As I write this a year into a credit crunch that is rapidly turning into a global financial crisis, Michael Edwards' jeremiad about the pitfalls of imposing a rigid business model on civil society organizations would seem to underscore the dangers of the super-charged capitalism that has ruled for the better part of this decade. If asked, Edwards might even say it's high time we moved to a new socioeconomic model, one that values constituent participation and engagement with other institutions, qualities that Edwards observes in the best nonprofit groups. A model, furthermore, with a vision of a society that puts social and cultural interests first and assigns an economic framework to support those interests.

Edwards, who heads up the Ford Foundation's unit on governance and civil society, asserts that many nonprofits are guided by just such a vision, a desire to change "systems and structures, institutions and relationships, and norms and values, so that everyone can participate fully in the benefits of social, economic and political life — and care for themselves, each other and the planet in the process."

Civil society, says Edwards, has played a special role in America as caregiver, facilitator, and educator, whether augmenting public-sector programs, creating pilot projects for government to later adopt and expand, or organizing a range of other activities (e.g., recreation, arts, and culture) that enrich community life. But most important to Edwards is the role of civil society as advocate: he mentions churches, community organizations, and larger nonprofits that have brought about essential changes in laws and public policies benefiting minorities, low-income communities, and the environment. And in so doing, he stresses how important it is for civil society — including foundations — to focus on "social change" activities.

That is not an easy undertaking, as Edwards acknowledges. Most nonprofits struggle to secure adequate funding and human capital. Many lack capacity in key areas such as administration, planning, and evaluation. And, he admits, not all tax-exempt organizations are interested in social change: civil society includes "all sorts and shades of community groups, issue- and identity-based associations, labor unions, religious groups, community organizations and philanthropic foundations." He further notes that in the foundation world "a meager 5.4 percent of philanthropic resources in the United States are spent on activities defined as 'public and societal benefit,' as opposed to religion, opera and the like, a figure that rises to 7 percent for money that is channeled to 'communities of color' and 11 percent for 'social justice grant making' by U.S. foundations."

But the biggest threat to social change groups — indeed, to the nonprofit sector in general — says Edwards, can be found, ironically, in a new approach to philanthropy that's gaining traction within the sector itself. Dubbed "philanthrocapitalism," the approach aggressively promotes the application of norms and methods drawn from the private sector to the solving of social problems. As Edwards describes it, the philanthrocapitalist movement has its roots in the staggering wealth created by new computer and communications technologies, new financial products and mechanisms, and the global entertainment industry. And its motivating principle, in his view, is its proponents' belief that "business thinking and market methods will save the world — and make some of us a fortune along the way."

Indeed, he suspects that philanthrocapitalists even have a sort of mantra, which goes something like: "If only we can make foundations and non-profits operate like businesses and expand the reach of markets, great things will be within our reach, much greater than all the traditional activities of civil society combined." In other words, if programs to alleviate poverty and eradicate disease are to be truly effective, they must measure success in financial terms. Or, as Oracle founder Larry Ellison, puts it, "The profit motive could be the best tool for solving the world's problems."

As it happens, big money and big donations invariably attract big media coverage and a bully pulpit from which to opine. And philanthrocapitalists — Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Bill Clinton, among them — relish the opportunity to opine. While Edwards doesn't have a problem with that per se, he is troubled by two consequences of the growing popularity of philanthrocapitalism and the attention it increasingly commands. First, philanthrocapitalists tend to operate outside the traditional philanthropic mainstream and are relatively quick to dismiss its history and achievements and eschew collaboration. And second, the glorification of a for-profit business approach to solving social issues has influenced the larger philanthropic sector to the point where the elements of the approach are increasingly applied to grantees.

"One clear subtext [of the philanthrocapitalist movement]," writes Edwards, "is disappointment with the achievements of groups in civil society, which are criticized as 'amateur' and 'riddled with inefficiencies,' always in contrast to the operations of business. There is also a tendency to make a fetish out of certain kinds of 'innovation' that privilege business thinking, rather than looking at the impact that civil society makes on its own terms."

So what happens to civil society when it embraces private sector processes and priorities? This is the question that most concerns Edwards. And his answer is unsettling. Indeed, he suggests that philanthrocapitalism has been a major driver of some disturbing trends in the nonprofit sector, including "the dilution of 'other-directed' behavior by competition and financial incentives," an emphasis on service provision rather than reform, a loss of independence, decreased support for advocacy groups, and declining levels of constituent participation.

Edwards proposes a public debate, presumably among various actors in the sector, including philanthrocapitalists, leaders from private and community foundations and corporate giving programs, as well as from community groups and larger nonprofits in order to "move forward together." Such a debate, he writes, would assess the different approaches to philanthropy and examine not only the symptoms but the causes of poverty, an understanding that would take into account the historical context and would "inform the huge expansion of philanthropy that is projected over the next forty years."

The topic that Edwards addresses is important and timely and his passion is evident throughout this small book. Moreover, he's clear about his own personal vision: he wants to "change society forever" through "systemic change...of how property is owned and controlled and how resources and opportunities are distributed throughout society." He longs for "social transformation," which, he suggests (but does not define as such) is the resolution of "entrenched social problems." And he's clear that civil society — at least the part that advocates for such a transformation — is the vehicle to that end. Protecting the integrity of groups working toward that end, respecting their autonomy, valuing what they have and can continue to contribute, supporting them financially and morally: that is Edwards' mission.

Unfortunately, Just Another Emperor does not do adequate service to either the topic or the passion. At times it feels like it was dashed off, and although Edwards' expertise (supported by extensive footnotes) shines through, the material is repetitive and somewhat disorganized and key concepts are not adequately explained. Most distracting, some of the terms and arguments are too fluid for the reader to pin down and the focus of the book seems to blur at times.

For example, does Edwards consider philanthrocapitalism to be a subset of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) wing of philanthropy? It seems not, as CSR has a strong commitment and track record of support for civil society (albeit not so much for groups that advocate for social change). Both approaches are associated with the private sector, however, and that link precipitates an interesting but distracting discussion by Edwards of the various approaches to social problems that involve a business component — from social enterprises to microcredit to the "One Laptop Per Child" movement. Distracting, because Edwards seems to be attributing the weaknesses of philanthocapitalism to CSR. And confusing because Edwards obviously admires some CSR initiatives. Fleshing that out could serve as a starting point for the conversation Edwards wants.