It would be good to see an angle that discusses civic responsibility or a clearer idea of social justice. I’m not sure if “challenging the status quo” is a useful term as it evidently means a lot of things to a lot of people. Banks and industry have an important role to play and public discourse has tended to revolve around undirected anger at both the people and the firms, which must be treated as separate entities in terms of their choices and capabilities.

I’d be interested to see two things as parts of the work you’re doing, first to see a campaign that highlights the necessary work of banks and what society would be without them and second the positives of the financial sector as a wealth generating and lifestyle sustaining tool. My concern is that under a barrage of abuse directed at bankers in place of banks these sectors will not be likely to embrace change – mostly because it seems unclear what exactly would fix the problem and they shouldn’t just make changes for the sake of changes. Though I don’t question the need for changes I’m highly sceptical of where we’ve gotten to and that this debate doesn’t seem to have progressed since 2008.

I would like to see Oxfam work towards influencing a better state of social discourse and making these questions accessible to the public. There seems to be an underlying general idea that the world could be in a good state without banks as parts of markets or that their form should be change entirely. Social democracy that utilises markets has brought the world a long way (I know I’m over-simplifying in that statement) and all the talk of radical changes and status quo changes from the media is unwieldy and undirected. Perhaps it is both dangerous and wasteful of the energy the crisis has generated.

I’d like to see conversations that revolve around banks direct influences on our lives and how that affects our access to primary goods and opportunities.

In terms of discourse, I wonder if the question, “is a pro-poor financial sector a distant dream?” is the right one to be asking. Could it be better to reverse it and ask how do we make pro-wealth industries see investment in poorer areas as a gain? (The caveat to this is that they do see the benefit and it’s called land-grabs.) There’s point here is that surely industries which are driven to maximise short-term profit by shareholders (i.e. there’s little active control over corporate conscience) are bound to head down these routes and the best method to control or restrain them is through legislation that prohibits behaviour. Here lies the role of public discourse and the need for information – Oxfam is effective but I wonder how much it can do by itself?

Congratulations for the first 100 days and wishing you many many more successful, challenging days in future.

I want to quickly highlight that you and Rob are not alone in this and you would find many voices, including from regions and countries where Oxfam works who identify with the need to prioritize the issues of financial inclusion and responsible investments.

Emerging economies, middle income countries and developing economies (such as in Asia) are fast becoming the spaces where financial system messes(and sometimes elevates)the lives of women and men who face high level of vulnerability. we need to do a whole lot more in enhancing the positives and mitigating the negatives of the financial systems. In order to do that, a multi pronged approach of
-better national-regional regulations, (Oxfam already has good engagements with policy makers in most of the countries)
-more responsible and transparent banks, beyond CSR and beyond only private sector banks to massive public sector banks,
-demonstrating and fostering innovative responsible investment mechanisms and
-active citizenship to hold all of the above to account is required.

From Asia we look forward to ensuring that better return in better world becomes a rallying point for Oxfam to tackle the roots of power inequality exerted by the financial world.

Thanks for the clarification on the JP Morgan Graduate program and I’m glad to hear my speculations about the program were wrong.

I heard about GABV through a socially responsible microbusiness owner’s blog post on local, ethical banking. I’d interviewed the business owner for a book project on socially responsible micro-businesses. I’m more than happy to follow up on either discussion (GABV or socially responsible microbusinesses) through email, so will drop you a line.

Very interesting piece! I think it’s definitely a laudable goal to be aiming to work with the City, and you may well get somewhere – you probably have a better idea than I do of how possible this is.

Organisations like http://www.moveyourmoney.org.uk have a philosophy which basically states that the big players in finance will not fundamentally change, and that there is more mileage in supporting alternative institutions with more ethical business models. It’s interesting to bear this in mind; perhaps your work could also engage, or relate to, in some way, these alternative institutions?

This is a hugely important job that you’re undertaking as the City of London (a non-democratic separate jurisdiction within the UK). If we are to change the status quo, which I wholeheartedly believe we should, it means convincing the City of London actors, and other financial centres to give up some of their privileges that they won with financial deregulation from the 1980s onwards, and reregulae finance to serve wider objectives of society (reduce tax evasion and avoidance, end offshore secrecy, provide credit for households, business, investments and trade, safeguard assets, reduce transaction costs etc.). We’d almost need to first outline what we mean by good finance, or what is the social value of finance, before engaging in changeing it. Otherwise we might end up just being responsive to existing issues, and not take upon some radical reforms.

Just a few comments on the points also:

1. the “City” is of course the Square Mile, but it’s also the web of over 20 or so British tax haven territories dotted across the world, and even further 50 non-British tax havens. So I’d include an analysis of this into your mapping exercise. Why not a trip to Jersey, Isle of Man, or Luxembourg and Switzerland, an talk with their financial services regulators and banker community? I know this might increase the scope of your mapping, but worth thinking.
2. As with other advocacy work, internal pressure is most effective when the affected constituencies who have lost as a result of the financial crisis and mismanagement are also brought to the table. Think of the HIV/AIDS campaign, the drug companies started listening once the attention shifted to those suffering from the pandemic. So talking to some of the affected or critical constituencies (like Occupy, but many other “finance activists” also from microfinance to ethical finance), experts outside the city would complement the knowledge you gain by talking to those currently working in finance.
3. Educating the City is also a clear objective. I think of the risk premiums that bonds from African countries in particular have, and wonder what information they build into such premiums, and how credit rating agencies work in developing countries. Here we can educate some of the bankers, and link up local investment funds in developing countries (e.g. Fidelity and Databank in Ghana are knowledgeable) to how they assess risk locally. Linking up north and south in this way would be useful.

Financial markets also link to other campaigns and Oxfam goals. One example is how in Brazil, child benefits under the Bolsa Familia for the poorest, have created also a credit market (as future benefits can be used as collateral).

However a word of caution. We need to be careful, as badly designed finance can obviously increase poverty (as we know about unregulated credit cards or mortgage markets can be harmful). I’m sure these issues can be tackled.

Great to see you engaged, and looking forward to being part of changing the status quo.

Back to the real issues “pro-poor bankers”. It’s like pro-poor tourism (is there an against poor tourism). It all goes back to knowledge. Are the banks at fault or is it more the people that use the banks that are least/less informed about what their money does? or doesn’t do.

I think one of the best example is the US Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Banks have to disclose data and get graded on what they do or don’t do. I had the opportunity to work with bankers during our banking reform in Canada (1998)…for better banking legislation. Banks do exactly what they are created for (shareholders value). People that have managed to change some of the banks directions (or increased CSR investment). Which brings out another question…should banks engage in CSR activities? I personally think that they shouldn’t but that deserves a long explanation.

There are tools out there but banks are not structured to be social agents unless it’s profitable.

Would this quote from Einstein actually serve as a good place to start “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

We are currently working on a very innovative way to look at financial tools that could actually generate a new way to look at global financial flows. It would be great to exchange with your reformed banker about this ambitious project that might change the way we look at financial flows and development.

luc.lapointe@gntp.org
Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia)

It’s a real shame that Oxfam chooses to marginalise such a potent, earnest force and I think Oxfam do this precisely because Occupy is a threat to the status quo of which Oxfam is a paid up member.

If Oxfam were so good at creating the solutions, why have they proved so utterly ineffective at the meso and macro level? Isn’t it time you accepted that REAL challenge to the status quo is the only way forward, even if (as your original mandate suggested) that would make you reducndant?

I’m glad you accept my point about the absence of any mention of Occupy in your post – maybe you could give them the credit and attention they deserve in your next post? It would be great to hear someone at Oxfam acknowledging their existence (I don’t work for or with them by the way).

I really think there is a clear contradiction between your stated intentions of “creating space for progressive bankers” and “challenging the status quo”. You and others at Oxfam appear deperate to appear everything to everyone (radical and safe). Can I please ask that you consider this point, consider the extent to which Oxfam supports and benefits from the status quo and finally consider how Oxfam can practically justify the radical / status quo challenging label it frequently gives itself?

We’re really looking forward to hearing from you.