Philanthropy and social change experts Mandy van Deven and Chiara Cattaneo discuss the importance of narrative power in civil society, challenges in shifting prevailing narratives about philanthropy, significance of ecosystem approach in resourcing narrative work, and tensions between urgency of social issues like climate crisis and patience required for narrative change. They emphasize the value of inclusive perspectives and intentional resourcing in narrative work within philanthropy.

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Kate Symondson, Head of Philanthropy at the Symondson Foundation, about family foundations, grantmaking & next gen philanthropy. IncludingHow 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, whyIs it a challenge to get nuanced or balanced discussion about philanthropy issues in an increasingly polarised environment?Related Links:The Symondson FoundationKate'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 GunnPhilanthropisms podcast with Dr Ewan KirkPhilanthropisms episode on gratitude and recognitionPhilanthropisms podcast episode on the cost of living crisis (with Angela Kail from NPC)WPM short guides on measuring impact and core cost funding.

Send us a textIn 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?DisintermediationWhat 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 DonationsWhy 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 FundraisingWhat 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 LinksIan's paper on "A Typology of Disintermediated Giving & Asking in the Nonprofit Sector" (with Rita Kottasz, Juniper Locilento & Neil GallaifordRogare paper on Normative Fundraising EthicsRogare History of Fundraising projectRogare paper on CCF & DCFPhilanthropisms podcast with Martha Awojobi

Send us a textIn 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 LinksTransformative Philanthropy (report and workbook)Video of Transformative Philanthropy launch eventWPM article on The History of Social Justice Philanthropy in the UKWPM article on radical philanthropyPhilanthropisms podcast episodes with Edgar Villanueva, Maribel Morey, Derek Bardowell & Martha Awojobi

Send us a textIn 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 linksAnelise’s BookAnelise’s websiteAnelise’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 bookWPM article, “Cold as Charity: philanthropy and the notion of the “undeserving poor”Philanthropisms episodes on tainted donations and disaster response philanthropyPhilanthropisms interviews with Tyrone McKinley Walker, Maribel Morey and Ben Soskis 

Send us a textIn 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 LinksAmy's bookAmy's websiteInterview with Amy in Public SeminarReview of Amy's book by Hilary Pearson in The Philanthropist JournalWPM 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 IllingworthPhilanthropisms podcast with Emma Saunders-Hastings

Send us a textIn 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:Arthur Gautier from ESSEC Business School, about his work exploring how wealthy people's life experiences shape their views on the relationship between impact investing and philanthropyIsabel de Bruin from Erasmus University, about her research on how the "NGO halo effect" (i.e. the inflated sense of moral goodness that nonprofit organisations and their employees might feel) can contribute to unethical behaviour.Janis Petzinger from St Andrews University about her work theorizing the role that philanthropic foundations play in the global policy sphere.Related Links:The ERNOP research note based on Arthur's work, and his original paper (co-authored with Anne-Claire Pache and Filipe Santos), "Making Sense of Hybrid Practices: The role of individual adherence to institutional logics in impact investing"The ERNOP research note based on Isabel's work, and her original paper (co authored with Allison Russell and Lucas Meijs), "How Moral Goodness Drives Unethical Behavior: Empirical Evidence for the NGO Halo Effect".The ERNOP research note based on Janis's work, and her original paper (co-authored with Tobias Jung and Kevin Orr), "Pragmatism, partnerships, and persuasion: theorizing philanthropic foundations in the global policy agora".Previous editions of the Philanthropisms podcast partnership with ERNOP: Edition 1, edition 2, edition 3 and edition 4.

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Australian philanthropy expert Krystian Seibert about his work with the Productivity Commission's Public Inquiry on philanthropy, including their recent draft report "Future Foundations for Giving" which sets out findings and recommendations on developing philanthropy in Australia. Including:How did the Productivity Commission report on philanthropy come about, and what is the aim behind it?What is the history and current context for civil society in Australia?Do recent critiques of philanthropy in the US and elsewhere resonate in the Australian context? (E.g. that philanthropy exacerbates inequality, that it is anti-democratic, that some sources of wealth are “tainted” etc.)Are the levers for using government policy to influence philanthropy necessarily limited by the fact that it is inherently something that exist independently of govt and is based on the free choices of individuals?  Is there anything we can do to be more ambitious when it comes to using policymaking to build a stronger culture of philanthropy? Does government have a wider role in setting a positive narrative about the role of giving (even if this doesn’t involve actual funding or policy change?)What does the current system for tax relief on donations in Australia look likeWhat is the underlying rationale for governments offering tax relief on donations?Why does the productivity Commission report conclude that the current system is “not fit for purpose” and what is recommended to remedy this?Why is it so important to have a philanthropic funding body owned and operated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities? (Is a practical thing about money not currently getting to where it needs to, or a more principled argument based on claims of justice?)Does the negative result of the 2023 referendum on establishing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice mechanism bolster the case for a philanthropic entity of kind outlined, or does it make it make it harder to achieve?Do private ancillary funds correspond that what we would call foundations in the US/UK context?How much pressure is there currently in Australia to consider increasing the minimum payout requirements?What role can government play in improving the data landscape around philanthropy?How could this help foster more/better giving?Related Links:Productivity Commission inquiry on philanthropyThe draft report, "Future Foundations for Giving"Philanthropy Australia's response to the PC draft reportKrystian's Alliance article about the draft reportKrystian's 2017 article "Walk with us, not over us: how to build philanthropy’s social license"Krystian's SSIR article, "Cultivating Legitimacy in Philanthropy" 

Send us a textOn this episode we take an in-depth look at the 2023 documentary film "UnCharitable", based on the book and TED talk by Dan Pallotta, which argues that the current funding model for the nonprofit sector is broken. Including-An interview with the Director of the film, Stephen Gyllenhaal, in which he talks about how the film came about, what he learned through making it, and what the plans are next for taking the film's aims forward.-A critical assessment of the film-Some short perspectives from a few of the attendees at a recent screening of the film held in London (organised by Why Philanthropy Matters and kindly hosted and made possible by Vitol Foundation): Natasha Friend from Camden giving, Amy Braier from Pears Foundation, Angela Kail from NPC and Ruo Wu and Alison Talbot from Winckworth Sherwood.Related linksUnCharitable movie websiteThird Sector column about the film by Ian MacQuillin (another attendee at the recent WPM screening event) WPM guest article by Tom Le Fanu on the overhead mythWPM short guide on core cost fundingWPM short guide on impact measurementPhilanthropisms podcast with Mary Rose GunnPhilanthropisms podcast with Dr Ewan KirkPhilanthropisms podcast on Philanthropy & Business

Send us a textIn this episode we discuss the 'Wealth Shared' project that took place in 2023 in Liverpool, UK -  in which 12 randomly-selected citizens of the L8 postcode were given the chance to decide how £100K was given away. We talk to project founder David Clarke, who provided the money and designed the approach, and also hear briefly from Anne-Marie Gilleece, one of the 12 participants who got to make the decision. Including:What was the thinking behind the project?What primarily drove the design? Was it a desire to make distribution of money more effective; concerns about democratic legitimacy; or an interest in the value of the process for those participating?How much latitude did the project allow participants in terms of choosing where the money went? What was the thinking behind any restrictions?What was most interesting or surprising about the deliberation meetings? Were there any moments of conflict? How were these handled?Were there any challenges in interacting with participants as the donor?How did data inform the decision making?To what extent were participants’ choices informed by awareness of the political context?How much of what happened was specific to the context of Liverpool?How important was the strong sense of existing identity associated with the L8 postcode in giving the group cohesion? Or would the shared responsibility of giving away money be enough to bind a more disparate group around a sense of common purpose?Was it a surprise that the group decided to give to organisations based locally?What discussions did the group have about how the money should be given? (i.e. did they want to stipulate that it had to be used in certain ways, or were they happy to give unrestricted gifts?)Was there discussion about effectiveness? What form did this take?Did the grant recipients see particular value in this process?Is this something that only works if driven by an individual donor who is willing to cede control? Or are there elements of the approach that could be adopted by institutional funders as well?Could a similar approach could work in other places? Related LinksWealth Shared websiteThe final report and evaluation of the projectArticle about the project in the Big IssueBBC News article about Austrian heiress Marlene Englehorn, who is doing a similar project involving randomly-selected citizens in deciding how to give money away.WPM article "In an ideal world, would there be no philanthropy?" (which was prompted by a discussion during one of the Wealth Shared sessions!)WPM article on radical philanthropy