Philanthropisms

In this episode we take a deep dive into the relationship between philanthropy and social justice. Does philanthropy necessarily deliver social justice; does it only do so under certain conditions, or does it sometimes actively get in the way of social justice? Including:

• Philanthropy as an individual act vs philanthropy as a societal mechanism, and why this creates a tension between emphasis on individual liberty and emphasis on justice.
• How changes in the understanding of property during the Enlightenment changed our understanding of charity.
• The emergence of a radical new notion of social justice and a critique of charity.
• The growth of contrasting ideas about property ownership that led to a new notion of "discriminating charity", and why this became so influential during the C19th.
• The influence of these ideas on Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" and why that was so pivotal.
• Philanthropy as "riot insurance".
• Does justice demand that we replace philanthropy with taxation, or can the two coexist?
• Why are some philanthropist campaigning for higher taxes?
• The history of the philanthropist as "agitator"
• Philanthropy and social movements: recipe for justice, or uneasy bedfellows?
• Radical philanthropy: history and current context.

Related Links:

• WPM article, "In An Ideal World, Would There Be No Philanthropy?"
• WPM article, "Philanthropy and the “Undeserving Poor”"
• WPM article, "MacKenzie Scott & the History of Challenging Philanthropy’s Status Quo"
• WPM article, "Radical Philanthropy: Some thoughts on the recent New Yorker profile of Leah Hunt-Hendrix"
• Darren Walker's recent article on Julius Rosenwald for The Atlantic
• FT, "The new (radical) rich who can’t wait to give away their fortunes"
• Philanthropisms podcasts with Fozia Irfan, Amy Schiller, David Clarke, Elizabeth Barajas-Roman and Emma Saunders-Hastings
• Philanthropisms podcast episodes on tainted donations, pluralism, the philosophy of philanthropy, and gratitude & recognition.

In this episode we take a deep dive into the world of philanthropic foundations. What are they, how did they evolve, and what light can their history shed on continuing debates about the role of foundations in our society today? Including:

• What are the key features that define philanthropic foundations? 
• Are these consistent around the world and across time periods?
• Why do foundations often act as a lightning rod for wider concerns about philanthropy?
• The historical origins of western foundations: ancient Roman fideicommissium or Islamic waqf?
• The growth of the charitable trust in medieval England
• Reformation, industrialisation and the slow secularisation of charitable foundations
• "Zombie" foundations in C19th London and calls for reform
• The birth of the giant general purpose foundations in 20th century America: why was this so surprising, and why has it proven so influential?
• Growing concerns about foundation abuses in mid C20th US, and the passage of the 1969 Tax Act
• The "Dead Hand of the Donor" and critiques of perpetual endowments
• Do foundations deserve their tax advantages? Should they be made to work harder for them?
• Do endowed foundations have a unique role to play in taking risks and driving innovation when it comes to addressing society's needs? How much of what foundations currently do lives up to this ambition?
• Are foundations an important expression of philanthropic pluralism? Why is the legitimacy of this pluralism being questioned more than ever before?
• Do foundations need to be more open and transparent? If so, about what?
• Are foundations "repugnant to the whole idea of a democratic society", or can they play a positive role in strengthening democracy?
• How do concerns about "tainted" wealth affect the legitimacy of foundation philanthropy?

Related links

• 3 part Why Philanthropy Matters essay series on philanthropic foundations: Part 1 - Defintions; Part 2 - History; Part 3 - Current Debates
• Philanthropisms podcast episode on pluralism
• Philanthropisms podcast episode on gratitude and recognition
• Philanthropisms podcast episode on tainted donations
• Fozia Irfan's "Transformative Philanthropy" paper
• Rhodri on the "What Donors Want" podcast talking discussing whether UK foundations should be subject to a minimum payout requirement
• Tobias Jung's chapter, "The Nonprofit Sector’s ‘Rich Relations’?
  Foundations and their grantmaking activities"

In this episode, we sat down to talk about how we understand and measure global generosity with Pamala Wiepking,  Stead Family Chair in International Philanthropy and Associate Professor of Philanthropy at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI in Indianapolis (and also Professor of Societal Significance of Charitable Lotteries at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Including:

• Is “philanthropy” a helpful word in a global context?
• If not, why not: do people not understand it, or do they understand it, but with particular connotations?
• If we use terms such as ”generosity” instead, is there still a use for “philanthropy” to denote a specific subset of that activity? (And if so, what subset?)
•  Is there any danger that if we broaden our definitions of generosity too far in our desire to make them more universal, they will become meaningless? 
• Do we need a “grand theory” of global generosity? 
• What are the obvious gaps, biases and limitations in our current knowledge about generosity at a global level?
• Is it useful to distinguish between philanthropic giving based on traditions of charity/altruism and other forms of giving grounded in traditions of mutualism/reciprocity? Or should we blur these distinctions within a wider conception of generosity?
• How important is it to “decolonize philanthropy research” as well as expanding our definitions of generosity?
• Is the role of philanthropy academics simply to observe and analyse giving and generosity, or to encourage it?
• Are current measures of global generosity useful? If not, why not?
• Apart from the challenges of finding appropriate definitions, are there other barriers to measuring generosity at a global level?
• Are we in the midst of a "generosity crisis", or is the apparent decline in giving in places like the US, the UK and the Netherlands merely a reflection of the fact that the way we measure generosity has failed to evolve in step with how people actually choose to give?
• Should the policy mechanisms we currently use to encourage and support philanthropic giving (e.g. tax reliefs) be adapted to encompass a broader range of activities that fit within an expanded definition of generosity?

Related links

• Pamala's personal website
• The call for contributors to the forthcoming volume on  “Philanthropy: Key debates and contending perspectives”, edited by Pamala and Femida Handy
• Pamala's Voluntas article on  "The Global Study of Philanthropic Behavior". 
• Pamala's article for HistPhil, "An inclusive study of global philanthropy: how can we overcome definitional, cultural and geographical boundaries?" 
• 2022's "Philanthropy in a Different Perspective: Voices from Ethiopia, Nigeria and Serbia", a volume edited by Pamala & Femida Handy.
• Rhod's WPM article asking "Is the way that we talk about philanthropy and civil society holding us back?"
• Rhod's WPM article "Why Are We So Bad at Measuring Giving and Why Does It Matter?"

In the fifth edition of our partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we hear from more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.

In this episode we hear from: 

• René Bekkers (Vrije University, Amsterdam), about his work on measuring coherence and consensus within the growing field of nonprofit studies
• Tara Bryan (University of Nebraska, Omaha) & Vladimír Hyánek (Masaryk Universtiy, Brno), about their work on the impact of migration caused by the invasion of Ukraine on resilience in Czech NGOs.
• Julia Litofcenko (Vienna University of Economics and Business), about her work on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on charitable giving in Germany and Austria.

If you would like to contribute to making academic work accessible and more relevant for people working in, with or for philanthropy, then why not consider becoming an ERNOP practitioner expert and help translate academic work on philanthropy into research notes in close collaboration with the authors of the original work. 

 https://ernop.eu/information-for-practitioner-experts/

Or, if you or your organisation might be interested in supportiong ERNOP's wider mission to advance philanthropy research and make it accessible to those working in, with, and for philanthropy, then why not consider joining as a member: 

https://ernop.eu/member-portal/subscription-plan/

Related Links:

• The ERNOP Research Note for René's paper
• The ERNOP Research Note for Tara and Vladimír's paper
• The ERNOP Research Note for Julia's paper
• René's paper (with Ji Ma), "Consensus Formation in Nonprofit and Philanthropic Studies: Networks, Reputation, and Gender"
• Tara and Vladimir's paper (with Monica Lea), "Resilience, Ambiguous Governance, and the Ukrainian Refugee Crisis: Perspectives from NGO Leaders in the Czech Republic"
• Julia's paper (with Michael Meyer, Michaela Neumayr & Astrid Pennerstorfer)   "Charitable Giving in Times of Covid-19: Do Crises Forward the Better or the Worse in Individuals?"
•  Previous editions of the Philanthropisms podcast partnership with ERNOP: Edition 1, edition 2, edition 3, edition 4 and edition 5.

In this episode we talk to philanthropy and social change experts Mandy van Deven and Chiara Cattaneo about their work on building and resourcing narrative power within civil society. Including:

• What is narrative power and why is it such an important tool for CSOs?
• Does narrative work tend to focus more on developing narratives that are relevant to cause areas in which philanthropic organisations work, or on developing narratives about the nature and role of philanthropy itself?
• What are the most prevalent narratives about philanthropy that need to be challenged or changed?
• What are the advantages of adopting an ecosystem approach to resourcing narrative work? How can funders support the various actors in the ecosystem to work well together?
• What infrastructure is required to enable CSOs to make the most of narrative as a tool?
• What particular role can foundations play in supporting narrative infrastructure?
• To what extent does developing narrative power require a willingness not to set specific goals/ timescales or to demand attribution of inputs to outcomes? Does this potentially make it harder to resource if funders demand measurability?
• How do you manage the tension between the urgency of issues such as climate breakdown or racial injustice and the fact that narrative work often requires patience and a willingness to work over longer timescales?

Related Links

• Chiara's piece for Alliance  magazine about a session on narrative she and Mandy ran at the 2024 Philea conference.
• Mandy's article for Nonprofit Quarterly (with Jody Myrum) on funding narrative ecosystems.
• Mandy's blog for Philea about the Confluence event in Colombia in 2023
• Chiara's piece on "Social impact storytelling in Southeast Asia"
• Mandy's article on "Philanthropy’s Role in Fortifying the Infrastructure for Narrative Power"
• Mandy's website
• The Elemental project#
• Philanthropisms podcasts with Fozia Irfan, Sara Lomelin, Joshua Amponsem, Martha Awojobi
• WPM article on Radical Philanthropy
• WPM article on language, philanthropy and civil society

In this episode we talk to Kate Symondson, Head of Philanthropy at the Symondson Foundation, about family foundations, grantmaking & next gen philanthropy. Including

• How do the various members of a family foundation agree on what to fund and how?
• Which aspects of giving as a family are most rewarding, and which most challenging?
• Does doing philanthropy together have an impact on inter-family dynamics?
• Do Next Gen wealth holders have distinctive characteristics when it comes to their attitudes towards philanthropy, or their methods of doing it?
• Is it even helpful to talk about Next Gen philanthropy?
• How easy is it for younger philanthropists to develop networks with like-minded peers?
• How can funders strike the right balance between trust and measurement?
• What kind of due diligence do donors need to do on small charities in order to fund them in a trust-based way?  
• How do you mitigate the power imbalance between funders and grantees? 
• Is philanthropy a duty or a choice? 
• Is it OK for philanthropists to get a reward from their giving?
• Is growing scrutiny of where philanthropic wealth has come from a good thing?
• Should foundations’ missions be reflected in their investments as well as their grants?
• Is it important to scrutinise or critique philanthropy? If so, why
• Is it a challenge to get nuanced or balanced discussion about philanthropy issues in an increasingly polarised environment?

Related Links:

• The Symondson Foundation
• Kate's blog for NPC, "Why Funders Need to Champion Small Charities"
• Kate's blog for Alliance, "How a UK Funder is Responding to the Cost of Living Crisis"
• Kate's blog for Beacon Collaborative, "Why Taking a Considered Approach Towards Philanthropy Matters".
• Philanthropisms podcast with Mary Rose Gunn
• Philanthropisms podcast with Dr Ewan Kirk
• Philanthropisms episode on gratitude and recognition
• Philanthropisms podcast episode on the cost of living crisis (with Angela Kail from NPC)
• WPM short guides on measuring impact and core cost funding.

In this episode we talk to Ian MacQuillin, Founder and Director of the fundraising think tank Rogare about the promise and perils of disintermediation in the charity sector, what a theory of fundraising ethics looks like, and why knowing more about the history of fundraising is important. Including:

• How did Rogare came about?
• What are the aims of the organisation, and what are its key themes/areas of interest currently?
•  What is the current state of academic research on fundraising and charities? How much of this influences practice? What barriers are in the way of this happening more?

Disintermediation

• What is disintermediation and why is it an important trend ?
• What are the different ways in which disintermediation can apply to the work of charities?
• What benefits and risks can disintermediation bring for donors and charities?
•  If people are able to give in disintermediated ways instead of via traditional charities, does this matter? Should we just accept it as a natural evolution, or is something in danger of being lost? 
• What, if anything, can the various examples of controversy that have arisen around crowdfunding and other forms of disintermediated giving tell us about the value of the role that traditional charities play?
• What is "normative fundraising ethics"?
• Does normative fundraising ethics need to go above and beyond what is allowable in legal or regulatory terms? If so, what is the basis for the normative principles?  
• Is there a danger that the purpose-driven nature of charities brings about a form of (perhaps subconscious) consequentialism in fundraising (i.e. the end justifies the means, because the cause I am fundraising for is “worthy” or “good”)? 
• Is it part of the nature of fundraising to be challenging? (e.g. making people uncomfortable in order to elicit an empathetic response, pushing them to give more than they might do if left to their own devices). Or does this raise ethical issues about the undermining of individual choice and agency?

Tainted Donations

• Why are tainted donations such a perennial challenge for charities and fundraisers?
• How could a normative ethics framework help to inform our thinking about tainted donations?

Community-Centric & Donor-Centric Fundraising

• What is the distinction between Donor-centric fundraising (DCF) and Community-centric fundraising (CCF), and why has it become such a point of controversy and debate? 
• Are the arguments in favour of DCF solely pragmatic ones (i.e. that it works), and conversely are the arguments in favour of CCF solely principled ones (i.e. that it is the “right” thing to do) or are there principled and pragmatic arguments for both?
• Is it possible to balance the demands of DCF and CCF?
• Why is a historical perspective on fundraising valuable?

Related Links

• Ian's paper on "A Typology of Disintermediated Giving & Asking in the Nonprofit Sector" (with Rita Kottasz, Juniper Locilento & Neil Gallaiford
• Rogare paper on Normative Fundraising Ethics
• Rogare History of Fundraising project
• Rogare paper on CCF & DCF
• Philanthropisms podcast with Martha Awojobi
• Philanthropisms podcast on tainted donations

In this episode we talk to Fozia Irfan OBE, Director of Impact & Influence at BBC Children in Need and recent Churchill Fellow, about her report Transformative Philanthropy: A Manual for Social Change, and about how philanthropy in the UK needs to change if it is to become a better tool for delivering social justice. Including:

• What does it mean to apply a social justice framing to philanthropy?
• Is this applicable to all foundations, regardless of cause area?
• Is the conversation about philanthropy reform more sophisticated in the US? 
• Why is historical perspective important for funders when it comes to understanding their cause areas and the role of philanthropy?
• Why do funders need to understand the different philosophical traditions that might underpin a focus on social justice?
• Why is it so important for funders to express a clear and specific vision? Are there examples of organisations that do this well already?
• What does it mean for funders to be community-centric?
• What does it mean to take an intersectional view of issues, and why is it important?
• Why should foundations engage in movement building?
• Is the current enthusiasm for social movements reflective of a frustration people have that traditional nonprofits have failed to move the needle on issues such as the climate crisis or racial justice?
• Does the ability of social movements to be more overtly political, or to employ more challenging tactics (e.g. protest, direct action), give them an advantage over civil society organisations (CSOs) that might be more constrained by legal/regulatory requirements?
•  What does it mean for foundations to be cross-sectoral and multi-dimensional? Why are they not currently doing this?
• Do we look at institutional philanthropy too narrowly through the lens of grantmaking, and thus fail to take into account the importance of other potential tools (e.g. campaigning, storytelling etc)?
• Why is it important to understand the historic roots of the wealth, institutions and practices we have in philanthropy?
• What should philanthropic orgs do about links to historic racial injustices? Is it enough to acknowledge them, or do they need to go beyond that and seek means to make reparations somehow?
• Should we take a pragmatic approach to improving philanthropy (i.e. working with existing structures to improve them) or "burn everything to the ground" as some more radical voices argue we should?

Related Links

• Transformative Philanthropy (report and workbook)
• Video of Transformative Philanthropy launch event
• WPM article on The History of Social Justice Philanthropy in the UK
• WPM article on radical philanthropy
• Philanthropisms podcast episodes with Edgar Villanueva, Maribel Morey, Derek Bardowell & Martha Awojobi.

In this episode we talk to historian Anelise Hanson Shrout about her fascinating new book Aiding Ireland: The Great Famine and the rise of transnational philanthropy. Including: 

• Was the global philanthropic response to the Irish famine unprecedented at that point?
• Is the response best explained by the fact the famine was able to act as an “empty signifier” which allowed a wide range of groups to interpret the situation according to their own worldview and to imbue their giving with different meaning?
• Is this something we still see in transnational philanthropy today? 
• To what extent did the severity of the famine shift emphasis onto more immediate pragmatic responses and away from radical calls for political reform? 
• Was support for Irish famine relief in England driven by genuine concern for the plight of the Irish or by fears of mass migration to English cities?
• How important in the debates about famine relief was the distinction between “deserving” and “undeserving” recipients?
• To what extent did the Irish Famine lead the US to consider responsibilities to the wider world? Was this sense of globalism/humanitarianism new at this point?
•  How did both enslaved people and slave owners in the US respond to the Irish famine?
• Were there debates at the time about the ethics of accepting donations from slave owners, or did the severity of the famine force people into adopting a purely pragmatic approach?
• Did the Irish famine prove particularly useful to slaveowners as a means of demonstrating their own humanity and moral worth through philanthropy? 
•  How did some enslaved people use philanthropic donations towards famine relief in Ireland to assert their own agency and humanity?
• Should this be understood solely as a political act of “philanthropy-as-resistance”, or was there some element of empathy or solidarity in it?
• How was the news of donations by enslaved people greeted by slaveowners and by white Americans more broadly? Did they try to ignore it, or interpret it according to their own worldviews (and if so, how?)
• How should we understand the gifts made by people from the Cherokee and Choctaw Nations to Irish famine relief?

Related links

• Anelise’s Book
• Anelise’s website
• Anelise’s 2015 paper, “A "Voice of Benevolence from the Western Wilderness": The Politics of Native Philanthropy in the Trans-Mississippi West” 
• Bates College article about Anelise and her book
• WPM article, “Cold as Charity: philanthropy and the notion of the “undeserving poor”
• Philanthropisms episodes on tainted donations and disaster response philanthropy
• Philanthropisms interviews with Tyrone McKinley Walker, Maribel Morey and Ben Soskis 

In this episode we hear from author Amy Schiller about her fascinating and thought provoking new book The Price of Humanity: How philanthropy went wrong and how to fix it. Including:

• Has our understanding of philanthropy has become too centred on the idea that it is solely about funding things that make human life possible, rather than those that make it worthwhile? 
• Is there a danger that philanthropy which becomes too focussed on seeing human life in terms of basic existence ends up “othering” poor people and seeing them as a distinct group (to be pitied/helped), and thereby dehumanises them?
• Is it difficult to argue for the value of beauty, love, transcendent experience etc in a philanthropy and nonprofit sector that has becoming increasingly technocratic and instrumentalist?
• What is the Aristotelean notion of magnificence, and why should philanthropy embrace it?
• Is there any danger that in emphasising philanthropy’s role in funding the transcendent we allow wealthy people off the hook for their responsibilities to society and just allow them to donate to what they wanted to anyway?
• The book argues that we should not view philanthropy as something which backfills or replaces state provision, and that in an ideal world, basic welfare needs would be met by the state and philanthropy would then focus on things that add value to human life above and beyond bare existence. In the present we still seem quite far from that, however, so does philanthropy also need to play a role bringing this ideal world about? (And does this take short-term precedence over it funding things that are transcendent? Or do we need to do both?)
• Why were justice and inequality-centred arguments against the philanthropic response to the Notre Dame fire potentially misguided?
• Are current paradigms of measurement in philanthropy and the non-profit world too focussed on economic utility as the core criterion?
• The book argues for the idea of a “giving wage” – why is it so important that universal state support factors in the need to enable people to act philanthropically?
•  Is philanthropy inherently a child of capitalism (and the resultant inequality it creates), or can it be used to create spaces that sit outside the capitalist system?

Related Links

• Amy's book
• Amy's website
• Interview with Amy in Public Seminar
• Review of Amy's book by Hilary Pearson in The Philanthropist Journal
• WPM article "In an ideal world, would there be no philanthropy?"
• WPM article "Why am I not an Effective Altruist?"
• WPM article "MacKenzie Scott & the History of Challenging Philanthropy’s Status Quo"
• Philanthropisms podcast with Patricia Illingworth
• Philanthropisms podcast with Emma Saunders-Hastings
• Philanthropisms podcast with Ben Soskis