I originally read and was going to write on this Christian Science Monitor article as someone who was unhappy with the idea that individual rich people were out there filling the social sector domain as just that: individual rich people who might be doing good but were doing it solely on their terms without governance that ensured that the benefits truly extended beyond whatever they (the individuals) chose to benefit.
This still may be true but I re-read the article and came to recognize that many of these entrepreneurs had actually chosen nonprofits as their vehicles for doing good and thus actually did have some type of governance that went beyond them. Again while re-reading I recognized that another more important theme of the artice centered on the "necessary" (and abhored by nonprofits) practice of proliferating nonprofits -- essentially expanding a based of entities that today struggles trying to secure a very limited pool of resources.
But the article makes the case that proliferating nonprofits and increasing the pool of competitors is not about proliferation or competition but about identifying methods that are more effective to address not-yet-solved (or new) social ills. This evolution may displace those who have failed or introduce new and better approaches. Of course, the success of new nonprofits is reliant on the will of donors to step-up and divert their funds in recognition that what is being tried has a place in a very crowded market.
Let's give a round of applause for these new folks and let us thank those who have come forward with "new" approaches to change the world.