey 2005; Larner 2000). Moreover, even amongst its critics, the tendency to associate neoliberalism with the policy orthodoxy of the Washington Consensus leaves under-examined a significant transition in hegemonic development ideas, governmental practices, and forms of adaptation and resistance in the so-called Post-Consensus period of the new millennium (Leitner et al. 2007). Following critical development scholars such as Atia (2013), Essex (2013), Roberts (2014) and Roy (2010), we think that the new formations of today’s transitional moment are not adequately addressed as just a Post-Consensus or Dissensus moment. Not only do such terms downplay the global disagreements with the original tendentious claim on “Consensus”, they also obscure an important point about how the rationalities and imperatives underpinning pro-market development are articulated globally: namely, that neoliberal development norms and practices continue to co-evolve in terms of hegemony and changing contextual conditions of implementation. They are not fixed ideas that were set once and for all, whether on Mont Pèlerin, or in Chicago or in DC; these different locales themselves allow for changing articulations of neoliberal ideals (Peck 2010). Moreover, even if members and critics of the neoliberal thought collective often share a belief that it is the ideas more than their reception and implementation that matter most, geographical research indicates that we need to develop less deterministic accounts of the incom- plete, uneven and context-contingent development processes through which neoliberal ideas and actions continue to co-generate one another (Mitchell 2004; Peck and Theodore 2012; Sparke 2006). Millennial philanthropy makes clear how opportunistic as well as iterative the co- generation process can be. We are calling the resulting norm-setting and targeted intervention a New Washington Consensus, but in a way that is meant to highlight rather than hide the hegemonic steering of a highly contingent process. Our point is not to announce an epochal historical rupture with the neoliberalism of the international financial institutions based in Washington DC. Even if today’s debates over the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank do index DC’s decline as a development hegemon, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund remain enor- mously influential, and geopolitical references to a Beijing Consensus or Mumbai Consensus are better understood as fearful Beltway bullet points rather than serious assessments of developments and Development as they are actually articulated and

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. The New Washington Consensus practiced. Our concern rather is with the new visions of development that are being put into practice at once globally and, importantly for our argument, personally. We are evoking “new”-ness in this sense in the theoretical spirit of The New Way of the World (Dardot and Laval 2013). We do so to address the productive (if not always deliberate) neoliberal formation of new market subjects and the ways in which this cultivation and enlistment of individuals is increasingly being imagined and implemented across national borders from local to global scales. Building on the scholarship of others, we argue that millennial philanthropy is playing an especially signiﬁcant role in these processes (Fassin 2011; Hay and Muller 2014; Kapoor 2013; Kovacs 2011). In short, we argue it is advancing a New Washington Consen- sus that opportunistically shores up global market practices and rationalities through local social projects that at once acknowledge and cover for market failure while simultaneously cultivating new market subjects. How exactly does this triple movement work?

The Triple Movement: Making Market Subjects In some significant respects millennial philanthropy still resembles early 20th century philanthropic practices, with similar ideas about the cost-effectiveness, the scientific dispersal of funds, the top-down deployment of quick-fix technical solutions, as well as moral arguments about the rights of human beings to live educated, healthy, and productive lives (Parmar 2012; Zunz 2011). Carnegie and Rockefeller, much like contemporary philanthropists, sought to apply business principles to their private foundations, leveraging their big business reputations and networks as well as introducing strategies designed to maximize human potential in what they saw as rational and efficient ways (Carnegie 1962; Lagemann 1989). Similarly, they addressed problems of social dysfunction with bold ambitions to solve them by tying the socially marginalized to the opportunities offered by the marketplace. For the same reasons, the projects they funded tended towards experimentation and short-termism: two tendencies that are also notable continui- ties with philanthropy today. Yet there are also some critically important differences between the earlier era and the millennial moment. Whereas Carnegie and Rockefeller were interested in the benefits for capitalism that would follow health and education improvements, many of the philanthropically funded interventions being developed today create benefits for business—for big pharma, for education management organizations, and for a wide range of enterprising consultants and data managers. Moreover, and more importantly, coming after the many disastrous pro-market policy exper- iments of the 1980s and 1990s, early 21st century innovations in philanthropy are characterized by a distinctive pattern of offsetting market failure using market tools to develop market subjects. Although the normal economistic formulation of the concept does not go so far, “market failure” in this sense also centrally includes the successful failure of the first round Washington Consensus conventions that succeeded in forcing states to cut back and reorganize public services through the wholesale marketization of state practices. Millennial philanthropy has, in turn, capitalized on the resulting forms of market-state failure, abandonment and

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode dispossession, often by advancing a new round of market-mediated schemes, metrics, and partnerships as supposed solutions for budget-bound governments. It is this complex market-mediated combination of compensation, interpellation and market-state reformation that we outline here. Within the larger debates over neoliberal governance and governmentality we see this millennial philanthropy as one among many micro neoliberal responses to the inequalities and exclusions caused by the macro neoliberalism of the old Washington Consensus policy regime. Epitomized, if not consciously led, by the Seattle-based Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, this type of market foster care can, for the same reason, be said to represent a New Washington State Consensus: even if much of its emerging hegemony rests on reception and emulation else- where, including by other states, as well as the federal United States government. Its philanthropic interventions still put great trust in market-mediated delivery mechanisms, cost-effectiveness metrics, competitive incentives, and intellectual property protections; moreover, this distinctively neoliberal approach also inherits the older suspicion of government corruption and state failure from the old Washington Consensus. But at the same time, today’s market philanthropists openly acknowledge some of the market failures of the preceding era, responding and thereby compensating with short-term, grant-funded, spatially selective, vertically targeted pilot projects which are, in turn, depicted as post-political investments in the problem-solving of life itself. These increasingly common compensatory practices are supported by shifting and experimental public–private partnerships and other efforts to plug the gaps in resource access and social protections; these were precisely the gaps often caused or exacerbated by the destructive structural adjustments that were designed to expand and entrench market liberalization in the ﬁrst place (Harvey 2005; Klein 2007; Navarro 2007). The result is a messy, micro-market management of human life, in which non-conforming areas, communities and populations are routinely explored and monitored vis-à-vis their readiness for market preparation or correction. These targeted areas become sites of experimental studies and competitively funded demonstration projects, serving as the testing grounds for novel innovations in education and health that simultaneously constitute new norms of calculation and entrepreneurialism (cf. Nadesan 2008; Popkewitz 2008). Moreover, as areas where social identity and practices of citizenship are being remade they are also notably non-national in geographic scale; they are reterritorialized as local nodes in an emergent global network of individualized empowerment. Market philanthropy, like microﬁnance before it (and with it), thus operates at a personal as well as a structural level (cf. Roy 2010). Its competitive and calculative practices foster a market orientation among philanthropic grantees, many of whom are marginalized by race and gender as well as by poverty (Rankin 2001; Roy 2012; Young 2010). Through the process of winning grants and the rationale behind them, as well as through the funded projects themselves, recipients are encouraged to see the difference-friendly freedoms and choices offered by the market as solutions to the forms of oppression in which they are mired; moreover, through the management of funds and “return on investment” mindset they are recruited to operate as agents who can become responsible for their own care (cf. Foucault 1988; Rose 1999). In

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. The New Washington Consensus direct and oblique ways, then, the funding and underlying humanitarian reasoning integrates individuals and populations into the ethos of an entrepreneurial and individually accountable global capitalist society (Reid-Henry 2014). To make sense of this modern-day nurturing of market subjects in the midst of market crisis it is helpful to explore the contemporary applicability of Karl Polanyi’s (2001) classic account of the “double movement”: the organization of socio- political struggle to protect societies from the vortex of marketization. In examining this further, we are inspired by Nancy Fraser’s (2013) more recent argument about a “triple movement” that includes the diverse struggles for racial and sexual justice— emancipation movements—that are active in tension with both marketization and social protection. Fraser argues that the multiple transformational social struggles that emerged in the decades after The Great Transformation was published have produced a new set of actors and causes that are insufficiently captured with the “society” v. “economy” poles of Polanyi’s earlier theorization. These social movements include second-wave feminism, LGBT struggles, anti-racist and anti-war movements. Rather than freedom from the ravages of the market, many proponents of these movements have experienced oppression as a result of social protections previously organized by governments, with insufficient interest or attention to the multiple axes and practices of domination. Hence, Fraser argues, in order to analyze the current structural crisis and the dearth of systematic, state-coordinated responses to neoliberal marketization and financialization, we must consider what is happen- ing around this “third pole” of emancipatory struggles. Other tendencies towards state capture by hegemonic market elites (including conservative philanthropists like the Koch brothers in the US) remain critical, not to mention the ways in which state sovereignty itself has been globally yoked to the work of authorizing, expanding and enforcing market rule. But as Fraser underlines, the question of how and where resistance to marketization is redirected is vital to investigate further. Our point here is to highlight the role of the New Washington Consensus in redirecting rights-claiming emancipatory or justice movements towards market alliances and away from traditional government-led forms of social protection. Demands for charter schools in predominantly minority areas in the US, for example, are incentivized by philanthropy in ways that converge with the neoliberal privileging of personal choice and competition in undermining public schools (Saltman 2010). Likewise, humanitarian demands in primarily post-colonial societies to recognize access to medicines as a human right are steered by market philanthropy away from patent overrides, compulsory licensing, and free state provision of generics in the direction of collaborating with the same pharmaceutical companies whose intellectual property (IP) monopolies blocked and limited access in the first place. Problems of precarity created by racial and sexual violence (including the legacies of imperialism and slavery) thus become important objects of our attention (cf. Butler 2006). Due to the intersecting imperatives associated with such extra-economic axes of oppression, market philanthropy is often involved in projects that target figures of racialized and gendered dispossession as modern market subjects (Roy 2012). Moreover, at the same time that hope amongst these subjects is nurtured for grant-funded initiatives and programs, demands for systematic, horizontally organized

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode government action are often abridged. Additionally, governments themselves are often pulled into diverse and uneven assemblages of public–private–philanthropy partnerships (3P partnerships) that constitute the anti-state state effects of the new post-national consensus. In the images of perennially smiling recipients pictured in most donor-graphy brochures we meet the dispossessed, or those who speak for the dispossessed. Here the discourse of emergency, the personal ethics of a moral response to suffering, and the persuasive expectations of immediate practical action rule the day. Thus we are led to believe that the new 3P partnerships deliver and deliver now, today, and practically, where both governments and macro-market forces have previously failed. The subjects of this emergency action, and the non-governmental agencies that often speak for them, must increasingly consent to the promise of project-based protection and philanthropically mediated praxis. Most especially in areas hit hardest by the preceding decades of neoliberal privatization and austerity, there is an increasing embrace of the individualized approaches to risk management, resilience and survival that the partnerships advance in the name of equality rights (see, for example, the essays in Navarro 2002, 2007; Navarro and Muntaner 2004). That these personalized approaches to protection and planning are largely experimental, short term and constructed like capitalist consumption practices may be admitted, or even used to further legitimate more ties to for-profit businesses. But the promises and the projects remain compelling because they are also seen in traditional liberal terms as expressive of the choice-maximizing will of individuals themselves (Mitchell and Lizotte 2014). While grant recipients and targets of development have long been expected to become empowered agents and active citizens and to “self-improve” through the NGO or foundation’s largesse (cf. Cruickshank 1999; Duffield 2010; Li 2007; O’Connor 2001), the contemporary moment exhibits an even more intensely self-reflexive version of this. Not only are subjects the target of human capital development, they are now also recruited into the very process itself, enlisted as entrepreneurial 3P believers—rights-claiming activists for choice, who demand the context of their own discipline and improvement. In what follows we suggest that today’sliberalphilanthropistsareresponding— whether knowingly or not—to the destructive legacies of the older structural adjustment consensus, including the social problems caused by austerity and public sector cutbacks, as well as the diverse forms of social resistance that market fundamentalist policies have engendered. Following this, and using illustrations from education in the United States and global health worldwide, we explore the ways in which new innovations in philanthropy facilitate the recruitment andfosteringofnewmarketsubjects,pulling individuals and communities away from claims for government-led social protection within nation-states, and towards market preparedness both locally and globally.

The Washington Consensus from Old to New Named in 1990 by the American economist John Williamson, the Washington Consensus originally referred to what he and his colleagues saw as a widely accepted common sense about the merits of 10 specific pro-market policy reforms (Williamson 1990). These reforms were to: (1) make cuts to avoid fiscal deficits; (2) redirect public

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. The New Washington Consensus subsidies; (3) flatten taxes; (4) set anti-inflationary interest rates; (5) adopt competitive exchange rates; (6) liberalize trade; (7) liberalize foreign investment; (8) privatize state enterprises; (9) deregulate business; and (10) enforce property rights. For Williamson, the immediate target of these pro-market reforms was Latin America. However, as they were globally expanded and enforced by DC-based agencies, the 10 reform recommendations articulated a wider consensus on what official Washington viewed as the best governmental approach to enabling global capitalist development. As such, its simple mantra of “stabilize, privatize and liberalize” became widely associated by critics with the instabilities and un-freedoms of market-led globalization more generally (Klein 2007; Tabb 2004). Due to both the internal failures and widespread resistance to market-led globalization throughout the 1990s, the Washington Consensus itself became a tarnished title for many policy-makers by the dawn of the new millennium (Naím 2000; Stiglitz 2002). Anti-austerity and anti-privatization protests continued across much of the global South: Asian countries hit hard by the financial crises of 1997–1998 rebelled against the IMF; and, from the AFL-CIO (America’sumbrellaorganizationforunions)toTAC(South Africa’ssuccessfulTreatmentAccessCampaign)totheZapatistas(theanti-neoliberal activists in Mexico’sLacandonjungle),diversepartsofglobalcivilsocietyexpressed heart-felt dissensus with the so-called consensus. Indeed, Washington State itself became associated with such dissent insofar as the massive anti-WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 were widely interpreted as a public condemnation of “race to the bottom” trade liberalization, over-expansive intellectual property rights assertion, and a neoliberal approach to globalization more generally (Leitner et al. 2007; Sparke 2011, 2013). As a result, the cant of consensus could no longer deliver on its depoliticizing promise for policy-makers. In the context of the global backlash against neoliberal structural adjustment and Wall Street profiteering, it was hardly surprising that Williamson himself began to backtrack, disassociating his list of 10 reforms from neoliberalism as well as from an explicitly American-led agenda for global market liberalization (Williamson 2003). But despite the insistence that the old consensus was really more caring, less doctrinaire and less violent about market rule, a closer look at the original 10 reforms reveals just one that departed from the free market fundamentalism condemned by critics. This departure was recommendation 2, calling for the redirection of public spending. Rather than cutting off all public spending as an inefficient distortion of market forces and an invitation to inflation, Williamson recommended a redirection rather than an end to publicly oriented expenditures. Following the Adjustment with a Human Face logic of a notably neoliberal 1987 UNICEF report (Cornia et al. 1987), his recommendations thus called directly for investments in primary education and primary healthcare as two of the main foci for such redirected public spending. The emphasis on investing in education and health represents an important continuity vis-à-vis the rise of the new consensus, as do the associated arguments about the importance of cost-effectiveness, targeting and accountability (which were also evident in Adjustment with a Human Face). Nevertheless, the calls for such targeted investment have increased over time. Diverse authorities have come to reverse the older market fundamentalist faith that good growth generates good health and education to argue instead that good health and education are vital prerequisites of good growth (O’Neill 2006; Sachs 2005).

The World Health Organization’s(2003)Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, the World Bank’s(2007)Healthy Development strategy, and the Lancet Commission’s report, Global Health 2035 (Jamison et al. 2013), have all amplified this same investment logic, noting that there is an enormous benefitfrominvestinginglobalhealth.Likewise, defending domestic education spending as an investment in American economic competitiveness has been a broadly bipartisan project. It is one that has grown from The Work of Nations vision of Clinton’sliberallaborsecretaryRobertReichtoBush’s No Child Left Behind policies initiated in 2001, as well as the corporate-inflected Race to the Top incentivization schemes of Obama’seducationsecretaryArneDuncan(seeGiroux and Saltman 2009; Lipman 2015a; Parsons 2011).Thusinbasiceconomicthinkinglittle has changed in these health and education initiatives, which continue to economistically assume that such spending is an investment in the human capital of the poor. Politically, however, there are significant contrasts. Whereas the older consensus discussed education and health as “quintessentially proper objects of government expenditure” (Williamson 1990:47), today the new consensus assumption is of public–private partnerships operating as the main agents of innovation and investment in these areas. National governments might be included in such hybrid relationships but they are included primarily as market-oriented partners; their role is no longer to regulate or build national horizontal systems of public health and education but rather just to provide resources and encourage reform. It is now well understood that the old consensus cutbacks and privatization initiatives significantly, albeit unevenly, undermined national health and education systems in the name of economic growth (Fort et al. 2004; Rowden 2009). Furthermore, notwithstanding the good intentions in Williamson’s recommendation 2, the “redirection” of public spending that actually happened in the 1980s and 1990s was towards foreign banks and bond-holders rather than to systems of primary healthcare and education. Within the US, some promoters ofmarketfundamentalismevenarticulated arguments for cuts instead. The Reagan Administration, for example, sought to eliminate the Department of Education and defund programs such as Head Start and subsidized school meals (Verstegen 1990). And internationally, IMF and World Bank officials argued, albeit with increasing hesitancy, for the introduction of user fees for health services, while simultaneously urging countries to prioritize export-led development over support for health systems (Fort et al. 2004; Keshavjee 2014; Kim et al. 2000; Rowden 2009). More generally, it was the wider economic instability and impoverished development patterns generated by the old consensus that made funding and support for social services, education, and health provisioning increasingly insufficient and, in many cases, impossible. Whether due to the problems of increasing financial volatility, the fiscal austerity forced by debt, the high costs of medicine created by expanded intellectual property monopolies, or the emphasis on reducing taxes and regulatory burdens on business, the many costs of the old consensus coalesced to undermine social protections provided by national governments. Our argument here is that the new consensus has arisen amidst the ruins created by the older DC development diktats. It is thereby emerging as an increasingly influential set of imagined antidotes to the problems and resistances caused by structural adjustment and austerity on the ground. It is these contexts that have

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. The New Washington Consensus helped shape the co-evolutionary relationships at the heart of millennial philanthropy, social impact investment and development target-setting more generally. How then can we analyze the initiation and ongoing development of this transformational moment? It is to the rise of this new amalgamation of partners and philosophies that we now turn.

Out of the Ruins: The Rise of Millennial Philanthropy While there are many similarities with the earlier era of so-called scientific philanthropy, the current logic of millennial philanthropy manifests some unique features. These include a reliance on financialized investment rationalities, elaborate cost-effectiveness algorithms, and the integration of individuals into the subjective logic of entrepreneurial capitalism. Together they create a novel combination of care practices and market-mediated interventions. Despite some agonized dissent from within the high net worth executive jet set (eg Buffett 2013), the discourse of positively investing for health and educational improvements with contemporary business logics and entrepreneurial recruitment efforts has become a dominant motif in the media and popular culture (Kapoor 2013). Contemporary philanthropists therefore understand and represent themselves as a new breed of social entrepreneur (see, for example, Kiviat and Gates 2008; Omidyar Network 2014). In their attitudes to giving they are believers in the market-based practices of global finance, and this leads them to favor highly targeted investments, market-mediated partnerships, rapid technological fixes, constant assessment, quick exits, and the use of competition, benchmarking and rankings to set funding priorities. Perhaps most importantly, their abiding trust in competitive environments, especially a deep-rooted belief in the benefits of both empowering and incentivizing individual choice and accountability through competition, is instilled through the competitive grant process, and in the forms of accountability and assessment with which the programs are measured and advanced (often subcontracting the monitoring and planning itself to private sector consulting firms; see Mitchell and Lizotte 2016). Many therefore fit and even embrace the model of philanthrocapitalists—hyped for using their global business expertise in pursuing rapid solutions for contemporary social problems (for example Bishop and Green 2008). In turn, grant-funded projects often operate to recruit individuals and populations who have been economically and socially marginalized, and to orient them towards more market-based solutions to their problems. Ideally, from the vantage point of funders, the subjects are able to access the proffered aid in ways that simultaneously liberates them from previous constraints and orthodoxies, including those of patriarchy, nationalism, and racism. But instead of top-down structural adjustment being seen as the route to liberation as in the older consensus, it is now more bottom-up innovations in market making by new market subjects that are celebrated as opening a frontier of freedom for personalized free enterprise. The provision of micro-finance by foundations is a case in point. Women are frequently targeted for the loans with the dual aim of economic and sexual liberation. Female heads of household are, not incidentally, also a “good risk”, providing the double benefit to funders of return on investment and the potential integration

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode of previously marginalized economic subjects. This process relies on a newly delineated subject position Rankin (2001) has termed, “rational economic woman” (see also Roy 2012; Young 2010); this rational woman must both learn from and manifest entrepreneurial ambitions and understandings, and be able and willing to take advantage of the opportunities offered to her. The emphasis of most current foundations is clearly on the provision of opportunities for people to “lift themselves” out of their own social and economic difﬁculties so that they can be better integrated into all facets of global capitalist life. This goal is evident in education and health opportunities as well as in the earlier and ongoing microﬁnance initiatives. As stipulated on the Gates Foundation website:

Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty … (emphasis added).1

These ideas are part of a broader ethos of individualized economic independence— the most basic form of civil citizenship or “possessive individualism” as elucidated by John Locke in the 17th century (Locke 1988; Macpherson 2011). Today, though, this freedom and independence is integrated into the values of the globalized 21st century, where the freed body now speciﬁcally includes those previously excluded by nationality, race, gender, and other axes of power. Such freedom, moreover, notably includes freedom from those forms of systemic discrimination associated with prior systems of welfare-state social protections; these are systems that have often become even more exclusionary as a consequence of the old Consensus cuts and other austerity measures. The logic of aiding the systemically marginalized and globally disconnected, along with remaking them individually as effective and responsible entrepreneurs and global citizens, is thereby scaled up in ways that are meant to transcend the exclusions of faltering welfare systems through forms of technical and reputedly post-political integration (see also Rancière 2004; Wilson and Swyngedouw 2014; Žižek 2005). At the same time, this logic is just as frequently scaled down. This is because the reach of millennial philanthropy is often delimited by the sub-national spatial targeting that creates inclusion for a well-positionedfew,whileexcludingothersforwhomthe vertically targeted intervention is not calculated to be cost effective. If people do not have exactly the right problem in the right place at the right time, the patchiness of today’s3Ppartnershipscanleavethemabandoned. To better understand these parallel patterns of globally networked inclusion and locally embodied exclusion we look at two dynamics that work in tandem: leveraged partnerships, and cost-effectiveness calculations.

Partner and Leverage In the Cold War era of Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford the nation-state was understood as the primary scale of allegiance and US foreign policy interests were underpinned with foundation support (Berman 1984; Carnoy 1974; Parmar 2012). Now, however, the upward global scaling of millennial philanthropy is attempted through multiple networks and partnerships, many involving more than one set of actors. As well as crossing international borders, 3P partnerships also transcend for-proﬁt/non-proﬁt

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. The New Washington Consensus and government/non-government types of designations and involve actors at every scale, from individual to local, state, and global levels. The state’s role is rhetorically aggrandized as activist “stake-holder”, but it is practically diminished through becoming just one of many partners in this patchwork quilt of complex alliances. It is further diminished vis-à-vis its traditional roles of social protection through regulation as regulation itself is privatized, outsourced and/or reduced to market-mediated incentivization schemes. The 3P partnerships characterizing the new consensus thus manifest a more ecumenical vision of “whatever works” or, in the practitioners’ lingo, “best practices” (Azzam 2007; Garrett 2007). The evolving consensus aspires, in this sense, to be both post-political and post-patriotic, as it eschews any particular allegiance to a specific political vision, government or nation-state. Individuals are also recruited into more active partnering positions in the funding process, yet this is less in the sense of preparation as productive workers and national citizens, but rather as healthy and calculating global consumers and entrepreneurs. As partners rather than grantees, recipients of current foundation support are made responsible for their behavior and their choices as they are simultaneously invited to share in the foundation’s entrepreneurial ideals. The largest contemporary foundations thus exert a top-down, yet simultaneously all-encompassing type of pressure on policy through individual recruitment and orientation as well as through funding, networking and leveraging at all scales of governance. This is in sharp contrast to the more nationally oriented policy articulations of the earlier period of “scientific philanthropy” (Gallagher and Bailey 2000; Lagemann 1989). Millennial philanthropy is still closely tied to the state and politicians, setting up its own revolving doors for personnel that parallel those between contemporary government and employment at big banks, corporations and lobbying firms. The Clinton Foundation is an obvious institutional example of this, as is Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who transitioned from leading the Global Development Program at the Gates Foundation to becoming President Obama’s secretary of health and human services. Another former Gates administrator, Rajiv Shah, now manages USAID in Washington DC, and as such, also plays the role of a policy transfer agent spreading new Washington Consensus norms back to the institutional centers of the old consensus (see Carr et al. 2012; Essex 2013). But beyond the principal agents involved, it is the post-national market-making principles that constitute the active working logics of millennial philanthropy. The financial logic of leverage is critical in this respect, and many contemporary philanthropists have joined forces so that their giving can have a greater impact. The most familiar example here is Warren Buffett, who pledged approximately $31 billion to the Gates Foundation in 2006 and then helped to widen the network by establishing the Giving Pledge in 2010. More generally, one of the signature strategies of millennial philanthropy is to take the logic of leverage into all partnerships, not least of all with governments and governmental agencies, whether local, national or global. From remote school boards and state education departments to ministries of health and agriculture in developing countries to global agencies such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, a recurring pattern is one of incentivization schemes that use relatively short-term investments in an attempt to leverage long-term changes in programming. Mean- while, venues where investor impact logics are already hegemonic—such as the

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode annual World Economic Forum in Davos—have become key sites of advocacy for new targets of action (see, for example, Milligan and Schöning 2011). Politicians are increasingly drawn to these celebrity philanthropists and foundation CEOs, even as the foundations undermine or re-purpose the authority of governments with partnerships. As foundations step in to provide, partner, and program, governments frequently abandon more universal commitments to maintaining already underfunded but supposedly inclusive health and education systems. The increasing power and credibility granted to the foundations thus reﬂects a compensatory moment, one wherein market mediation is allowed and indeed encouraged to provide the care formerly delivered by the state, but so dependent on leveraged state consensus that the idealized logics of both state coordination and market coordination are displaced by a middle way of coordination by targets. In this volatile context it is not surprising that an emergent ethos of everyday survival and program management has been imported from the world of ﬁnance. This is the ethos of risk management.

Risk and Return The new consensus evinces a new concern with building resilience for an era shaped by risks that are now seen as inevitable: epidemic outbreaks, climate change, financial shocks, endemic poverty. This concern presages a change to active, mobile and targeted risk management rather than with traditional biopolitical governance ideals of risk reduction for a single, territorialized population. Whereas in older forms of philanthropy the rhetorical commitment was to provide funds for tackling the causes of risk—even that ideal is now gone. Risk is an ongoing feature of the market and hence of life itself (Martin 2002). Moreover, risk is “naturally” devolved to the grantees or to the other partners such as the government, which is expected to share or absorb the risk, but not the potential ROI occasioned by using risk to its best advantage (Roy 2012). While Carnegie’s vision of returning the gift of money “to the masses” was a national and more material circuit of wealth generation, the millennial logic is post-national and dematerialized through the circuits of global financialization. The Omidyar Network is a recent example of this trend. The Network invests actively in for-profit as well as non-profit ventures and expects to make money in the process. The eBay founder’s main concern is that most investors are “too risk-averse” and thus miss the potential—for profit and for social betterment—of working with the so-called bottom billion, the very poorest populations around the world (Schumpeter 2013). Omidyar has hence backed numerous microfinance initiatives such as Kiva and SKS, which are designed to help those who would otherwise be left out of the presumed advantages of the risk-taking and potential return of global credit in market-based systems. For newer foundations and networks, ensuring that these individually oriented incentives toward risk management and self-improvement are not compromised through corrupt intermediaries is critical. Thus projects are constantly monitored and the subjects of accountability themselves are expected to submit to the culture of measurement and the metrics of return. The increasing use of metrics is frequently commissioned by research advocacy organizations that are also funded by the foundations themselves

(McGuinn 2012). These advocacy organizations are then able to wield statistics stemming from the latest data and analyzed with the most current methods and technologies. The results are framed as “evidence-based” as opposed to the ideology- inﬂected rants of those who disagree with the foundation’sdirection. Evidence-based investment is imagined as distinctly post-political and post-national, being strongly associated with ideas of moving beyond the inherent corruptions limitations, and borders of territorial government (see, for example, Bono 2013). Among the perceived limitations of the past was the welfarist orientation of Keynesian liberalism in the post-World War II period, as well as the revanchist disciplining of the IMF and World Bank. Rather than return to either of these more nationally mediated regimes, the current period takes market discipline to new scales; it is a response that orients locales and individuals to market-based solutions using a calculus of quantita- tive evidence as well as a purported freedom from the oppression and subordination of previous regimes. Moreover, to the extent that national governments are involved as partners in this work, the project-based investment partnerships can, in turn, be explained as a good way of rescuing government programs from the critique of corruption and inefﬁciency. This is how Bill Gates (2014:9) put it in his “annual letter”:

… broadly speaking, aid is a fantastic investment, and we should be doing more. It saves and improves lives very effectively, laying the groundwork for the kind of long-term economic progress … which in turn helps countries stop depending on aid. It is ironic that the Foundation has a reputation for a hard-nosed focus on results, and yet many people are cynical about the government aid programs we partner with. The Foundation does a lot to help these programs be more efﬁcient and measure their progress.

The emphasis on efﬁciency and measurement is illustrative of the post-political aspirations of the new consensus. In addition to its institutional effects it is active on a personal level as well; it operates as a form of cultivating practice that hails the disconnected and marginalized, signifying that new market tools and metrics offer practicable solutions to personal problems within the wider global context of market rule. To provide a more detailed account of how these processes simultaneously shore up market relations and help to develop market subjects we provide two illustrative empirical examples: one from the world of contemporary education, and the second in the arena of global health.

Educational Reform in the United States: The Mantra of Choice Low literacy rates and other negative student outcomes evident in many American public schools, especially in minority neighborhoods, have been highly publicized in the past few decades (Kozol 1991, 2005). But despite a large body of scholarship on the inequitable geographies of resource allocation, income, nutritional and dental health, and other systemic forms of disparity, these negative outcomes are rarely laid at the door of widespread impoverishment and racism (Giroux 2011; Ladd 2012; Rothstein 2004). The reputed “failure” of public schools that is widely trumpeted by education reformers and their well-funded allies in government and private foundations is not located in structural issues of this type. Rather, they

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode are more frequently represented as deriving from deficiencies such as poorly trained or inadequate teachers, large and overly bureaucratic schools, school districts, and unions, or the lack of modern technology and/or modern approaches to contemporary global issues (Ravitch 2013). The proposed market-oriented “solutions” to the constant refrain of public school crisis do not therefore address concerns of racism or a more generalized neoliberal abandonment. They are pointed towards more superficial and seemingly “soluble” problems. These are broadly encapsulated in the word “reform”, and involve several components, including more standardized curricula and testing for students, greater teacher accountability (with “evidence-based” assessment tied to tenure, promotion and termination), more flexibility in the hiring and firing of teachers (with a corresponding decrease in union power), and the linkage of federal and local funding for schools to the results of standardized tests (Brill 2011; Ravitch 2010, 2013; Saltman 2010). The single greatest feature of the educational reform movement, however, revolves primarily around the possibility of greater school choice. Over the course of the past decade the necessity for more school choice has become the most pervasive, all-encompassing and inescapable mantra of private foundations, government, advocacy organizations and many parents (Lipman 2011; Wells et al. 2002). Meanwhile, many parents in low-income and/or segregated neighborhoods and low-performing school districts witnessed a spate of closures of their “failing” local neighborhood schools—often instigated by pro-reform mayors and school superin- tendents.2 This rhetorical and practical alignment of crisis, closure and “choice” is a good example of the workings of the triple movement in education. The parents of children in low-performing schools—schools often highly segregated by class and race and frequently growing more so as a result of neoliberal cutbacks and the forces of neighborhood gentrification—are invited to become savvy investors of their children, choosing the best school environments for the strongest individual returns. At the same time, their opportunity for committing to their local neighborhood school is rescinded. They are thus directed primarily towards options such as charter schools, a path that many have noted leads down the rosy market path of educational privatization (Lipman 2015b; Lipman and Haines 2007; Ravitch 2013; Saltman 2010; Scott 2009). Charters are publicly funded but privately run schools. Each state has a different set of rules and regulations governing charter schools, with some states more interested in adopting and promoting charters than others.3 While the acceptance and implementation of charters has varied by city and state, the overall national trend is strongly pro- charter—with 42 out of 50 states allowing charter schools as of the end of 2014, and with rapid annual growth in the overall number of schools.4 These schools are often managed by for-profitchartermanagementorganizations(CMOs)oreducation management organizations (EMOs); moreover they can negatively impact the normal public school system, which loses both revenue and often the more academically successful students and vigilant parents to them (Ni 2009). Yet despite a strong resistance to the use of vouchers in education and the clear damage caused by educational underfunding during the long reign of neoliberalpolicy-making,therehasbeenrelatively little parental resistance to the rapid increase in charter schools over the past decade.

Millennial philanthropy is deeply involved in these processes and effects. Many of the largest educational funders, including BMGF, The Walton Family Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, are interested in the promotion of systemic educational reform, and the foundation mission statements and large amounts of grant aid given to charter schools indicate the market-oriented direction of the desired changes (Barkan 2011; Ravitch 2010; Reckhow 2013). But in addition to the direct provision of material resources to the schools there are also a number of other ways that change and enlistment is encouraged. These include grant funding to secondary organizations such as the NewSchools Venture Fund, which promote choice and reform through the provision of venture capital; funding for education reform advocacy organizations (ERAOs), which conduct “research” indi- cating positive results for charter schools and in other ways advocate for reform; and, less well known, funding for parent advocacy groups and for popular media outlets that espouse greater school choice, including the choice of charter schools (McGuinn and Kelly 2012; Mitchell and Lizotte 2014, 2016). Most foundations interested in educational reform supply some form of seed funding to parent groups advocating for choice. Many of these groups are represented in the popular media and on foundation websites as primarily minority parents who have become infuriated with their wretched neighborhood schools and who have spontaneously organized to demand greater school choice for their children. A recent example of this type of representation in public culture is the 2012 Hollywood movie Won’t Back Down, in which two mothers take on apathetic teachers and a sclerotic teacher’s union to try to turn around their children’s failing school. According to the promotional blurb: “This powerful story of parenthood, friendship and courage mirrors events that are making headlines daily”.5 The setting for the film is a post-industrial blue-collar neighborhood of Pittsburgh, and the main cast is a mix of working class whites and African-Americans who rise to the seemingly insurmountable challenge of taking over and renewing the dreadful school. Won’t Back Down was produced by Walden Media, which was also one of the key players in the financing and distribution of the highly popular 2010 education documentary, Waiting for Superman. In the documentary, the focus is similarly on the failure of inner city public schools (in this case Harlem), with primarily poor minority children and their parents as the main protagonists. Both the movie and the documentary focus on the power and importance of parental activism in demanding better schools and teachers for their children. Parents are shown as initially frustrated and helpless in the face of intransigent bureaucracies and the poor quality education their children are receiving. However, by the end of both films, the fictitious mothers of Won’t Back Down and many of the real parents in Waiting for Superman are depicted as energized, newly formed activists, or “Parent Troopers”. Research into many of these so-called parent organizations indicates that they were either initially established or are currently managed by individuals who may indeed be parents, but who are also, not incidentally, employed at charter schools or CMOs, or otherwise connected to the broader world of privately funded education reform. This was the case for “Parent Revolution”, which promotes the spread

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode of parent trigger laws across the United States; these are laws that allow parents to transform a “failing” public school, including by converting it into a charter school. Parent Revolution was established by Ben Austin, a policy consultant for Green Dot Public Schools; Green Dot is a manager of charter schools in Los Angeles. Both Green Dot and Parent Revolution were heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation the Walton Foundation, and numerous other “reform”- minded philanthropies (see Ravitch 2013:198–205). Several other ostensibly parent-run organizations have similar histories of charter involvement or other philanthro-corporate connections.6 A recent example of these multi-layered processes can be seen in the funding of charter schools in Harlem. In the documentary Waiting for Superman there are several interviews, including of Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee, who at the time of the film was a strong pro-reform superintendent of the Washington DC public school system. After many pro school choice statements are made in these interviews, the parents are shown at the end, waiting breathlessly for the results of the charter school lottery. The message is clear: this lottery will determine whether or not these otherwise marginalized and disconnected parents and children will be able to obtain a decent education and be brought back into the world of connection and possibility. What is not shown in the documentary is a campaign called “Flooding the Zone”, which was initiated and promoted by the Success Charter Network and the Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) with the explicit purpose of creating greater parental support in Harlem for opening more charter schools and having more charter lotteries. The Success Charter Network spent $1.3 million on leaflets, mailings, ads, posters, and paid canvassing of the Harlem neighborhood between 2007 and 2009, just prior to and during the same period in which the documentary was being made. DFER coordinated the political rally. These two organizations share wealthy board members and receive funding from several of the same individuals and foundations, including the Gates, Walton and Broad Foundations. What also is not shown in the documentary is the connection of many of the pro-charter school organizations and individuals working in Harlem to the world of hedge funds. Of seven members of the Board of Directors of DFER, for example, five are hedge fund managers; similarly, the Board of Trustees for the Harlem Children’s Zone and for the Success Charter Network reads like awho’s who of the hedge fund and banking sector (Miner 2011). Further, Walden Media, which helped fund both the movie and the documentary is owned by the Anschutz Family Foundation, which donates large sums to conservative think tanks such as the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, as well as to organizations promoting greater school choice. The steering and enlistment of parents and parent groups illustrated here parallels a simultaneous promotional and funding push to influence politicians and other policy- makers on educational reform. When pro-reform mayors such as Emanuel or Bloomberg are in positions of power then philanthropic funding for educational reform in that city flows in copious amounts. A recent study confirmed that the networking, leveraging and shared goals between foundations advocating for educational reform leads them to target specific schools and school districts with their grants and funding based on this logic. By concentrating their funding on a few sites,

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. The New Washington Consensus they attempt “to achieve greater inﬂuence in these places” (Reckhow 2013:10). These targeted sites are located in districts with mayoral or state control (rather than school board control), thus providing a greater chance for leveraging educational reform through long-term policy change. Millennial philanthropy links these types of local, targeted reform projects with personal parental and student cultivation based on ideas of individual freedom and choice. It provides micro-market solutions to previous educational “failures”, recruiting new market subjects through the language of choice, and providing both “scientiﬁc” data and popular media and cultural persuasion to back up this rhetoric. Parents and students marginalized by race as well as by poverty remain particular targets of this philanthropic project of educational reform—as they have in the US for more than a century (see, for example, Watkins 2001).

Global Health: The World of Bonds and Vaccines When it comes to programs aimed at improving global health, the investments of the Gates Foundation are more varied and extensive than its efforts to expand parental choice in the US. They are global in scope and they stretch from development initiatives focused on the micro-engineering of seeds, sanitation and disaster management tools, to programs focused on child and maternal health, nutrition and tobacco control. They also include efforts to treat, prevent and eradicate infectious diseases, and to support global health agencies and research institutes such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, and the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. Across this remarkable range of work an enduring preoccupation of the Foundation has been the development and distribution of vaccines. Gates’ investment in this area includes challenge grants aimed at incentivizing microbiological research into new vaccines, and efforts to eradicate polio with targeted oral vaccination campaigns. It also helped establish GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations. The manner in which these investments are evaluated and managed in terms of ROI, serve as an emblematic illustration of wider millennial philanthropy tendencies in global health. At least four interrelated characteristics of the vaccination efforts are notable in this regard: ﬁrst, their conceptualization as a form of micro-market making that re- sponds to macro-market failure; second, their attraction as an especially cost-effective and potentially game-changing biotech investment in global health; third, their implementation in ways that use market intermediaries to marginalize state agencies; and fourth, their promise as tools for nurturing new market partners amongst the ranks of the post-colonial poor. Providing vaccines for poor communities represents a response to the widespread problems of non-access created by global market rules and dynamics. Although the foundation does not share the direct action protest tactics of civil society activists such as South Africa’s Treatment Action Campaign there is little doubt that a critique of macro-market failure still underpins the programs to develop and distribute vaccines. Disgusted by the unnecessary deaths due to limited vaccination programs, the philanthropists often echo the same sense of moral outrage articulated by those speaking from and for poor communities

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode themselves. “I remember reading the 1993 World Development Report”, explained Bill Gates in a speech at the UN in 2002. “Every page screamed out that human life was not being as valued in the world at large as it should be. My wife Melinda and I were stunned to learn that 11 million children die every year from preventable causes. That is when we decided to make improving health the focus of our philanthropy” (quoted in Jamison et al. 2013:1903). Program ofﬁcers in the Gates Foundation interpret the problems of devaluation and limited access as forms of macro-market failure, which are nevertheless amenable to market-based responses and strategies. Speaking as Director of Global Health Policy for the Foundation, Joe Cerrell (2007) put it like this:

Every year, millions of people in developing countries die from diseases, including malaria and tuberculosis, that have been all but forgotten in rich countries. For these diseases, the economics of the marketplace are not sufﬁcient to commercially justify the large-scale investment needed to develop and deliver vaccines and drugs. Through global advocacy, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is working to address this market failure by promoting innovative health ﬁnancing mechanisms that provide better incentives to the private sector to create global public goods. The guiding principle is to bring together public agencies and private industry to deal with grossly inadequate health care for the poor resulting from failures of the marketplace.

Market failure in this conceptualization is therefore seen as something that is economically correctable through market incentivized 3P partnerships. Limited access to life-saving medicine is not condemned as a deep structural failure of market capitalism; nor is the role of IP protections for pharmaceutical monopolies acknowledged as a primary cause (and thus another successful failure) explaining limited access in the first place. Economic outcomes of such IP monopolies might be noted in passing, including the perverse incentives they create for drug companies to focus on the diseases and lifestyle needs of the wealthy. But the millennial philanthropy approach quickly moves on to conceptualizing how the vast wealth created by another suite of IP monopolies (those held by Microsoft) can be repurposed into a market-making response to the lack of effective demand presented by the poor. And, unsurprisingly, never is the acknow- ledgement made that investments in vaccine development, however big they may be, will never create a vaccine against poverty, inequality and all the suffering caused globally by structural violence. Once the problem of impoverished access to vaccines and drugs is reconceptualized as a correctable market failure, the brokers of the new 3P partnerships can inaugurate the more technical problem-solving work of funding the most cost-effective development and delivery mechanisms—thereby working towards making real the so-called “tiered pricing” that pharmaceutical companies themselves only otherwise tend to talk about in the abstract ideals of corporate social responsibility statements (Christophers 2014). Here we witness the very direct ways in which the New Washington Consensus is informed by the market logics of investment. The justifications may remain a far cry from the “wealthier is healthier” conceits (see Pritchett and Summers 1996) through which older Washington Consensus believers once defended their market fundamentalist faith, but they nevertheless rely centrally on the importance of making good investments (Laurie 2015). Advertising the cost-effective benefits of health investments

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. The New Washington Consensus is a key characteristic of the emergent consensus in this respect, and as such it repeats but reverses the causal arrow going from wealth to health in order to argue that investing in health is vital to expand opportunities for wealth. “The bottom line”, Bill Gates (2014:15) wrote in bold in an annual public letter, is that “[h]ealth aid is a phenomenal investment”. Investment in developing, purchasing and distributing vaccines specifically has always been seen by the Foundation as one of the most effective investments of all. Vaccines tend to be a one, two or, at most, a three-shot deal. This makes them less attractive investments for corporations, which prefer the long-term patient demand that comes with drugs for chronic illnesses. But when the return on investment is measured in terms of the value of disability adjusted life years saved—and this is precisely how foundations measure cost-effectiveness vis-à-vis health aid— vaccines look like some of the best investments available. Moreover, rather like investments in hi-tech businesses themselves, they have special appeal as disruptive technologies that hold the promise of becoming “game-changers”, which can operate independently of both government and business as usual. Another associated appeal of vaccination programs is their post-political promise as targeted vertical interventions that can enlist market actors. This enlistment occurs even as the programs tend to eschew systematic coordination and collabo- ration with national governments and the maintenance of inclusive national healthcare systems. A good example of this is the work of GAVI, which was originally established with a $750 million grant from the Gates Foundation in 1999. Its International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) develops so-called “vaccine bonds”, which are issued in global financial markets.7 The future funding stream that will pay back the private bond investors comes from money pledged as long-term support for heavily indebted poor countries by a collection of nine donor governments. The money raised by selling the bonds is used to buy vaccines at market rates from pharmaceutical companies. These are then distributed to targeted communities via GAVI’s system of 3P partnerships. As a result of this vaccine bond chain, by the end of 2013 GAVI had disbursed over $2.3 billion to support vaccine purchase and delivery in 70 developing countries. At the same time, however, the decision-making and administration of funds committed by donor countries was completely removed from the control of the impacted countries. These decisions were pre-empted by the bond issuance and vaccine purchase program itself. The money from donor countries is now sent directly to the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines, along with large-scale NGO managers, partners, and enterprising for-profit start-ups (such as vaccine cold chain innovator Intellectual Ventures based in Washington State). While giving these market actors access to new markets, the market mediations effectively pre-empt any moves that might be made by recipient governments to issue compulsory licenses and manufacture or import cheap generics. The way vaccine bonds bypass national governmental control in recipient countries while simultaneously providing an ethical cover for business as usual by pharmaceutical companies is a good example of the broader post-national 3P implications of the new consensus. But more than this, GAVI’s overall approach to scaling up vaccine access and immunizations in poor countries (which involves government

© 2015 The Author. Antipode © 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd. Antipode partnerships as well) also underlines how the work of millennial philanthropy operationalizes a new politics of personalized political-economic enrollment. “Why Invest in Vaccines?” asks the front page of GAVI’s website, with the ensuing explana- tion quickly provided: “Vaccines do far more than protect health; they also protect people’s incomes and savings, and promote economic growth.”8 To make this claim appear evidence based the front page provides an interactive graphic that superim- poses photos of individual people of color across a Google map of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. When the photos are clicked, the essays and big data tell stories of individuals struggling heroically with the help of GAVI to make up for the failings of weak and uneven national vaccination programs. Thus the post-colonial promise of “Health for All” once articulated at Alma Ata in 1978 and doomed by the debt crises of the 1980s returns anew as a post-national and individualized promise of market remediation for new market subjects. “Children who get sick less often do better at school”, explains GAVI in a way that links health to the philanthropic interest in education for a competitive global economy. “Higher achievement at school leads to better employment prospects and the chance to earn more in adult life.”

Conclusion Common concerns raised by contemporary critics of millennial philanthropy emphasize the manner in which a business logic of return on investment often emphasizes high-tech solutions, lacks democratic accountability, and skews development towards the market—all the while distracting attention from the capitalist determinants of failing health and education (Laurie 2015; McCoy et al. 2009; Wiist 2011). Here we have sought to further historicize such concerns by addressing how the philanthropically subsidized supplements to governmental involvement in health and education simultaneously aids in the compensation and enrollment of new market subjects recovering from market failure. One way of summing up this process of compensatory care is to conceptualize it as a new kind of anti-politics machine along the lines that James Ferguson (1990) once described in his critique of the development industry in Africa. But whereas the anti-politics of development that Ferguson highlighted tended to de-politicize questions of resource allocation while assuming a nationally territorialized target of bureaucratic management, the New Washington Consensus replaces the foci of national governance and territory with localized targets of investment. More- over, it is an anti-politics that remains profoundly political vis-à-vis cultivating new forms of personalized responsibility and entrepreneurialism in the process of recognizing human value. This process of political enrollment involves new articu- latory practices as different market subjects continue to be nurtured and connected in the hegemonic but shifting patchworks of 3P partnerships (cf. Morvaridi 2012). Our point about the depoliticizing machinery of the new consensus resonates with the philosophical arguments made by Rancière (2004), vis-à-vis how appeals for consensus close down the possibilities for dissensus in human rights discourse. Responding to Rancière’sconcerns,Žižek (2005) has suggested that counter- demands for preserving arenas for dissensus should make us continually rethink the

“precise space of politicization”. Here we have sought to do so by pointing to the targeted recruitment of post-national market subjects—individuals and populations often enlisted by virtue of their historical and geographical positioning on the margins of economy and society. Investigating how these subjects are targeted via the expertise, cost-effectiveness metrics, and partnership planning of millennial philanthropy we have also sought to repoliticize what has been depoliticized by reframing it in terms of Fraser’s “triple movement”. The precise space of politicization becomes leg- ible vis-à-vis the recruitment of post-colonial and racialized bodies left unsupported after preceding struggles between state and society over the progression and terms of the original consensus on marketization. Ultimately our attempt at repoliticizing philanthropy returns to the homily of all human lives having equal value. Making this idea real was what Marx and Engels described in terms of socialist struggle; it is what Žižek argues must be maintained as the “communist hypothesis”, despite all the devastating contradictions of 20th century communist government. When efforts to honor this sentiment are made by some of the world’s wealthiest, it seems particularly germane to ask about its contradictions and limitations in the contemporary era. In today’s transitional period these limits and contradictions are those of time, space, and market competition. The sites and programs developed by millennial philanthropy are only sustainable as long as there is grant money to fund them. And notwithstanding the mega-wealth of today’s philanthropists and all the Fortune-style fascination with the billionaires involved, the grant money is actually quite limited in relation to the government budgets it presumes to supplant and/or steer. As a result, all the targeted investments in health and education tend to lead to sporadic and spatially selective interventions that remain distinctly exclusionary. Despite the egalitarian appeals, then, the underlying neoliberal premise of enticing locally targeted subjects into new rounds of global competition under- mines the prospects of equitable long-term protections. In short, the New Washington Consensus is creating spaces of short-term protection for some amidst widening systemic crisis and suffering. It is producing an archi- pelago of targeted local interventions in a rising sea of global challenges. Of course, wherever compensatory care occurs we are assured that it is precisely its practical market ties that make the projects sustainable amidst the wider context of market-led globalization; it is also their very market readiness that is supposed to ensure a brighter future for the subjects of millennial philanthropy. Yet, by persistently postponing engagement with the long-term structural violence produced by the old consensus and global capitalism more generally, we believe that the New Washington Consensus is destined to endlessly revisittheruinationoutofwhichithasemerged.

Endnotes 1 See http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-Factsheet (last accessed 2 October 2015). 2 The most highly publicized of these cases are the recent Chicago school closures under the direction of Mayor Rahm Emanuel. 3 For example, nearly 10% of all K-12 children in Michigan now attend a charter school and 80% of these schools are run on a for-proﬁt basis (see Kain 2011). In some cities these ﬁgures are far higher: over 75% of students in New Orleans are now in charter schools, most with little government oversight (see Gabor 2013).

4 From 1999–2000 to 2010–2011 students enrolled in charter schools jumped from 0.3 million to 1.8 million, and the overall percentage of public charter schools increased from 2% to 5% (see National Center for Education Statistics 2015). 5 See http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/wont-back-down-2012 (last accessed 2 October 2015). 6 In addition to Parent Revolution these include the League of Education Voters, StudentsFirst, Stand for Children, Democrats for Education Reform, Better Education for Kids, and many more. 7 See http://www.ifﬁm.org/about/overview/ (last accessed 2 October 2015). 8 See http://www.gavi.org/about/why-invest-in-vaccines/ (last accessed 2 October 2015).

References Amable B (2011) Morals and politics in the ideology of neoliberalism. Socio-Economic Review 9:3–30 Atia M (2013) Building a House in Heaven: Pious Neoliberalism and Islamic Charity in Egypt. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Azzam A (2007) Why students drop out. Educational Leadership 64(7):91–93 Barkan J (2011) Got dough? How billionaires rule our schools. Dissent 58(1):49–57 Berman E (1984) The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy. Albany: SUNY Press Bishop M and Green M (2008) Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World. New York: Bloomsbury Bono (2013) “The Good News on Poverty (Yes, There’s Good News).” Presentation to TED2013, February. http://www.ted.com/talks/bono_the_good_news_on_poverty_yes_ there_s_good_news?language=en (last accessed 7 November 2014) Brill S (2011) Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools. New York: Simon & Schuster Buffett P (2013) The charitable-industrial complex. New York Times 27 July Butler J (2006) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso Carnegie A (1962) The Gospel of Wealth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Carnoy M (1974) Education as Cultural Imperialism. New York: David McKay Carr B, Gates M F, Mitchell A and Shah R (2012) Giving the world’s poorest women the power to plan their families. The Lancet 14 July Cerrell J (2007) Making markets work. Finance and Development: A Quarterly Magazine of the IMF 44(4). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/12/view.htm (last accessed 5 October 2015) Christophers B (2014) The territorial fix: Price, power, and profit in the geographies of markets. Progress in Human Geography 38(6):754–770 Cornia G, Jolly R and Stewart F (1987) Adjustment with a Human Face: Protecting the Vulnerable and Promoting Growth. New York: Clarendon Press Cruickshank B (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Dardot P and Laval C (2013) The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. New York: Verso Duffield M (2010) The liberal way of development and the development-security impasse: Exploring the global life-chance divide. Security Dialogue 41:53–76 Essex J (2013) Development Security and Aid: Geopolitics and Geoeconomics at the US Agency for International Development. Athens: University of Georgia Press Fassin D (2011) Humanitarian Reason. Berkeley: University of California Press Ferguson J (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development”, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Fort M, Mercer M and Gish O (2004) Sickness and Wealth: The Corporate Assault on Global Health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Foucault M (1988) Technologies of the self. In L H Martin, H Gutman and P H Hutton (eds) Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault (pp 16–49). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press Foucault M (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Fraser N (2013) A triple movement? Parsing the politics of crisis after Polanyi. New Left Review 81:119–132 Gabor A (2013) The great charter tryout. Newsweek 20 September Gallagher K S and Bailey J D (2000) The politics of teacher education reform: Strategic philanthropy and public policy making. Educational Policy 14(1):11–24 Garrett L (2007) The challenge of global health. Foreign Affairs 86(1):14–38 Gates B (2014) “Three Myths that Block Progress for the Poor.” 2014 Gates Annual Letter, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources- and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014 (last accessed 5 October 2015) Giroux H (2011) Education and the Crisis of Public Values: Challenging the Attack on Teachers, Students, and Public Education. New York: Peter Lang Giroux H and Saltman K (2009) Obama’s betrayal of public education? Arne Duncan and the corporate model of schooling. Cultural Studies-Critical Methodologies 9(6):772–779 Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Hay I and Muller S (2014) Questioning generosity in the golden age of philanthropy: Towards critical geographies of super-philanthropy. Progress in Human Geography 38(5): 635–653 Jamison D T, Summers L H, Alleyne G, Arrow K J, Berkley S, Binagwaho A, Bustreo F, Evans D, Feachem R G A, Frenk J, Ghosh G, Goldie S J, Guo Y, Gupta S, Horton R, Kruk M E, Mahmoud A, Mohohlo L K, Ncube M, Pablos-Mendez A, Reddy K S, Saxenian H, Soucat A, Ulltveit-Moe K H and Yamey G (2013) Global health 2035: A world converging within a generation. The Lancet 3 December. http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/global- health-2035 (last accessed 5 October 2015) Kain E (2011) 80% of Michigan charter schools are for-profits. Forbes 29 September. http:// www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/29/80-of-michigan-charter-schools-are-for-profits/ (last accessed 5 October 2015) Kapoor I (2013) Celebrity Humanitarianism: The Ideology of Global Charity. London: Routledge Keshavjee S (2014) Blind Spot: How Neoliberalism Infiltrated Global Health. Berkeley: University of California Press Kim J Y, Millen J V, Irwin A and Gershman J (eds) (2000) Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor. Monroe: Common Courage Press Kiviat B and Gates B (2008) Making capitalism more creative. Time Magazine 31 July Klein N (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Penguin Kovacs P (2011) The Gates Foundation and the Future of US “Public” Schools. New York: Routledge Kozol J (1991) Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Random House Kozol J (2005) The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York: Random House Ladd H (2012) Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31(2):203–227 Lagemann E C (1989) The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Larner W (2000) Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Econ- omy 63:5–25 Laurie E W (2015) Who lives, who dies, who cares? Valuing life through the disability-adjusted life year measurement. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 40(1):75–87 Leitner H, Peck J and Sheppard E S (eds) (2007) Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. New York: Guilford Press Li T (2007) The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham: Duke University Press Lipman P (2011) The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City. New York: Routledge Lipman P (2015a) Urban education policy under Obama. Journal of Urban Affairs 37(1):57–61 Lipman P (2015b) Capitalizing on crisis: Venture philanthropy’s colonial project to remake urban education. Critical Studies in Education 56(2):241–258 Lipman P and Haines N (2007) From accountability to privatization and African American exclusion: Chicago’s “Renaissance 2010”. Educational Policy 21(3):471–502

Locke J (1988 [1689]) Two Treatises of Government. In Laslett P (ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Macpherson C B (2011) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press Martin R (2002) Financialization of Daily Life. Philadelphia: Temple University Press Marx K and Engels F (2004 [1848]) The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin McCoy D, Kembhavi G, Patel J and Luintel A (2009) The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s grant-making programme for global health. The Lancet 9 May McGuinn P (2012) Fight club: Are advocacy organizations changing the politics of education? Education Next 12(3). http://educationnext.org/files/ednext_20123_mcguinn_full.pdf (last accessed 5 October 2015) McGuinn P and Kelly A P (2012) “Parent Power: Grass-Roots Activism and K-12 Education Re- form.” American Enterprise Institute, July. https://www.aei.org/publication/parent-power- grass-roots-activism-and-k-12-education-reform/ (last accessed 5 October 2015) Milligan K and Schöning M (2011) Taking a realistic approach to impact investing: Observa- tions from the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Social Innovation. In- novations 6(3):155–166 Miner B (2011) Supersized dollars drive “waiting for Superman” agenda. Common Dreams 18 January. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2011/01/18/supersized-dollars- drive-waiting-superman-agenda (last accessed 5 October 2015) Mirowski P and Plehwe D (2009) The Road From Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Mitchell K (2004) Crossing the Neoliberal Line: Pacific Rim Migration and the Metropolis. Phila- delphia: Temple University Press Mitchell K and Lizotte C (2014) The grassroots and the gift: Moral authority, American philanthropy, and activism in education. Foucault Studies 18:66–89 Mitchell K and Lizotte C (2016) Governing through failure: Neoliberalism, philanthropy, and education reform in Seattle. In M Brady and R Lippert (eds) Neoliberal Governmentalities and the Ethnographic Imaginary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Morvaridi B (2012) Capitalist philanthropy and hegemonic partnerships. Third World Quar- terly 33(7):1191–1210 Nadesan M (2008) Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life. London: Routledge Naím M (2000) Fads and fashions in economic reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington confusion? Third World Quarterly 21(3):505–528 National Center for Education Statistics (2015) “Fast Facts–Charter schools.” Institute of Ed- ucation Sciences, US Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp? id=30 (last accessed 5 October 2015) Navarro V (2002) The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life. Amityville: Baywood Navarro V (2007) Neoliberalism, Globalization, and Inequalities. Amityville: Baywood Navarro V and Muntaner C (eds) (2004) Political and economic determinants of population health and well-being: Controversies and developments.AmityvilleNewYork:BaywoodPublishingCompany Ni Y (2009) The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review 28(5):571–584 O’Connor A (2001) Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in 20th Century US History. Princeton: Princeton University Press Omidyar Network (2014) “Who We Are.” https://www.omidyar.com/who-we-are (last accessed 5 October 2015) O’Neil E (2006) Awakening Hippocrates: A Primer on Health, Poverty, and Global Service. Washington DC: American Medical Association Press Parmar I (2012) Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foun- dations in the Rise of American Power. New York: Columbia University Press Parsons C (2011) President Obama enlists high-powered help in education push. Los Angeles Times 9 March Peck J (2010) Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Peck J and Theodore N (2012) Reanimating neoliberalism: Process geographies of neoliberalisation. Social Anthropology 20(2):177–185 Peck J, Theodore N and Brenner N (2012) Neoliberalism resurgent? Market rule after the Great Recession. South Atlantic Quarterly 111(2):265–288 Polanyi K (2001 [1944]) The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Popkewitz T S (2008) Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform: Science, Education, and Making Society by Making the Child. New York: Routledge Pritchett L and Summers L (1996) Wealthier is healthier. Journal of Human Resources 31(4): 841–868 Rancière J (2004) Who is the subject of the rights of man? South Atlantic Quarterly 103(2): 297–310 Rankin K (2001) Governing development: Neoliberalism, microcredit, and rational economic woman. Economy and Society 30(1):18–37 Ravitch D (2010) The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. New York: Basic Books Ravitch D (2013) Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. New York: Knopf Reckhow S (2013) Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics. New York: Oxford University Press Reid-Henry S (2014) Humanitarianism as liberal diagnostic: Humanitarian reason and the political rationalities of the liberal will-to-care. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39(3):418–431 Roberts S (2014) Development capital: USAID and the rise of development contractors. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(5):1030–1051 Rose N (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Rothstein R (2004) Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap. New York: Economic Policy Institute Rowden R (2009) The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS. London: Zed Roy A (2010) Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development. London: Routledge Roy A (2012) Subjects of risk: Technologies of gender in the making of millennial modernity. Public Culture 24(1):131–155 Sachs J (2005) The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Saltman K (2010) The Gift of Education: Public Education and Venture Philanthropy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Schumpeter (2013) The Omidyar way of giving. The Economist 26 October Scott J (2009) The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy 23(1):106–136 Sparke M (2006) Political geographies of globalization II: Governance. Progress in Human Geography 30(3):357–372 Sparke M (2011) Global geographies. In M Brown and R Morrill (eds) Seattle Geographies (pp 48–70). Seattle: University of Washington Press Sparke M (2013) Introducing Globalization: Ties, Tensions, and Uneven Integration. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Stiglitz J (2002) Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton Tabb W K (2004) Economic Governance in the Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press Verstegen D (1990) Education fiscal policy in the Reagan administration. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(4):355–373 Watkins W H (2001) The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power in America, 1865–1954. New York: Teachers’ College Press Wells A, Slayton J and Scott J (2002) Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter school reform and educational consumption. American Educational Research Journal 39(2):237–361 Wiist B (2011) Philanthropic foundations and the public health agenda. Alliance Magazine September

Williamson J (1990) What Washington means by policy reform. In J Williamson (ed) Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? (pp 28–51). Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics Williamson J (2003) Our agenda and the Washington Consensus. In P-P Kuczynski and J Williamson (eds) After the Washington Consensus: Restarting Growth and Reform in Latin America (pp 323–329). Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (eds) (2014) The Post-Political and Its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press World Bank (2007) Healthy Development: The World Bank Strategy for Health, Nutrition, and Population Results. Washington, DC: World Bank World Health Organization (2003) Investing in Health: A Summary of the Findings of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Healthy Geneva: World Health Organization Young S (2010) Gender, mobility, and the ﬁnancialization of development. Geopolitics 15:1–22 Žižek S (2005) Against human rights. New Left Review 34:115–131 Zunz O (2011) Philanthropy in America: A History. Princeton: Princeton University Press