Philanthropisms

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we take a look at a few of the biggest stories from what has been a notable newsworthy couple of weeks for philanthropy - focusing on the fallout from the spectacular implosion of crypto billionaire and high profile Effective Altruist Sam Bank-Fried. We also take a look at a big philanthropy pledge from Jeff Bezos and the latest on Mackenzie Scott's radical no-strings-attached big giving. Including:

SBF:

• What the hell has happened in the SBF story?
• What impact might this have on wider efforts to promote the idea of cryptophilanthropy?
• Will SBF's downfall lead to further calls to clamp down on big money donations in politics, given his prominent support for the Democracts in recent years?
• Is it likely to mean more skepticism about philanthropic funding for journalism, given that some feel SBF's significant donations to news outlets led to him receiving less critical coverage?
• Does his downfall present an existential crisis for Effective Altruism (EA)?
• Should we distinguish between different ways of understanding EA: EA-as-movement, EA-as-ideology, EA-as-academic-field? What is the likely impact  on each of these?
• Do EA movement leaders have questions to answer about whether they were complicit in what was going on at FTX, or just naive? And what are the ramifications of either?
• Did SBF's EA beliefs lead him to adopt a radical "end justifies the means" view that allowed him to justify bad behaviour?
• Is this situation a killer blow for EA's "give to earn" idea?

Scott & Bezos

• How excited should we be about pledges to give big in the future?
• What details do we have about what Bezos is actually planning to do?
• Why does the idea that "giving money away is hard" have such a long history? How is Mackenzie Scott challenging this idea?
• How should we understand "effectiveness" when it comes to philanthropy?
• Why has Bezos given $100m to Dolly Parton...?

Related Content

• Rhod's Alliance Magazine piece, "Effectively over: What Does Sam Bankman-Fried’s downfall mean for philanthropy and Effective Altruism?"
• Vox, "Effective altruism gave rise to Sam Bankman-Fried. Now it’s facing a moral reckoning".
• SBF's ill-advised interview with Vox's Kelsey Piper
• Evan Huber's EA Forum post, "We must be very clear: fraud in the service of effective altruism is unacceptable"
• Why Philanthropy Matters article, "Why Am I Not an Effective Altruist?" 
• Philanthropisms podcast on cryptophilanthropy
• Philanthropisms podcast on the philosophy of philanthropy
• Rhod's piece on "Marcus Rashford, Dolly Parton and public perceptions of Philanthropy"

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Rhodri talks to Sara Slaughter, Executive Director of the W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation, and Derek Mitchell, CEO of Partners in Schools Innovation about their relationship as funder and grantee, and how they have worked together to move towards to a new focus on equity and justice. Including:

• How and why has Stone Foundation changed the way it does grantee convenings? What do they get out of it as a funder, and what do grantees get out of it?
• How difficult is it as a funder to convene without being directive?
• Do we need to shed some of the technocratic language that tends to dominate philanthropic funding?
• What is “radical humility” and why should funders embrace it?
• Do we need to redefine what counts as success and failure in grantmaking?
• Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issue that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of ALL philanthropic funders and nonprofits? What does this mean in practice?
• In trying to convince philanthropic funders of the need to shift power is it better to make a moral case (i.e., that they should do it because it is “the right thing to do”) or a practical one (i.e., that it will make them more effective as grantmakers)?
• Are there challenges for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes?
• How do you balance the value of experience and the value of expertise?
• Is the process of giving power away uncomfortable by necessity?
• Is there a danger that even well-intentioned funders inadvertently distort the work of their grantees by virtue of the choices they make about what to fund and how to fund it? How can funders check their own power and thus avoid this risk?
• Is it always best to shift power? Or are there situations where funders should “lean into their power”, because they are better placed to undertake advocacy or influencing?
• How important is physical proximity in making trust-based relationships work? 
• How can funders and grantees manage the tension between urgency and patience?
• Is philanthropy a reflection of those “circumstances of economic injustice” that Dr Martin Luther King identified, and therefore too often part of the problem? How can we make it be part of the solution?

Related Content

• Sara and Derek’s comment piece for Philanthropy News Digest, “Building trust with grantees with ‘radical humility’”
• Grantmakers for Education’s case study on W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone’s grantee convenings, “Equity as a Verb” 
• W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation website
• Partners in Schools Innovation website
• Philanthropisms podcast with Sadaf Shallwani
• Philanthropism Podcast with Derek Bardowell
• Why Philanthropy Matters guides on core-cost funding, measuring impact, and short vs long-term

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we explore whether it is always necessary to say thank you for a philanthropic gift, whether it might sometimes be problematic, and the implications of how we choose to recognise donations. Including:

• If we view  philanthropy as a duty of justice, rather than a charitable choice, does that mean we have a right to expect it and therefore don't need to be grateful?
• Does this apply to all philanthropy, or only to certain cause areas (e.g. inequality and poverty?)
• Is it just a pragmatic reality that we need to express gratitude to donors in order to keep them giving? Or does this sacrifice important principles? How does this relate to the debate over "donor-centric" vs "community-cnetric" approaches to fundraising?
• If a donor expects or demands gratitude for their gift, does this become a problem? (And conversely, if the thanks is freely given is that OK?)
• How has the expectation of gratitude historically been used as a tool of social control?
• Is it appropriate to show thanks to an everyday donor giving a small gift? If so, is it paradoxical to argue that we should show less gratitude to a major philanthropic donor?
• If donor/recipient relationships are more equal (e.g. as within mutual aid traditions) is it OK to show, or expect, gratitude then?
• Is it possible to have mutual gratitude even within uneqaul funder/recipient relationships?
• What can history and anthropology tell us about the relationship between giving, reciprocity and gratitude?
• Is an expectation that a recipient of a gift should reciprocate in kind better than an expectation of gratitude? Does this rule out gifts where there is no realistic prospect of reciprocating?
• What is the history of commemoration in the form of statues, plaques and naming rights?
• Does this represent a problematic institutionalization of expectations of gratitude, or is it a natural response to a generous gift (and a crucial fundraising tool?)

RELATED LINKS:

• Philanthropisms podcast episode with Emma Saunders-Hastings
• Philanthropisms podcast episode on tainted donations
• Philanthropisms podcast episode on the philosophy of philanthropy
• Philanthropisms podcast episode with Ben Soskis
• Jane Addams, "A Modern Lear"
• Video for "Charity" by Skunk Anansie
• Emile Beneviste, "Giving and Taking in Indo-European Society"
• Spencer Jordan's PhD thesis on Edward Colston:  "The development and implementation of authority in a regional capital : a study of Bristol's elites, 1835-1939"
• Philliteracy Twitter thread on the history of commemorating donors

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, Rhod talks to Martha Lackritz-Peltier, General Counsel of nonprofit technology specialist TechSoup, about using tech to overcome some of the barriers to cross-border giving and the localization of international development. Including:

• What is the UN’s Grand Bargain? Why is this important?
• Why has it not been delivered on so far?
• Where does the reluctance of INGOs to cede control to local CSOs come from?
• Lack of trust/fear of fraud & mismanagement? 
• Unwillingness to relinquish power? Force of habit?
• Not knowing how to do it?
• How does NGO Source aim to address this problem?
• Are the biggest challenges in gathering and providing data on NGO equivalency technical, political or cultural?
• How do funders and grantees use this data?
• What steps need to be taken to protect NGO data and make sure it is not mis-used?
• What responsibilities do platforms bear for the choice of which organisations do and don’t make it onto their lists? 
• What are the key barriers to making a platform like NGO Source work at scale? (i.e. political/regulatory issues, buy-in from funders, buy-in from recipient orgs, technological challenges?)
• Are governments (in the US and elsewhere) actually keen to encourage and facilitate cross-border giving (given that it often results in reduced tax take in their own countries for benefits produced elsewhere)? #
• What is the most compelling argument for why governments should support cross-border giving?
• What barriers do international financial regulations (AML, CTF, sanctions etc) present to cross-border giving?
• Is there a danger that through supra-national bodies like FATCA, the US ends up imposing its own views and values on the rest of the world when it comes to philanthropy and civil society?
• What should we make of the promises of various new and emerging technologies (e.g. AI, blockchain etc) to “revolutionise” international development and cross-border giving?
• Is there a danger that technological solutions risk leaving behind smaller CSOs and grassroots organisations? 

Related Links

• TechSoup's website
• NGOSource on Twitter
• Martha's article on "Due Diligence in an Increasingly Remote World"
• Philanthropisms podcast with Sadaf Shallwani from Firelight Foundation
• Philanthropisms podcast on "The Platformisation of Philanthropy"
• Philanthropisms podcast on "Cryptophilanthropy: Boom or Bust?"

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode Rhodri is joined by Angela Kail (Director of Consulting at New Philanthropy Capital (NPC)) to take a look at the growing cost of living crisis in the UK (and beyond), and what means for philanthropy, grantmaking and the work of civil society organisations. Including:

Impact on charity finances

• What will the impact of inflation be when it comes increasing costs (e.g. staff costs, energy, food, building materials, leisure equipment etc)?
• What impact will inflation have on decreasing the value of reserves or longer-term contracts/grants?
•  Will any of the govt measures announced so far (e.g. capping energy bills) help charities? Are they enough? 
• What will the impact of rising interest rates be on charities?  Will any of the govt measures announced so far (E.g. capping energy bills) help charities? Are they enough?
• Is charities’ ability to fundraise going to be affected?

Increased demand for services

• Where are we going to see the most acute demand for services in coming months?
  • Direct support for those in poverty (e.g. food banks, warm spaces)
  • Advice and help (e.g. CAB, specialist advice for those dealing with major illness, disability etc)
  • Indirect effects (mental health, physical health, domestic violence etc)

Impact on everyday giving

• Will we see fewer people giving, or the same people giving less?
• Is there a danger that levels of donations remains stable, but their value decreases in real terms as inflation rises? Does this mean we actually need to encourage more giving? And does this present a major challenge in the current economic climate?

Impact on HNW philanthropy

• Should we expect any direct impact of the cost of living crisis on HNW giving? If so, is it likely to go up, or down?
•  Is there potential for philanthropy to play a role in helping charities survive the cost of living crisis?
• What are the dangers of seeing philanthropy as a potential solution here? (e.g. is there a risk of validating policy decisions, or hiding the true impact of cuts?)
• What are the practical challenges? (e.g. Lack of knowledge/experience of HNW fundraising, unequal distribution of donors around UK, increased competition for fundraising)

Impact on grantmaking

• What impact will inflation/interest rates etc have on grantmakers?
• Could funders be spending more from their endowments?
• Should funders add inflationary top-ups to existing gifts/grants?
• Would it help if funder simplified grantmaking processes?
• Why is unrestricted funding so importan? 
• How can funders use data (from NPC, 360 Giving etc) to help ensure grantmaking is targeted at areas of greatest need?

Related Links:

• NPC's Confronting the Cost of Living Resource Hub
• NPC's annual conference NPC Ignites 2022
• NPC's Local Needs Databank
• Pro Bono Economics/CAF briefing on inflation and charities
• CAF polling on public intentions to reduce charitable giving
• FT article, "Charities underpin the UK’s social safety net as cost of living crisis bites"

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we talk to political philosopher Emma Saunders-Hastings about her new book Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality and some of the big questions that philanthropy raises for philosophers and political theorists. Including:

• What is the distinction between distributive and relational concepts of equality? 
• Many modern critiques of philanthropy focus on the former, but there is a rich history of exploring the latter (by people like John Stuart Mill, Jane Addams etc). Why have we forgotten this tradition? And why is it so important to revive interest in these questions?
• What should we make of examples where philanthropy is based on unequal relationships but still produces positive social outcomes? 
• In terms of  relational inequality is there any difference between everyday donations  and those of big money donors? Or do both run the risk of perpetuating unequal relationships between individuals?
• Is rejection of the idea of gratitude on behalf of the recipient a necessary part of seeing philanthropy more as a matter of justice than of charity? Is there any danger that in doing so we lose something important about the reciprocal nature of giving? (Or, more pragmatically, that we lose an important part of what keeps people giving?)
• Can an increased emphasis on everyday giving help to counter concerns about the anti-democratic impact of big money philanthropy?
• Does philanthropy have any value as a “nursery of democracy” (a la Tocqueville)?
• Does a focus on this aspect of philanthropy dictate prioritizing particular kinds of activities or causes (e.g. volunteering rather than cash giving etc)?
• Do any of the efforts to make philanthropy more democratic by adopting participatory grantmaking or embracing traditions of mutual aid address the concerns raised in the book?
• Is Effective Altruism particularly prone to criticism that it is paternalistic and furthers relational inequality, since it prioritises measurable outcomes dictated by donors over  empowering recipients?
• What value can historical or philosophical perspective bring to our understanding of philanthropy?
• Do critiques of philanthropy too often confine themselves to the realms of ideal theory, or fall into the trap of comparing worst-case examples of philanthropy with idealized conceptions of government? How do you avoid this risk?

Related Links:

• Emma's Book Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality
• Emma's paper on Frederick Douglass and the campaign against the Free Church of Scotland's acceptance of money from slaveowners: “Send Back the Bloodstained Money”: Frederick Douglass on Tainted Gifts
• Emma's post on EA in a forum for the Boston Review: "Imposing conditions on gifts to poor people can be undemocratic".
• Philanthropisms podcast on "the philosophy of philanthropy"
• Philanthropisms podcast with Maribel Morey.
• Philanthropisms podcast on "tainted money"

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we talk to Derek Bardowell,  CEO of Ten Years Time Ltd and author of new book Giving Back: How to do good better, We discuss why our understanding of philanthropy needs to shift from a mindset of charity to one of justice, and what this means for donors and grantmakers. Including:

• Why is the distinction between charity and justice so important, and what does it mean in practice?
• Is growing scrutiny of where philanthropic wealth has come from a good thing? 
• What should philanthropic organisations be doing to understand and make amends for any links to historic racial injustices? 
• Does philanthropy have a diversity problem?
• Are funders more effective when they reflect more closely the people and communities they serve? In what ways can they achieve this?
• Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issues that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of all philanthropic funders and nonprofits?
• What does this mean in practice for grantmakers? (e.g. supporting more grantees led by BIPOC leaders, promoting more BIPOC employees into positions of authority within foundations, acknowledging where philanthropic assets have been created in ways that exacerbated racial injustice, paying reparations etc?)
• Is there a danger of philanthropy being paternalistic, with decisions being made about communities rather than by them? How do we avoid this risk?
• 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?
• Is there a danger of "preaching to the choir" about philanthropy reform? I.e. those who engage with the arguments are the ones who always would have “got it” anyway? If so, how do you get these arguments out to a wider audience?

Related Links:

• Derek's book Giving Back: How to Do Good, Better
• Ten Year's Time
• Derek on the Reasons to be Cheerful podcast with Ed Milliband and Geoff Lloyd
• Philanthropisms episode with Tyrone McKinley Freeman
• Philanthropisms episode with Maribel Morey
• Philanthropisms episode with Edgar Villanueva

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we talk to Charles Keidan, editor of Alliance magazine, about why we need philanthropy journalism and what some of the key issues are in civil society right now. Including:

• Why is it important to have journalists focussing on philanthropy?
• Is coverage of philanthropy too focussed on the Global North (especially the US)? Is it possible to rebalance this?
• Is it possible to bring philanthropy journalism to a mainstream audience on a regular basis? If so, how does this need to be done?
• Could increased philanthropic funding of news media actually undermine journalism’s ability to hold philanthropy itself to account? (E.g. if outlets self-censor to avoid upsetting existing or potential funders).
• What are the key trends in philanthropy we should be watching?
•  Is climate change now seen by philanthropists and funders as something that concerns them regardless of their charitable mission? 
• Is growing scrutiny of where philanthropic wealth has come from a good thing?
• What should we make of concerns about “tainted donations”?
• Is it a challenge to get nuanced or balanced discussion about philanthropy issues in an increasingly polarised environment?
• Should philanthropy publications try to give space to as wide a range of views as possible, or is there a risk of "both-sidesing" issues?

Related Links

• Alliance Magazine website
• Charles's story in the Sunday Times (with Gabriel Pogrund and Katherine Faulkner) "Prince Charles accepted €1m cash in suitcase from sheikh" (Paywall £)
• The Alliance magazine article about the same story
• The recent opinion piece for Alliance by Simon Sommer, "It’s time to ditch the mantra of trust-based philanthropy"
• Charles's editorial response to that piece, "Is the trust-based philanthropy bubble about to burst?"
• Rhod's comment piece for the Beacon Collaborative, "Can we agree to disagree when it comes to philanthropy?"
• Philanthropisms episode with Teddy Schleifer
• Rhod's 2018 piece for Alliance (with Fran Yeoman) "Philanthropy should fund the media for its own sake"

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we explore the long history of concerns that some money may be "tainted", and ask what this means for philanthropy now and in the future. Including:

• The history of tainted donations, featuring: St Augustine of Hippo, The Venerable Bede, St Thomas Aquinas, The Paris Guild of Prostitutes, Frederick Douglass, George Cadbury, George Bernard Shaw, The Salvation Army, J. D. Rockefeller, Mark Twain and G.K. Chesterton.
• Is a donation only tainted if the method of wealth creation is ethical questionable, or can it be tainted by association becasue a donor is problematic for some other reason?
• How have views about what kinds of wealth creation are or aren't ethically acceptable changed over time?
• Is there a statute of limitations of any kind on tainted money, so that after a certain period of time it is deemed OK despite any problematic connections?
• Is it enough to acknowledge when wealth is based on past injustices such as slavery, or do active reparations need to be made? How does this work in practice?
• Should we distinguish between critiques of individual tainted donations and systemic critiques of wealth and capitalism as a whole?
• Who decides whether a donation is tainted?
• Is it better to take tainted money if the charitable activity being funded addresses the ethical concerns arising from the wealth? (E.g. using money from the gambling industry to address gambling addiction). Or does this increase the chance of reputation laundering?
• Does acceptance of a gift in reality always imply condoning the source of wealth?
• Are concerns about tainted donations greater when the donor is getting recognition for the gift? Would it be better if such gifts were entirely anonymous?
• Is it more acceptable to accept money from a tainted source if no strings are attached? Is this another argument for core cost funding?
• Is new technology bringing new challenges when it comes to identifying and assessing the sources of donations?

Related links:

• Philliteracy thread on the history of tainted donations
• Rhod's article on "A Brief History of Satirising Philanthropy"
• Philanthropisms episode on Platform Philanthropy
• Philanthropisms episode on Cryptophilanthropy
• Philanthropisms episode with Ben Soskis
• Emma Saunders-Hastings's article “Send Back the Bloodstained Money”: Frederick Douglass on Tainted Gifts"
• Julie-Marie Strange & Sarah Roddy's Paper "Banking for Jesus: Financial Services, Charity, and an Ethical Economy in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain" 
• George Bernard Shaw's "Preface to Major Barbara, with First Aid to Critics"
• Teddy Roosevelt's "Man With the Muckrake" speech 
• Curb Your Enthusiasm, "The Anonymous Donor" Part 1 and Part 2.

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss the links between religion, faith and giving with David P. King, Karen Lake Buttrey Director of the Lake Institute on Faith & Giving and Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies at the Lilly Family School on Philanthropy at Indiana University- Purdue University, Indiana. Including:

• How important a part does faith play in motivating and shaping approaches to giving in the modern world?
• What role has it played historically?
• When it comes to faith as a factor in philanthropy, what is most important:
  • Observance of specific religious requirements to give (e.g. tithing, Tzedakah, Zakat)?
  • Broader religious teachings on ethics & responsibility?
  • Attendance at places of worship?
  • A sense of shared religious identity?
• How do religious teachings on the nature of poverty and justice affect the likelihood of their followers giving and the ways in which they give?
• Are we seeing a decline in faith in places like the UK and the US, or simply a shift away from organised, collective religion to more informal, individual spirituality? What impact might this have on giving?
• Are places of worship important in maintaining cultures of giving?
• To what extent is this because of their religious nature and to what extent is it simply because they are community buildings that bring people together, or act as a location for grassroots/informal activity?
• At a time when secular community spaces are becoming fewer, do places of worship have an increasingly important role to play as community anchors? Are they  embracing this role, and how?
• How much of the giving that goes towards religion in the US is for the maintenance of religious institutions themselves, and how much gets passed on into wider charitable activities?
• What role has faith (especially missionary faith) played in shaping the field of international development and humanitarian aid?
• Does faith still play an important role today? (E.g. given that quite a few major INGOs have religious roots, and are ostensibly still religious orgs)
• Does the academic study of philanthropy and civil society need to do more in terms of taking into account the role of faith groups?
• What challenges does this pose? (i.e. Different literatures/concepts, specialist knowledge of the structures of religious orgs required etc?).

Related Links:

• The Lake Institute on Faith and Giving
• David's profile page at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUI
• David's 2017 Conversation article "Why Faith Inspires People to Give"
• David's blog for Lilly Family School of Philanthropy "Giving 2021: Pandemic lessons and the future of religious giving"
• David's HistPhil article, "Religion’s Role in International Relief and Development: World Vision and the Age of Evangelical Humanitarianism".
• Philanthropisms podcast episode with David's Lilly Family School of Philanthropy colleague Tyrone McKinley Freeman