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

Send us a textIn the eighth edition of our podcast 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:   Marlene Walk (University of Freiburg, Germany) and Jamie Levine Daniel (New York University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service), about their research into how nonprofits can use social media most effectively in the context of competitive philanthropy.Maikel Meijeren (Radboud University, Netherlands) about his work on what motivates people to volunteer for organisations working with refugees, and whether these are distinct from general motivations for volunteering.Noelia Salido Andrés  (University of A Coruña, Spain) about her research into the factors that determine success in donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes.Related LinksMarlene and Jamie's paper Message (in)congruence: Tweeting while competing for donations (co-authored with Cali Curley), and the ERNOP research note based on it.Maikel's paper Assessing the ‘Why’ in Volunteering for Refugees: Exploring Volunteer Motivations(co-authored with Marcel Lubbers and Peer Scheepers), and the ERNOP research note based on itNoelia's paper When the winner takes it all: online campaign factors influencing the success of donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes (co-authored with Marta Rey-Garcia, Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez & Rodolfo Vazquez-Casielles), and the ERNOP research note based on it.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 look ahead to 2025, and offer our annual set of predictions-that-aren't-really-predictions-but-more-like-thoughts-about-interesting-trends. This year we consider:UK Grantmaking on pauseImplementing policies to boost givingDebate over tax relief for charitable givingUS foundations under populist attack Next Gen philanthropy and new modelsContinued growth of DAFsClosing space for civil society in the US and beyondMore UK charities to closeRebalancing head and heart in philanthropyPopulation debates, pronatalism and philanthropyThe platformisation of givingOpenAI and the blurred lines between profit and purposeThe final death of XSocial media influencers and the impatience economyDe-teching and the importance of real-life experiencesThe resurgence of cryptoWearables on the rise, and AR/VR finally goes mainstreamAI ambivalence and the rise of AI slopAre LLMs a dead end?GenAI and the erosion of authenticity.Related links:Last year's Philanthropisms prediction episode, part 1 and part 2WPM article on "What Will 2024 Bring for Philanthropy and Civil Society?"WPM articles on the future of work, life extension and pronatalism, Open AI and blurred lines, Elon MuskWPM guides on philanthropy and: emerging tech, AI and cryptoHBS paper, "Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality"Ethan Mollick's blog on "15 Times to use AI, and 5 Not to"Eryk Salvaggio's blog series on "AI Slop Infrastructure"Future Today Institute Tech Trends 2024Accenture Life Trends 2025

Send us a textIn this episode we discuss social investment and impact investing with Scott Greenhalgh, Chair of Social and Sustainable Capital. Including:Is there a difference between social investment and impact investing? If so, what is it? Do we need to be clearer about this distinction?What is the relationship of ESG investing to impact investing and social investment?What is the current size and shape of the impact investment market in the UK (and globally)?How big a determining factor is govt policy in determining potential opportunities (especially around public service delivery)?How big a role could philanthropic foundations be playing by deploying their endowed assets for impact investing?Does impact investment/social investment necessarily involve sacrificing financial return for social return, or are there genuine “win-win” opportunities that deliver both?Even if there are such opportunities, is there a risk that emphasising or celebrating them will set unrealistic expectations about the market as a whole?Is it OK to use philanthropic capital or government funding as a way of subsidising returns for impact investors?Is this only acceptable as a temporary means to an end? I.e. as a way of making an investment appealing at the outset by de-risking it, but with a view to convincing impact investors sufficiently of its longer-term merits that they will invest alone?Is it difficult to ensure that the focus on social impact is maintained in the impact investing space? (i.e. is there a tendency over time to prioritise financial metrics and returns, which might lead people to invest in “safer” projects and organisations that carry less financial risk but also have lower social returns?)What ways are there of ensuring that impact investors and their investees maintain a focus on social returns as well as financial returns? What is the principle of additionality and why is it important?Should we be concerned about the risk of companies engaging in “impact washing” or “purpose washing”- i.e. adopting the language and trappings of impact investing and social purpose in order to gain a reputational advantage or to offset criticism, but without actually producing any social value?What can we do to mitigate against this risk?Related LinksSocial and Sustainable CapitalScott's blog series for Beacon Collaborative, "What is Impact Investing?", "The UK Social Investment Market", and "Impact Investing and the 3 Dimensions of Capital"."What Do Impact Investors Do Differently?" Harvard Business School paperImpact Investing Institute, "The UK impact investing market: Size, scope, and potential".WPM article, "Is 'Purpose' Always a Good Thing?"Philanthropisms podcast conversation with Farahnaz KarimPhilanthropisms epsiode on "P

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Milos Maricic (entrepreneur and founder of the Altruist League) and Giuseppe Ugazio (Edmond de Rothschild Assistant Professor of Behavioral Philanthropy at the Geneva Finance Research Institute),  the co-editors of the newly published Routledge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Philanthropy. We discuss:How the book came about, what is in it, and what the aim of it is.What are some of the key opportunities that AI might bring for philanthropy and civil society?What are some good examples of AI being used to address social and environmental issues?Are these examples skewed towards any particular geographic regions or cause areas? If so, how can we overcome any inequalities?How are philanthropic organisations using AI to improve their own operations? (e.g. Efficiency, accessibility, impact measurement, grant applications/grant making?)How much work is there to be done in terms of getting the datasets required to make philanthropy applications of AI feasible? Is there a skills and knowledge gap in the nonprofit sector when it comes to AI?If nonprofit engagement with AI requires partnership with tech companies, how do we ensure genuine partnerships (i.e. overcome power imbalances etc)?Is there a danger that people and organisations from the tech sector are prone to “tech solutionism” (i.e. assuming that all problems, including complex, long-standing social ones, can be solved by technology)? How can civil society mitigate against this tendency?Should we take concerns about AI-driven automation making human workers redundant seriously? Or, will AI merely open up opportunities to focus on different things?Does the voice of civil society organisations (and the people and communities they serve) get heard enough in current debates about AI?What new laws and regulations might be required to ensure that AI is developed in a way that benefits society? What role can philanthropy and CSOs play in ensuring this?What do we still not know? i.e. where are the most urgent gaps for further research in philanthropy and AI?Related Links:The Routledge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Philanthropy (open access)Rhod's chapter for the handbook, "Guided Choices: the ethics of using algorithmic systems to shape philanthropic decision‑making"University of Geneva Philanthropy and AI projectThe Altruist LeagueWPM to Philanthropy and AIPhilanthropisms episode on "Philanthropy, Civil Society & AI"Philanthropisms podcast conversation with J Bob Alotta from Mozilla FoundationWPM article "Philanthropy & Civil Society in a Post-Work Future?"

Send us a textIn this episode we explore the way that philanthropic donations are taxed. Why do so many governments around the world choose to offer tax breaks for charitable giving? What is the history behind this? How are tax breaks for philanthropy designed and implemented, and are they effective? Including:What are the possible theoretical justifications for a government choosing to offer tax breaks on philanthropy?What are the tax base rationale, the subsidy rationale and the pluralism rationale; and why is the latter the only rationale that really works?Did tax relief on donations in the UK only come about by mistake?Why did William Gladstone learn to his cost not to mess with charity tax relief?Do we have the history of DAFs all wrong?What role did WWI pragmatism play in the introduction of the US charitable deduction?Are deduction-based or credit-based systems of tax relief more effective (or fairer)?Why does the UK have a unique (and uniquely messy...) hybrid system?Is there a case for imposing lower limits (floors) or upper limits (caps) on tax relief for donations?Which cause areas and organisation types should be eligible for tax relief?What kinds of assets can be donated with tax relief?What are the specific policy aims behind a policy of encouraging philanthropy, and are tax reliefs a good way of achieving this?Why is the US charitable deduction currently under fire?What proposals have been made to improve the UK Gift Aid system?Related Links:WPM article, "In an Ideal World, Would There Be No Philanthropy?"Philanthropisms podcast on Philanthropy and Social JusticePhilanthropisms podcast conversations with Fozia Irfan, Amy Schiller, Krystian Seibert and David ClarkeNic Duquette's paper, "Founders’ Fortunes and Philanthropy: A History of the US Charitable Contribution Deduction"The history of UK tax relief on donations in Rhod's 2016 book "Public Good by Private Means" (p. 109)Discussion of proposed measures affecting charitable donations in 1922 Finance Bill, Hansard 20 Jun 1922OECD 2020 policy report on Taxation and PhilanthropyCAF's 2016 report "Donation States: International comparison of the tax treatment of donations"

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Lisa Greer, philanthropist and author of "The Essential Fundraiser's Handbook" and "Philanthropy Revolution", about how philanthropy and fundraising interact and what we could be doing better. Including:Have fundraisers become too reliant on the tools they use, rather than the deeper skills of relationship building? Do the incentive and reward structures in many nonprofit fundraising departments make it harder for fundraisers to focus on long-term relationship building? Should nonprofits show gratitude to donors? How can they do this in appropriate ways?Do we need to distinguish more clearly between the idea of expressing thanks towards donors and debates over public recognition and naming rights?What impact is the forthcoming intergenerational wealth transfer is going to have on philanthropy and fundraising?Do Next Gen wealth holders have distinctive characteristics when it comes to their attitudes towards philanthropy, or their methods of doing it?What can nonprofits do to develop relationships with donors from younger generations?Is there still a justification for nonprofit galas in this day and age?Why are recurring donations important, and how can nonprofits harness them effectively?Why, despite the huge growth in DAFs in the US (and elsewhere) does there remain widespread suspicion about them in the nonprofit sector?Would better awareness among fundraisers, and a norm of encouraging/enabling DAF donations potentially help to overcome concerns about money getting “warehoused” in DAFs?How can a nonprofit determine when a donor is making unreasonable demands or acting in an inappropriate way?Is it ever possible to manage these situations and keep the donor on board, or is it better simply to end the relationship?Is fundraising sufficiently recognised and valued in the nonprofit world?Why are there such high levels of burnout in fundraising (and in nonprofits generally) right now?Why has the debate between between “Donor-centric fundraising” (DCF) and “Community-centric fundraising” (CCF) become increasingly fractious? Is there room to find common middle ground?Related Links:Lisa's WebsiteLisa's Substack blog, Philanthropy451Lisa's 2021 SSIR article "Leading with Humanity" (an extract from her book "Philanthropy Revolution" with Larissa Kostoff).Philanthropisms podcast conversations with Kate Symondson on next gen philanthropy, Ian MacQuillin on fundraising ethics and Emma Beeston and Beth Breeze on advising philanthropists.Philanthropisms podcast on gratitude and recognition

Send us a textIn the seventh 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:  Georg von Schnurbein (Centre for Philanthropy Studies, University of Basel), on research looking at specialist "foundation investment funds" in Germany and whether they facilitate sustainable investing.Joris Schröder  (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam), on research exploring the impact of talking about donations and receiving word of mouth solicitations on people's willingness to donate blood.Jörg Lindenmeier (Universität Freiburg), on research into whether "charitable ethnocentrism" reduces the likelihood of some donors to give internationallyRelated LinksERNOP's latest set of research notesGeorg's paper (with Berenike Wiener) "Foundation Investment Funds for Grant-Making Foundations in Germany: Do They Facilitate Sustainable Investing?" and the ERNOP research note versionJoris's paper (with  Eva-Maria Merz, Bianca Suanet, and Pamala Wiepking) "Did you donate? Talking about donations predicts compliance with solicitations for donations", and the ERNOP research note version. Jörg's paper (with Marcella S. Müller) "Exploring the role of charitable ethnocentrism and donation motives in international giving: Empirical evidence from Germany" and the ERNOP research note version.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/

Send us a textIn 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 AtlanticFT, "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-HastingsPhilanthropisms podcast episodes on tainted donations, pluralism, the philosophy of philanthropy, and gratitude & recognition.