Philanthropisms

Send us a textIn this episode we take a look at the recent announcement by Bill Gates that he now plans to give away 99% of his wealth and spend down his foundation over the next 20 years. Including:Should we be excited about this news?Why has the announcement been made now? Should it be seen in part as a response to the Trump administration? Do the sums stack up? Can we square what has been said so far about the total amounts that will be given away with the projected annual spending rates?Is the Gates Foundation going to look beyond grantmaking in order to spend out? i.e. by transferring its endowment to other orgs, or by using endowment assets to make impact investments?Is this more evidence that norms around perpetuity in foundation philanthropy are shifting?Will it be necessary to shift away from “strategic” philanthropy in order to give money away at the required rate?Will Gates’s decision prompt other wealthy people to commit to giving more money more quickly? Gates has framed his goals in terms of “solving” a number of major societal problems, but does this set unrealistic expectations of what philanthropy can achieve?Is there a risk that the increased pace of Gates' giving could exacerbate concerns about the distorting effect that his philanthropy can have in some of the countries where the foundation operates?Why did a norm of perpetuity for foundations become established in the first place?What are some of the key criticisms that have been levelled at perpetual endowments?Relevant linksAP article featuring comment from Rhodri, “Bill Gates pledges his remaining fortune to the Gates Foundation, which will close in 20 years”Michael Kavate’s piece in Inside Philanthropy, “Gates Sets An End Date: 2045. But Do We Really Know How Much He’ll Spend?”New York Times interview, “The $200 Billion Gamble: Bill Gates’s Plan to Wind Down His Foundation”WPM article series “What’s the Point of Philanthropic Foundations?” Part 1, part 2 and part 3.WPM Guide to short-term vs long-term approaches in philanthropyBen Soskis’s paper on “The History of the Giving While Living” ethicPhilanthropisms podcast episodes on the ‘history of foundations’ and ‘philanthropy, gratitude and recognition’Philanthropisms podcast interview with Maribel Morey

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Allison Fine (President of Every.org and nonprofit tech expert) about the impact of AI on philanthropy, and how it can be used to make fundraising more relational at scale. Including: Is everyday giving in decline? If so, what are the key drivers?Are there particular declines among certain demographics or age groups?Has this led to an over-reliance on a small group of donors giving larger amounts? What are the practical and ethical issues with this?Has fundraising become too transactional? If so, why?Has a paradigm of transactional fundraising led many nonprofits to measure the wrong things, and therefore misjudge “success”?How do donors feel about transactional fundraising?What is the ‘leaky bucket problem’?Has an over-reliance on transactional methods of fundraising played any part in damaging or eroding public trust in nonprofits?Has a lack of opportunities for genuine connection and participation as a result of nonprofits becoming too transactional led donors to look elsewhere? (E.g. to online social movements, or individual crowdfunding requests?)What impact does transactional fundraising have on fundraisers themselves? (Do they actually want to use these methods?)What are the key components of a relational approach to fundraising? (E.g. personalisation of approach, tailored reporting etc).What have traditionally been seen as the barriers to making this work at scale?How can AI tools help?How do nonprofit leaders ensure that AI tools are adopted in the right way? (i.e. in ways that add value to human work, or free up human time, rather than just replacing it)?What new opportunities and challenges does the growth of online giving via digital platforms bring?What is the current market for cryptocurrency donations?Related Links:Every.orgEvery.org's "Relational Fundraising Playbook"Allison's pieces for Chronicle of Philanthropy: "How to Treat Every Donor Like They Matter — and Keep Them" and "Relentless Fundraising Is Eroding Trust in Nonprofits. Here’s How to Fix Things". Excerpt from The Smart Nonprofit  in SSIR (2022)WPM guide to philanthropy and AI,Philanthropisms podcast episodes with Milos Maricic & Giuseppe Ugazio, Lisa Greer and J. Bob Alotta.Philanthropisms podcast deep dives on philanthropy and AI and the platformisation of giving.

Send us a textIn this episode we discuss risk, success and failure in the context of international development and philanthropy, with Sarah Jeffrey (Vitol Foundation), Victoria Tayler (Risk Pool Fund) and Lonnie Hackett (Healthy Learners). IncludingWhat is the Risk Pool Fund and how does it work?What are the key market failures or needs it is designed to address?Are grantees often unwilling to highlight “failures” to their funders, for fear of losing future support?Are funders less likely to be objective in evaluating challenges faced by grantees when their own money is directly affected?Is a drive to keep “overheads” low part of the challenge?Can the collectivisation of risk through pooling offer reassurance to funders?How do you distinguish between foreseeable and unforeseeable problems? What role does RPF’s External Review Panel play?Does the experience of organisations on the ground give them a different perspective on risk?Is scaling the goal? Would replication be more appropriate? Or is the aim to highlight a market failure and thereby change funder behaviour? Has the RPF had an impact on the perception of risk among the funders involved in it?Are the insights from the fund being used to inform any preventative work designed to reduce the risks of certain kinds of failures occurring?What impact are we seeing so far from the dismantling of USAID, and what should we expect to see longer term? Related Links:Risk Pool FundHealthy LearnersRisk Pool Fund model analysis reportRPF paper, "Charting the divide: When funders perceptions of risk collide with on-the-ground realities"WPM article on "Philanthropy at a time of chaos"Philanthropisms interviews with Ewan Kirk, Sadaf Shallwani and Martha Lackritz-Peltier.

Send us a textIn this episode we discuss participatory grantmaking with Natasha Friend, Director of Camden Giving, and Maria Ahmed, a participant in Camden Giving's own participatory grantmaking work. Including: How did Camden Giving’s experiments with participatory grantmaking first come about?How does it work in practice?What has been the primary driver for keeping going?What have been the main insights from grantmaking meetings? Do the citizen grantmakers have full autonomy over grant decisions, or do they make recommendations that are then considered and implemented by foundation staff? How do you manage disagreements or differences of opinion? Are there any constraints on the causes/organisation types that the citizen panels can recommend?Are all the grants made in the form of unrestricted gifts? If so, over what time period? What is the average size of grant?Does Camden Giving provide advice or data to help guide decision-making? If so, how do participants make use of this? Do participatory approaches work particularly well for place-based giving schemes, due to the nature of the donor base?Could these approaches work for all funders?Should ALL grantmaking be participatory?What sort of infrastructure is needed to enable more funders to adopt participatory approaches?What kind of challenges might there be for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes? How do you overcome these challenges?How should you measure the impact of participatory grantmaking? Is it this just about the impact on grantees, or does it need to take into account the impact on participants in the process?Does participatory grant making work best in places that already have a high degree of civic engagement, or can it be a tool for building civic engagement?Does Camden Giving’s participatory approach act as a motivating factor for any of the donors to the organisation?Related linksCamden GivingResearch on "Building London’s Participation Infrastructure"Participatory Grantmaking global communityCentre for Evidence and Impact report on "Participatory Grantmaking - Building the evidence"WPM article "Why isn't all philanthropy trust-based philanthropy?"Natasha's guest article for WPM "Fears for Tears – Why Are We So Afraid to Allow Emotion Into Philanthropy?"Philanthropisms podcast interviews with Mandy van Deven & Chiara Cattaneo; Fozia Irfan and David Clarke.

Send us a textIn the ninth edition of our podcast partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we talk to more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.  In this episode we hear from: Mark Ørberg (Department of Business Humanities and Law, Copenhagen Business School), about his research on Enterprise FoundationsMichele Fugiel Garnter (Carleton University, Ottawa; and formerly University of St Andrews) about her work on the experiences of foundation professionalsOonagh Breen (Sutherland Law School, University College Dublin) about her work on regulatory reviews of charity lawFurther Resources:Mark's paper "Enterprise Foundations and Faithful Agency as Drivers of Sustainable Long-Termism in Philanthropy", and the ERNOP research note based on it (by Hannah Surmatz from Philea).Michele's paper, "The Changing Nature of Foundation Work: Advancing the Field by Understanding the Foundation Professional Experience" (with Tobias Jung and Alina Baluch) and the ERNOP research note based on it (by Maliha Hasan from University of Toronto).Oonagh's paper "Regulatory Reviews: Revolutionary Re-imagining of Charity Law or Simply Restatements of Convenience?" and the ERNOP research note based on it (by  Ana Carolina Barros Pinheiro Carrenho from Lisbon University) 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 supporting 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/  

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Marina Jones,  Executive Director of Development & Public Affairs at the English National Opera and project lead on the history of fundraising for the fundraising think tank Rogare. Including:Why is a historical perspective on fundraising valuable? Is fundraising a particularly hidden part of the history of charity/philanthropy? If so, why?  Are there useful practical lessons modern fundraisers can learn from their historical counterparts about techniques and approaches that work? Are there relevant historical lessons about some of the potential ethical issues that arise from fundraising?Can we find useful historical precedents for some of the recurrent criticisms of fundraising?How have fundraisers harnessed new communications technologies throughout history (e.g. printing, radio, telegraph, TV)?What role has commemoration and recognition of donors played in the history of fundraising? How have celebrities been used for fundraising purposes throughout historyHow far back can we trace the idea of using commercial approaches to raise money for charity?What role did fundraising play in bringing women further into the public sphere?What can we learn from portrayals of philanthropy and fundraising in literature or popular culture? Related links:Rogare's history of fundraising projectTimelines of fundraising history: the classical world (1000BCE-475CE), The Middle Ages (476-1499), Modern era (1500-1899), 20th and 21st centuryMarina's blogScott Cutlip's seminal 1965 book Fund Raising in the United States: Its role in America's Philanthropy (available to borrow on Internet Archive).WPM timeline of UK PhilanthropyRhod's 2016 book Public Good by Private Means: How philanthropy shapes BritainPhilanthropisms interview with Ian MacQuillin from RogarePhilanthropisms episodes on philanthropy and music; gratitude and recognition; and tainted donations

Send us a textIn this episode, we talk to Farai Chideya, journalist, writer, academic and lead author of a recent report from Bridgespan Group, "Philanthropy for a Multiracial Democracy: How Investing in Pluralism Can Open the Aperture for Democracy Funders". We discuss:Why is pluralism so important as an ideal, and what barriers/threats prevent it being realised?Why is it particularly important to emphasise multiracialism as an aspect of pluralism?What does it look like in practice to foster pluralism as a philanthropic funder?Does philanthropic pluralism naturally lead to a pluralistic society, or are there regressive philanthropic actors who want limit pluralism in society? Can we square these two things?Is there too much focus on elections when it comes to defining democracy-building philanthropy, at the expense of other elements of democracy?Why is a long-term perspective so important when it comes to funding democracy and pluralism?Why is collaboration so important?Why does it often pay to focus at a local level?How are funders harnessing storytelling and creative arts as tools for fostering pluralism?Might donors need to look beyond traditional nonprofit structures at times, and support work that is more overtly political? Does there need to be a clear distinction between this work and traditional philanthropy, or at the lines increasingly blurred?Can progressive funders take any lessons from the successes of conservative philanthropic funders in the US over the last 50 years, when it comes to the power of long-term, unrestricted funding for grassroots organisations as a means of shifting the parameters of political debate? Do concerns about an authoritarian crackdown on civil society during the2nd Trump administration mean that funders might have to put longer term ambitions of fostering pluralism on hold in order to address more immediate challenges, or is leaning into support pluralism part of an effective response? Has the idea of pluralism itself become more politicised, and is there a risk that this might make some funders more reluctant to fund this kind of work?Related links:Bridgespan's report, "Philanthropy for a Multiracial Democracy: How Investing in Pluralism Can Open the Aperture for Democracy Funders"Upcoming webinar on the report (March 25th)Farai's podcast "Our Body Politic" (currently on pause, but past episodes available).Philanthropisms podcast interview with Daniel StidPhilanthropisms episode on pluralismWPM article on "Philanthropy at a time of chaos"

Send us a textIn this episode we discuss climate philanthropy with Edouard Morena, Senior Lecturer in French Studies and International Politics at the University of London Institute in Paris. Including:How much philanthropy is currently aimed at climate issues?Can philanthropy play a meaningful role with respect to an issue of the scale of climate? If so, what is that role?In terms of existing climate philanthropy, what is the balance between downstream activity (i.e. direct interventions designed to address climate breakdown symptoms) and upstream activity (i.e. advocacy and influencing aimed at addressing underlying causes)Is there a danger of philanthropy skewing focus towards unhelpful “solutions” to climate challenge, or perpetuating the idea that technological “fixes” can be found instead of there being a need for fundamental structural reform?Is the focus on technological solution reflective of the fact that a growing amount of philanthropic wealth comes from the tech world?How will the election of Donald Trump affect climate philanthropy?Will funders "obey in advance" when it comes to the US's new anti-climate stance, or will they position themselves in opposition to it? Does this raise questions about the democratic legitimacy of philanthropy, even if you agree with the need to fund climate work?What does it mean to take a justice-based approach to climate funding?Should more climate philanthropy be aimed at supporting activists and movements?Youth climate movements and activists are often using tactics that traditional nonprofits would shy away from, such as direct action or strategic litigation. Does this present a challenge or an opportunity when it comes to convincing funders to support them?Is it particularly difficult to measure the impact of funding movements or individual activists? Does this present a challenge for climate movements?What will the rise of new centres of global philanthropic power, e.g China, mean for climate philanthropy?Might this start to rebalance global climate discussions away from their historic skew towards US interests? Related Links:Edouard's profile pageEdouard's 2016 book, The Price of Climate Action Philanthropic Foundations in the International Climate DebateMorena, Krause and Stevis (eds) Just Transitions: Social Justice in the Shift Towards a Low-Carbon WorldEdouard's paper "The climate brokers: philanthropy and the shapingof a ‘US‑compatible’ international climate regime"Edouard's 2022 report for UN Research Institute and EDGE Funders alliance, "Beyond 2%: From Climate Philanthropy to Climate Justice Philanthropy"Philanthropisms podcast episode on "Philanthropic Foundations: history, role and controversy"Philanthropisms podcast interview with Joshua Amponsem from Youth Climate Justice NetworkWPM article on Patagonia's nonprofit takeover

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to political philosopher Ted Lechterman about why philanthropy should be an important topic of study for philosophers, and what some of the key questions a philosophical approach raises are. Including:Why is a philosophical perspective on philanthropy valuable/important?Is there a danger that philosophical 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 the alternatives (e.g. government)? Are there substantive qualitative differences between the giving of everyday donors and the giving of the very wealthy, or do the same critical arguments apply to both (albeit perhaps to different degrees)?Should philanthropy be seen as supererogatory (once the demands of law, justice, social contract etc have been met through taxation?) or should we understand some (or all) philanthropic giving as a form of duty too?Is philanthropy to some extent a product of structural inequality and injustice, and does this limit its utility as a means of delivering structural reform/injustice? Do the demands of justice apply to all philanthropy, or just a subset? (i.e. is there room for philanthropic choices that do not meet this criterion? E.g. if a donor has given substantially to justice-furthering causes, is it acceptable for there to be some supererogatory portion that they give in a different way?)What is the core role of philanthropy within society which differentiates it from either state or market provision?Can philanthropy be used to strengthen democracy, or is it inherently anti-democratic?What are the possible theoretical justifications for a government choosing to offer tax breaks on philanthropy?Was Milton Friedman right that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”? If so, was it for the reasons he outlined or for different reasons?What should we make of Effective Altruism as a philosophical analysis of philanthropy?LinksTed's WebsiteThe entry on "philanthropy" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilanthropyTed's paper with Johanna Mair, "Social Enterprises as Agents of Social Justice: A Rawlsian Perspective on Institutional Capacity"Ted's paper "The effective altruist's political problem"WPM article "In An Ideal World, Would There Be No Philanthropy?"WPM article "Does Philanthropy Make You a Good Person?"Philanthropisms podcast interviews with Daniel Stid, Emma Saunders-Hastings and Amy Schiller.Philanthropisms episodes on "The Philosophy of Philanthropy" and "Why Do We Have Tax Breaks on Donations?"

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Daniel Stid, Director of Lyceum Labs and former Program Director of U.S. Democracy at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, about philanthropy, pluralism and democracy. Including:Why has the long-standing consensus on the value of philanthropic pluralism been challenged in recent years? Is there a danger of being naïve about pluralism, and holding up an ideal that it will result in a dynamic equilibrium where views from all sides are able to be heard, when in reality money and influence skews towards one end of the political spectrum? (If so, which end of the spectrum most benefits?)Where (if at all) should we draw the boundaries of acceptable pluralism? Is this a matter merely for the state to determine through laws, or are there other criteria that might be relevant?Is it a mistake to think that acceptance of pluralism means you can’t disagree with anyone?What are the 5 steps of "responsible pluralism" ?Is the case for responsible pluralism a pragmatic one (i.e. it is in the best interests to promote pluralism as it will make them more effective at achieving their mission) or a principled one (i.e. civil society pluralism is an inherent good)?Is polarisation now at unprecedented levels in our society, or has it always been a challenge?Have we simply forgotten how to “disagree well”? How has this affected philanthropy?Has social media made things worse, and if so in what ways? Is there a danger that those at the extreme ends of the spectrum on any issue shout the loudest, and thus give a false sense of how polarised society is, when in reality the majority of people are either closer to the centre or don’t care?To what extent is philanthropy to blame for polarisation?How concerned should US nonprofits be that the incoming Trump administration will crack down on civil society freedoms and seek to delegitimise certain orgs? Is it a good idea for nonprofits to position themselves as the “Resistance” to Trump? Or could this be counterproductive?Is there any basis for arguing that electoral democracy has become sufficiently debased that it is justifiable to “act anti-democratically to save democracy” through philanthropy? Or is that a dangerous road to go down?Related LinksDaniel's Substack "The Art of Association"Daniel's paper "Taking Democracy for Granted: Philanthropy, Polarization,and the Need for Responsible Pluralism"Daniel's Chronicle of Philanthropy op ed "Funding the Resistance Is Not a Winning Strategy. Here’s What Is"Ben Soskis's paper on the history of US philanthropic pluralism"Join or Die", documentary about Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone"Philanthropisms episode on pluralism, and interviews with Amy Schiller and Emma Saunders-HastingsWPM article series "What's the point o