>Particularly in the developing world, people would benefit from for-profit organizations that are responsive to their needs as opposed to non-profits who work for rich donors and mindless governments.
If there was profit to be made there would an business filling that need.
A foodbank in Detroit or non profit school in Ethiopia for girls are there because business and the like aren't.
The definition of "undeveloped" is that institutions haven't been developed to meet a need.
People an an "undeveloped" area are going to have a bad year now and then when Oxfam will come and tell everyone what an important thing they are doing.
If an area becomes "developed" then for-profit businesses have been created to fulfill people's needs and they don't need Oxfam.
If the rich tip the scales so that all the money ends up in their pockets, they give a little bit to Oxfam. In a fair system, people would create the institutions that they need and we wouldn't need Oxfam.
See
https://newint.org/features/2005/10/01/keynote/
we might be better off if Oxfam's domain name was sold off to somebody else.
People who liked that "phenomenon of bullshit jobs" essay might think that "working for a nonprofit" is "meaningful", but people who work for non-profits frequently suffer from moral injury, get burned out, underpaid, and wind up questioning their values.
Back when I was involved in third-party politics and had many social entrepreneur friends I made my own decision that I don't give money to 501c(3) organizations, since they are a privileged class that doesn't have to pay taxes -- being a 501c(3) organization also means sticking to rules that ensure that you will be working on the symptoms of problems rather than the root causes.
Particularly in the developing world, people would benefit from for-profit organizations that are responsive to their needs as opposed to non-profits who work for rich donors and mindless governments.