He goes on to make two serious points, neither of which really stand up. First, he dislikes us describing former politicians Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as “philanthrocapitalists”. Schwartz says he has no time for politicians in general, whilst blaming economic policies pursued enthusiastically by Clinton and Blair for the current mess. Well, maybe. But post-government, both Clinton and Blair have enthusiastically embraced philanthropy of the impact-oriented variety we champion in the book. Strictly speaking, as neither is a rich man, both Blair and Clinton are “celanthropists”, celebrity philanthropists, whose primary contribution comes from their brand and convening power: people take their calls. It is too soon to know whether Blair will prove a talented philanthrocapitalist, though there is no obvious reason why not, but as we document in the book, Clinton has undoubtedly been effective.

Second, Schwartz objects to the importance we give “leverage” – the idea that philanthrocapitalists need to achieve extra impact by using their relatively small sums of money to enlist partners who are far better funded. Schwartz complains that we focus only on leveraging government budgets. In fact, we see opportunities to leverage corporate and non-profit budgets, too. Besides, curiously, Schwartz is actually a big fan of the vigorous support for social investment provided by the British Labour government which, lest we forget, was headed for 10 years by Schwartz’s bogeyman Blair. Go figure.

Odder still, Schwartz says we have written a “very good book” – which is not surprising, as he is a card carrying philanthrocapitalist, who invests in for-profit social businesses, with a goal of doing well by doing good.

Friendly fire may also be the best description of recent criticism we have received from Phil Buchanan of the Center for Effective Philanthropy. We wrote an enthusiastic chapter about the contribution made in the for-profit world by intermediaries and professional advisors, and described some of the philanthropic intermediaries and advisors which we hope can play a similar role in the business of giving. Although we noted that none of these for-profit intermediaries and advisors, which include management consultants, money managers and investment banks, are perfect, and that they work best where they promote transparency and accountability, in a recent article Phil decided to dismiss this chapter as “Lehman Brothers to the rescue”.

As a schoolboy debating point, we grant that this is an excellent line. As a serious response to our argument, however, it is sadly lacking. We set out a long list of philanthrocapitalistic intermediaries and advisors, ranging from New Philanthropy Capital to McKinsey and Bridgespan, to Buchanan’s own Center for Effective Philanthropy. What does Buchanan think of these institutions, and the role they play? Does he think they improve the effectiveness of the philanthropic and non-profit world? It would be interesting to know.

Instead, Buchanan complains mystifyingly about “organizations that would not agree with the authors’ characterization of them as ‘philanthrocapitalist.’ I should know: the Center for Effective Philanthropy is one of them.” The Center for Effective Philanthropy is as clear an example of a philanthrocapitalistic intermediary as we can find: its goal is to improve the effectiveness of philanthropy by gathering information from those receiving grants from philanthropists, and relaying that information back to the philanthropists so they can improve their performance.

Curiously, Buchanan continues by quoting – presumably against us – Warren Buffett, saying that “In business, you look for the easy things to do. In philanthropy, you take on important problems, and it is a tougher game.” We feature this quote in the book, and devote a large part of the book to exploring why solving society’s big problems is a tougher game than business, and how to win that game.

He also quotes – again, seemingly with the goal of dismissing our arguments – Jim Collins, the management guru author of “Good to Great”, who has written about the dangers of simplistically importing business thinking into the non-profit sector. We agree: our argument is about the need to apply sophisticated business thinking, and we write at length about the dangers of business people entering the non-profit sector arrogantly and without proper understanding of the complexities of the problems they are addressing.

Buchanan may have missed all this, but Collins did not: he actually endorsed our book, which he described as “Important. Well-written. Timely. Here in this wonderful book, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green shine a light on sparkling examples of effective philanthropy, and how some of the most accomplished people are trying to solve the world’s most intractable problems. A superb portrait of a vital new force shaping the world today, Philanthrocapitalism deserves to be widely read.” Modesty prevents us from saying whether Collins is right – but he is certainly not against us.

If that is not too much Matthew for you, why not listen to a recent interview (click here, and again on the icon just after January 3rd) he gave to The Economist, or read his recent article in the new Evelyn Waugh-inspired web newspaper, The Daily Beast? As these both focus on the need for philanthrocapitalism to be even more effective during tough economic times, they are ideal preparation for Sunday’s conversation. See you there!

Former President Bill Clinton’s foundation has negotiated with pharmaceutical companies much lower prices for anti-retroviral drugs for people with HIV/Aids in poor countries, which is one reason why we are glad he will be allowed to continue his philanthropy now his wife is to be America’s Secretary of State. President Clinton has also worked closely with another foundation that we profile in the book, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, created by Chris and Jamie Cooper-Hohn, to make available affordable anti-retrovirals for children with HIV/Aids in poor countries.

Matthew recently interviewed Peter Piot, who is stepping down after a long and impressive stint as executive director of the United Nations program to fight Aids. (The new executive director of UNAIDS will be Michel Sidibe.) Piot, who is expected to join a think-tank in London focused on global public health, said that for the first time, this year he has seen real signs of progress. Reflecting on what has been done right, he pointed to effective global leadership, and the development of a treatment in high-income countries that generated belief that something could be done in developing countries, too.

Piot praised as “fundamental” the contribution made by philanthrocapitalists to the fight against HIV/Aids. What they have brought is a combination of a willingness to fund risky “crazy ideas” that governments would not touch, and access to at-risk people in areas where it is hard for government to get – such as workplaces – and with a credibility that government struggles to muster – such as educating young people about safe sexual behaviour through MTV. There is a need to become even more professional in changing behaviour through a businesslike approach to marketing and branding, he says. The lessons for fighting other diseases? “Don’t leave it to governments. You need a coalition, a brilliant coalition, that will use the best skills of business and non-governmental organisations and community groups, as well as governments, of course, and, secondly, a strong emphasis on results and facts, which not only is good for mobilising constituencies but also gives you accountability.”

As it is, the former President is reportedly agreeing to make his philanthropic activities fully transparent, something Matthew advocated in a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle. He will no longer be able to accept donations from foreign governments, which seems prudent. And he will also have to give up his day to day management of the Clinton Global Initiative – no bad thing if the result is more orderly management (and it could hardly be more chaotic than now) – and to abandon his attempt to turn his so-called “Philanthropy Oscars” into a global franchise. That will be disappointing for Mr Clinton, who has so far only organised one CGI meeting outside America, this week in Hong Kong. Yet it should not stop the annual meeting of the CGI in New York each September playing its role as a high-level marketplace bringing together smart ideas and philanthrocapitalistic money.

It will, however, leave a gap in the market for others to create similar philanthropic gatherings in other parts of the world – including, perhaps, other former political leaders looking for a useful new role after leaving office. Tony Blair, for one, has talked of trying to promote a philanthropic culture in Europe – so watch out for the Blair Global Initiative…

It seems certain that, thanks to the financial crisis, a theme of the next few years will be bigger government. The question is, will it be better government? In recent years, some of the brightest ideas for improving government have come from philanthropists and social entrepreneurs. President Obama will have a chance to bring them inside his government, for their ideas and as risk capital providers.

But the greatest opportunity for Obama may be in foreign policy. The only popular initiatives overseas by the Bush administration were driven by philanthropists, such as the PEPFAR initiative on HIV/Aids and the establishment of the Millennium Challenge Commission. The relationship between the administration and philanthropists was largely accidental and uncoordinated. Obama should consider giving those philanthropists with a focus on doing good overseas, such as Bill Gates and, yes, Bill Clinton, a more planned role in his foreign policy soft power strategy, perhaps through establishing some sort of philanthropy advisory group. There is little risk, and plenty of potential upside.

You can also watch Matthew’s discussion with Bill Clinton at the 92nd Street Y on Youtube .

First of all, consumers have already had a huge influence on corporations.  Smart CEOs who believe that their companies can do well by doing good are often responding to the demands of their customers and shareholders – companies offer ethical, environmentally-friendly products because we demand them.  Initiatives like the ‘Red’ product range launched by Bono are a way of tapping into that consumer demand by giving tangible impact from our purchasing choices – in this case, the knowledge that by choosing ’Red’ the customer is making a donation to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

In the chapter on philanthropic intermediaries, we describe how organisations like New Philanthropy Capital provide analysis of the effectiveness charities working in particular sectors.  NPC make their reports publicly available, which small as well as large donors can use to give to charities with proven impact.  The Clinton Global Initiative meetings may be dominated by captains of industry and heads of state, but Clinton has also launched www.mycommitment.org for anyone to make a pledge to do something for a better world.  We also talk about organisations like www.kiva.org that are allowing donors to connect directly to the beneficiaries of their giving or, in this case, microlending.

Finally, we just had a headsup that Tom Watson of www.onphilanthropy.com has a new book coming out in November called Causewired  that “reveals how online social networks can leverage their membership and take advantage of their platform to democratize activism, change the political climate, and raise consciousness for local and global causes”.

President Clinton was on fine form in a discussion that ranged across the economy and the presidential race, as well as philanthropy. In response to Matthew’s question about how the next incumbent of the White House should think about philanthropy, Clinton called for joined-up thinking in foreign policy, bringing together the official US Agency for International Development, philanthropists and corporations into a single strategy with an appropriate division of labour.

Clinton also made a rallying call to the super-rich to step up to the plate with their giving – the economic climate means that the need for philanthropy is even more urgent. He added that his philanthropy is the “most fun that I’ve ever had”, which caused some amusement to the New York Daily News.

Chambers talked about the way that Cisco’s investments a decade ago in what they saw as risky markets, such has Jordan, had been inspired by the company’s sense of global social responsibility, but these have proved some of their most successful deals and have moved to the core of their business. This is a perfect illustration of the way that philanthrocapitalist CEOs are now looking at corporate social responsibility – it’s a core part of their business, not an add-on, and, while the desire to do good is the inspiration, they see this as a way to maximise profits in the long term.

Audio: Bill Clinton at Clinton Global Initative

It was a particular pleasure that we were joined by one of the world’s leading business writers – Jim Collins of “Good to Great” fame – and one of the world’s great philosophers, Peter Singer. His seminal article for the New York Times Magazine in 2006 exploring the moral arguments for philanthropy is a lucid and compelling argument for generosity (not just by the super-rich), which we explore in the book when we ask “what does it take to be a good billionaire?”

One piece of philanthropy news – Jamie Drummond, who runs Bono’s organisation to argue for debt relief for poor countries and more aid, told us that they are changing their name from DATA to One. It is no surprise that an organisation led by “celanthropists” – celebrity philanthropists – is rebranding itself to remain cool.