Giving Thought

In episode 53, we look at structure and philanthropy. Exploring how philanthropy and civil society has become structured over time, what the drivers for this are, and what new possibilities the future may hold. Including:

• The reformation and the dismantling of medieval catholic infrastructure for giving
• Urbanisation, poverty and associated philanthropy
• The charitable/philanthropic tradition vs the mutual/cooperative tradition in the UK
• Concerns about 'faction' and voluntary association in the US
• Benefits of structure: coordination, economies of scale, setting and maintaining strategy, separating the individual from their role, making rules explicit
• Structure and power: formalisation as a form of social control?
• Endowed structures: foundations, trusts and waqfs
• Nonprofit and charity structures in the UK and US
• Donor Advised Funds and Charitable Remainder Trusts
• Non-traditional structures: LLCs, B Corps etc.
• Disintermediating giving: direct cash transfers and crowdfunding
• Network social movements and the "Tyranny of Structurelessness

Related Links:

-My book, Public Good by Private Means: How philanthropy shapes Britain

-Dobkin Hall, P. (1999) "Resolving the Dilemmas of Democratic Governance: The Historical Development of Trusteeship in America, 1636-1996" in Condliffe Lagemann (ed) Philanthropic Foundations: New Scholarship, New Possibilities

-Morris, R.J. (1990) "Clubs, Societies & Associations" in Thompson (ed) The Cambridge Social History of Britain vol 3.

-Morris, R.J. (1983) "Voluntary Societies and British Urban Elites, 1780-1850: An Analysis", The Historical Journal, vol 26, No. 1

-Davies (2014)"Give Me a Break: Why the UK should not aspire to a 'US-style' culture of charitable giving", Giving Thought discussion paper

-My piece for HistPhil on "Networked Social Movements and the "Tyranny of Structurelessness""

In episode 52, we take a look at the relationship between philanthropy and public space. How has philanthropy shaped our understanding of public space, and what role does public space play in driving philanthropy? Including:

• Philanthropy and rural public space
• The role of philanthropy and voluntary action in shaping the development of national parks in the UK and US
• The history of the National Trust and what it can teach us about the tension between preservation and access
• Urban parks & greenspace in the UK
• Public parks philanthropy in the US- success and controversy.
• How do we ensure that public spaces near where rich people live aren't supported at the expense of those in less well-off neighbourhoods?
• Non-green urban public space: sport facilities and community buildings
• Public space and bridging social capital
• Does the emergence of quasi-public spaces owned and controlled by the private sector raise new challenges for philanthropy and civil society?
• Philanthropy and the concept of the public sphere
• Digital platforms: are they really public spaces? Or do we risk handing control to unaccountable gatekeepers, and what might this mean for civil society freedoms?

Related links

• Historic England, "History of Public Park Funding & Management"
• Our CAF report "Giving a Sense of Place: Philanthropy & the future of UK Civic Identity"
• "Philanthropy and the National Parks in the 20th Century", US National Parks Service
• Morris, (1983) "Voluntary Societies and British Urban Elites, 1780-1850: An Analysis"
• Cannadine, D. (1999) "The First Hundred Years" in Newby (ed) The National Trust: The Next Hundred Years
• The Challenges of Civic Philanthropy, CAF Giving Thought
• The History of Civic Philanthropy in the UK – CAF Giving Thought
• "When Nobody Knows You're a Dog: Tech, Civil Society, and the Fight for Authenticity", guest article for Stanford Digital Impact blog

In episode 51, we explore philanthropic pledges: what are they, do they work and how have they been used to drive more and better giving? Including:

• Mackenzie Bezos' recent decision to join the Giving Pledge has been widely reported. But how successful has this initiative been overall?
• Who are the notable signatories and the notable absences from the Giving Pledge? Why have some people not signed?
• Has the Giving Pledge shifted the level of giving by the ultra wealthy? Has it had any impact on overall levels of giving?
• What can we learn from the pledge letters of GP signatories?
• Does the GP lack the tools to hold signatories to their pledges? Should it?
• Is the GP's scope less radical than it might have been, and why?
• What of other pledge initiatives like the Founders Pledge?
• Does a pledge represent an expectation that a certain level of wealth comes with responsibilities to give, or is it entirely voluntary?
• What does academic research tell us about the economics and psychology of pledges?
• Why are the concepts of "warm glow", "pain of payment" and "psychological distance" important in understanding how to design effective pledges?
• How does crowdfunding relate to philanthropic pledges?
• Could the future be about "conditional donations", where conditions are set and then donations automatically executed if they are met?

Related content:

• Marc Gunther's article "Has the Giving Pledge Changed Giving?" for The Chronicle of Philanthropy
• com article on the Founders Pledge
• Sadeh, Tonin & Vlassopolous (2014) Why Give Away your Wealth? An Analysis of the Billionaires' View
• Meyvis, T., Bennett, A. & Oppenheimer, D. (2011). "Precommitment to Charity" in Oppenheimer, D. ed. (2016) The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity, Routledge.
• Cotterill, John & Richardson (2012) "The Impact of a Pledge Request and the Promise of Publicity: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Charitable Donations"
• Fosgaard & Soevtevent (2018) "Promises undone: How committed pledges impact donations to charity"
• Elsden, Trotter, Harding, Davies, Speed & Vines (2019) "Programmable Donations: Exploring Escrow-based Conditional Giving".

In episode 50, we talk to Phil Buchanan- founding CEO of the Center for Effective Philanthropy and author of a new book: Giving Done Right: Effective Giving and Making Every Dollar Count. We discuss current debates about philanthropy and what we need to do to ensure a positive narrative about the value of giving in our society as we head into the future. Including:

• What is the core role of philanthropy within society which differentiates it from either state or market provision?
• A key strength of philanthropy is often argued to be its ability to drive society forward by taking risks and funding things that the state or market cannot - but how much current philanthropy actually lives up to this billing?
• Why has the idea that non-profits need to be "more business-like" become so widespread, and why is it wrong?
• One of the effects of taking an "investment approach" is that donors can then be reluctant to fund core costs or to give unrestricted funding- why is this such a problem?
• Is part of the problem with the "overhead myth" that donors want some measure of the effectiveness of their giving, and in the absence of compelling evidence they are forced to rely on unhelpful financial measures like overhead ratios? What can we do to provide them with better metrics?
• Is there a danger that the growing wave of scepticism, and even cynicism towards philanthropy, will have a negative impact on people's willingness to give?
• Of the current critiques levelled at philanthropy, which are potentially misguided or overstated, and which are genuinely important to heed?

• Some argue that since philanthropy is to some extent a product of structural inequality, it can never truly be part of the solution – but do some donors and funders recognise this challenge; and how are they genuinely pursuing structural change?
• The freedom that philanthropy has to run counter to the status quo or the policies and public opinion of a particular time has been a key part of driving historic social change. How do we preserve this freedom, whilst also answering concerns that unchecked philanthropic power could end up being anti-democratic?
• Do we need to make philanthropy more democratic, or accountable to the people and communities it is supposed to serve? If so, how?
• Is there a challenge in balancing long-term innovation against the needs of the present? i.e. when does "big bet" philanthropy become wasteful or self-indulgent, and how much wasted philanthropic effort are we as a society prepared to accept in the name of "discovery"?

Related Content:

• Phil's Book, Giving Done Right: Effective Giving & Making Every Dollar Count
• The Center for Effective Philanthropy
• Phil's recent Financial Times opinion piece, "Philanthropy's blighted reputation threatens global giving
• "Stop trying to treat nonprofits "like a business"", FastCompany
• Giving Thought blog, 'Innovation, Discovery & Philanthropic Legitimacy'
• Giving Thought blog, 'Philanthropy Anti-Democratic and Proud of It?
• Giving Thought blog, '"Winners Take All", Philanthropy & Inequality'

In episode 49, we explore some of the issues brought to light by the recent devastating fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and the immediate philanthropic response. Including:

-Does the Notre Dame response demonstrate there is untapped philanthropic potential out there?

-Why will people respond so readily to a damaged building, but ongoing efforts to address issues of human poverty and suffering remain hard to fundraise for?

-Does this story illustrate that philanthropy is inherently irrational? If so, what should our conclusion be?

-What is it about the Notre Dame disaster that has brought about such an unprecedented response?

-Should we be grateful to the mega-donors who have pledged millions to Notre Dame, or ask what they are getting in return in terms of social status and legitimacy?

-Do we need to scrutinise the source of wealth of these mega-donors, and whether they have paid their fair share of tax, and balance this against their desire to do good through giving?

-If we agree that rebuilding Notre Dame constitutes a public good, should the French government pay for it through taxation and public spending?

-Is it right for mega-donors to get tax breaks on their gifts to Notre Dame? Should they even get bigger tax breaks, as some have suggested?

-What lessons can we take from this story for the wider debates about philanthropy?

Related Content

-My mammoth Twitter thread on Notre Dame (and a nice one-page version)

-The "Criticisms of Philanthropy" chapter from my book Public Good by Private Means

-Another extract from my book, about Arts & Culture philanthropy

-"Everything Old is New Again", Alliance Magazine

-TAXING QUESTIONS: WHAT DO RUTGER BREGMAN'S DAVOS CRITICISMS MEAN FOR PHILANTHROPY?, CAF Giving Thought Blog

-Meet The Philanthropists: A good pint - the brewing industry's race to give

-Previous Giving Thought podcast on "Is Philanthropy Rational?"

-Neil Evans 1982 paper "Urbanisation, Elite Attitudes & Philanthropy in Cardiff 1850-1914"

In episode 48 we talk to Megan Ming Francis, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington, about her recent paper "The Price of Civil Rights: Black Lives, White Funding and Movement Capture" and her wider work on the role of philanthropic funders in supporting the civil rights movement. Including:

• Is "movement capture" something that reflects a deliberate desire on the part of funders to change the goals or strategic focus of grantees, or is it just an inevitable consequence of the power imbalance in the funder/recipient dynamic?
• Does the legitimacy that funders are able to offer to radical causes add to the power imbalance?
• Is the imbalance between funder and grantee particularly striking in the case of the NAACP in the early C20th, given the racial division and the background context of Jim Crow?
• Can grantees be "victims of their own success" if they make headway on radical causes using novel techniques (as the NAACP did on the issues lynching using legal challenges), and funders want to replicate that success on other causes?
• Is funder ego (i.e. funders wanting to see themselves as "having the answers") a barrier to getting genuine shifts of power from funders to grantees?
• Does a spend-down strategy for a foundation impose time constraints that can drive foundation staff to demand a greater degree of say over how money is used?
• How much of movement capture is due to the overt influence of funders and how much s due to grantees tailoring applications or plans based on their perception of funders' priorities and preferences?
• Where else in the history of philanthropy should we look for other examples of movement capture?
• Informal networks and movements are less likely to keep archives or records than institutional funders: is there a danger that this asymmetry will make it harder to assess other instances of movement capture?
• In a modern context where there is an increasing emphasis on networked social movements to drive change, and interest from funders in how to support them, do we need to be particularly aware of the dangers of movement capture?
• Are looser, non-hierarchical network-based organisations more likely to be susceptible to movement capture than those with some modicum of structure?
• What value can a historical perspective bring to philanthropists, funders and non-profit professionals?
• Are there limits to the utility of historical comparison in understanding the present? What should we take into account or be aware of?

Related Content

• Megan's Paper "The Price of Civil Rights: Black Lives, White Funding and Movement Capture"
• Megan's Website and her book, "Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State"
• My HistPhil article on "Networked Social Movements and the 'Tyranny of Structurelessness'"

In episode 47 we talk to Paul Ramsbottom, CEO of the Wolfson Foundation, about foundations and endowed philanthropy. Including:

• What is the core role of philanthropy within society which differentiates it from either state or market provision?
• What is the particular role of foundations/endowed philanthropy in that mix?
• Is the ability to take a long-term view that comes with endowment better than the sense of urgency that comes with taking a spend-down approach, or are they just different? If there is room for both approaches, what criteria might determine the choice of approach?
• Do foundations need to be more transparent? If so, why and about what? Who does it benefit (the foundations themselves, their donors, grantees, taxpayers etc)
• Are there arguments against transparency?
• What tensions or power dynamics can there be when a foundation has been established by an individual or single family (and they are still involved), between those founders and the staff of the organisation?
• Does the way in which money has been made present obstacles in terms of doing good through giving it away? Does this only apply to money made in ways that are universally agreed to be "bad" (e.g. slavery), or more broadly to ways of making wealth that are legal but which many criticise for their social or environmental impact?
• What should we make of the growing focus on place-based approaches to funding?
• What value does a historical perspective bring?
• What do you make of the current wave of criticisms of philanthropy coming from the US? Do these resonate in the UK context? Which do you feel is most acute or difficult to answer?

Related Links:

• The Wolfson Foundation
• The Wolfson History Prize
• My recent blog on "Philanthropy, Innovation & Discovery"
• Paul's article for ACF on foundations and transparency
• My Twitter thread on the Sackler donations controversy

In episode 46, we talk to Sameer Padania about Philanthropy & Journalism. We ask why the media is looking to philanthropy as a source of funding; why philanthropic funders are interested in supporting journalism; and what challenges and opportunities this might bring. Including:

• Why has journalism come to the attention of funders and philanthropists recently?
• How are funders and CSOs using journalism to further their causes?
• How many funders see journalism and a free press as an important public good in and of themselves, and are thus willing to fund general journalism?
• What role could philanthropic funding for news media play in addressing problems like targeted online misinformation and the erosion of public discourse online?
• What should we make of the rise of non-profit newsrooms like ProPublica?
• Is the reader voluntary subscription model taken by the Guardian etc. is better than relying on a single major donor?
• What approaches are philanthropic funders taking to supporting news media?
• Is there a challenge in maintaining editorial independence when receiving philanthropic funding?
• Is the way in which philanthropic funding can take pressure off news media outlets to generate revenue a good thing, or is there a danger that it will lead to them losing focusing on what is of interest to an audience, and thus become less sustainable in the long term?
• Does philanthropic funding of news media undermine journalism's ability to hold philanthropy itself to account (as many feel it should)?
• Can ownership of news outlets exacerbate the distorting effect that philanthropy already has on democracy?
• Is there a danger that in encouraging philanthropic support for news media, we make journalism a "charity case" and thus undermine people's willingness to pay for it in the long term?

Related links

• Sameer's paper for Ariadne Network "An Introduction to Funding Journalism and Media"
• A recent report from the Reuters Institute on "Polarisation and the News Media"
• The paper by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Richard Fletcher questioning the truth of online filter bubbles: "Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Study"
• My Alliance magazine article (co-authored with my significantly better half, Fran Yeoman) on why "Philanthropy should fund the media for its own sake"
• The Cairncross Review

In episode 45, we chat to Beth Breeze- Director of the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent- about studying and teaching philanthropy as an academic discipline. Including:

-Why is it important for philanthropy to be seen as a subject of academic study?

-What does a philanthropy researcher actually do?

-Does philanthropy suffer from being cross-disciplinary, so that it doesn't fit neatly into traditional academic siloes?

-How can the academic study of philanthropy effectively influence practice and policymaking?

-Why is teaching philanthropy important? What is the profile of a typical student, and what do they learn?

-Why has the fundraising side of the philanthropy equation been so overlooked?

-What makes a good fundraiser?

-Does the UK need more professionalised major donor fundraising if we are to drive more philanthropy?

-Do the current critiques of philanthropy in the US ring true in the UK? Is there a danger that they will exacerbate a negative perception of philanthropy?

-Is "Philanthropy" even a helpful word?

Related links:

• The Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent
• Beth's latest book, The New Fundraisers
• The Coutts Million Pound Donor Report

In episode 44, to celebrate International Women's Day on the 8th March, we take a look at "Women and Philanthropy". Exploring famous female philanthropists past and present, the role that charitable work has played in the emancipation of women, and the ways in which philanthropy has been used as a tool to fight for women's rights. Including

• Fascianting female philanthropists from history: Angela Burdett Coutts, Octavia Hill, Olivia Russell Sage, Beatrix Potter, Jenny Lind and Madam CJ Walker
• The importance of philanthropy as a bridge between the domestic sphere and the public sphere and the role it therefore played in changing women's perceptions of their own capacities & changing mens' perception of the role of women.
• Philanthropy as an outlet for the misery and frustration of Victorian women
• Is there such as a thing as "feminine" philanthropy?
• Philanthropy and the women's suffrage movement
• Philanthropy and the women's anti-suffrage movement
• Philanthropy, women's liberation & feminismn in the 1960s/70s- how effective is philanthropy at addressing structural inequality? Can traditional funders support non-hierarchical networks and groups without subverting them?
• Women in philanthropy today: self-made millionaries & husband and wife teams.
• SDG 5 and global women's issues
• Philanthropy and the #MeToo movement
• Gender equality in the nonprofit world?

Related Links

• Francis, Megan M, "The Price of Civil Rights: Black Lives, White Funding & Movement Capture"
• My HistPhil blog, "Networked Social Movements and "the Tyranny of Styructurelessness""
• Smithsonian Museum, "Madam CJ Walker's Philanthropy"
• Samples, "The Humbug & The Nightingale: PT Barnum, Jenny Lind and the Branding of a Star Singer for Amercian Reception"
• Public Good by Private Means (my book)
• Prochaska, The Voluntary Impulse
• Prochaska, Women and Philanthropy in Nineteenth Century England
• Simey, Charity Rediscovered: A study of philanthropic effort in nineteenth century Liverpool