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

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

In 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), who are the co-editors of the newly published Routledge Handbook for 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 for 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?"

In 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"

In 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

In 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/

In this episode we take a deep dive into the relationship between philanthropy and social justice. Does philanthropy necessarily deliver social justice; does it only do so under certain conditions, or does it sometimes actively get in the way of social justice? Including:Philanthropy as an individual act vs philanthropy as a societal mechanism, and why this creates a tension between emphasis on individual liberty and emphasis on justice.How changes in the understanding of property during the Enlightenment changed our understanding of charity.The emergence of a radical new notion of social justice and a critique of charity.The growth of contrasting ideas about property ownership that led to a new notion of "discriminating charity", and why this became so influential during the C19th.The influence of these ideas on Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" and why that was so pivotal.Philanthropy as "riot insurance".Does justice demand that we replace philanthropy with taxation, or can the two coexist?Why are some philanthropist campaigning for higher taxes?The history of the philanthropist as "agitator"Philanthropy and social movements: recipe for justice, or uneasy bedfellows?Radical philanthropy: history and current context.Related Links:WPM article, "In An Ideal World, Would There Be No Philanthropy?"WPM article, "Philanthropy and the “Undeserving Poor”"WPM article, "MacKenzie Scott & the History of Challenging Philanthropy's Status Quo"WPM article, "Radical Philanthropy: Some thoughts on the recent New Yorker profile of Leah Hunt-Hendrix"Darren Walker's recent article on Julius Rosenwald for The 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.

In this episode we take a deep dive into the world of philanthropic foundations. What are they, how did they evolve, and what light can their history shed on continuing debates about the role of foundations in our society today? Including:What are the key features that define philanthropic foundations? Are these consistent around the world and across time periods?Why do foundations often act as a lightning rod for wider concerns about philanthropy?The historical origins of western foundations: ancient Roman fideicommissium or Islamic waqf?The growth of the charitable trust in medieval EnglandReformation, industrialisation and the slow secularisation of charitable foundations"Zombie" foundations in C19th London and calls for reformThe birth of the giant general purpose foundations in 20th century America: why was this so surprising, and why has it proven so influential?Growing concerns about foundation abuses in mid C20th US, and the passage of the 1969 Tax ActThe "Dead Hand of the Donor" and critiques of perpetual endowmentsDo foundations deserve their tax advantages? Should they be made to work harder for them?Do endowed foundations have a unique role to play in taking risks and driving innovation when it comes to addressing society's needs? How much of what foundations currently do lives up to this ambition?Are foundations an important expression of philanthropic pluralism? Why is the legitimacy of this pluralism being questioned more than ever before?Do foundations need to be more open and transparent? If so, about what?Are foundations "repugnant to the whole idea of a democratic society", or can they play a positive role in strengthening democracy?How do concerns about "tainted" wealth affect the legitimacy of foundation philanthropy?Related links3 part Why Philanthropy Matters essay series on philanthropic foundations: Part 1 - Defintions; Part 2 - History; Part 3 - Current DebatesPhilanthropisms podcast episode on pluralismPhilanthropisms podcast episode on gratitude and recognitionPhilanthropisms podcast episode on tainted donationsFozia Irfan's "Transformative Philanthropy" paperRhodri on the "What Donors Want" podcast talking discussing whether UK foundations should be subject to a minimum payout requirementTobias Jung's chapter, "The Nonprofit Sector's ‘Rich Relations'?Foundations and their grantmaking activities"

In this episode, we sat down to talk about how we understand and measure global generosity with Pamala Wiepking,  Stead Family Chair in International Philanthropy and Associate Professor of Philanthropy at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI in Indianapolis (and also Professor of Societal Significance of Charitable Lotteries at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Including:Is “philanthropy” a helpful word in a global context?If not, why not: do people not understand it, or do they understand it, but with particular connotations?If we use terms such as ”generosity” instead, is there still a use for “philanthropy” to denote a specific subset of that activity? (And if so, what subset?) Is there any danger that if we broaden our definitions of generosity too far in our desire to make them more universal, they will become meaningless? Do we need a “grand theory” of global generosity? What are the obvious gaps, biases and limitations in our current knowledge about generosity at a global level?Is it useful to distinguish between philanthropic giving based on traditions of charity/altruism and other forms of giving grounded in traditions of mutualism/reciprocity? Or should we blur these distinctions within a wider conception of generosity?How important is it to “decolonize philanthropy research” as well as expanding our definitions of generosity?Is the role of philanthropy academics simply to observe and analyse giving and generosity, or to encourage it?Are current measures of global generosity useful? If not, why not?Apart from the challenges of finding appropriate definitions, are there other barriers to measuring generosity at a global level?Are we in the midst of a "generosity crisis", or is the apparent decline in giving in places like the US, the UK and the Netherlands merely a reflection of the fact that the way we measure generosity has failed to evolve in step with how people actually choose to give?Should the policy mechanisms we currently use to encourage and support philanthropic giving (e.g. tax reliefs) be adapted to encompass a broader range of activities that fit within an expanded definition of generosity?Related linksPamala's personal websiteThe call for contributors to the forthcoming volume on  “Philanthropy: Key debates and contending perspectives”, edited by Pamala and Femida HandyPamala's Voluntas article on  "The Global Study of Philanthropic Behavior". Pamala's article for HistPhil, "An inclusive study of global philanthropy: how can we overcome definitional, cultural and geographical boundaries?" 2022's "Philanthropy in a Different Perspective: Voices from Ethiopia, Nigeria and Serbia", a volume edited by Pamala & Femida Handy.Rhod's WPM article asking "Is the way that we talk about philanthropy and civil society holding us back?"Rhod's WPM article "Why Are We So Bad at Measuring Giving and Why Does It Matter?"

In the fifth edition of our partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we hear from more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.In this episode we hear from: René Bekkers (Vrije University, Amsterdam), about his work on measuring coherence and consensus within the growing field of nonprofit studiesTara Bryan (University of Nebraska, Omaha) & Vladimír Hyánek (Masaryk Universtiy, Brno), about their work on the impact of migration caused by the invasion of Ukraine on resilience in Czech NGOs.Julia Litofcenko (Vienna University of Economics and Business), about her work on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on charitable giving in Germany and Austria.Related Links:The ERNOP Research Note for René's paperThe ERNOP Research Note for Tara and Vladimír's paperThe ERNOP Research Note for Julia's paperRené's paper (with Ji Ma), "Consensus Formation in Nonprofit and Philanthropic Studies: Networks, Reputation, and Gender"Tara and Vladimir's paper (with Monica Lea), "Resilience, Ambiguous Governance, and the Ukrainian Refugee Crisis: Perspectives from NGO Leaders in the Czech Republic"Julia's paper (with Michael Meyer, Michaela Neumayr & Astrid Pennerstorfer)   "Charitable Giving in Times of Covid-19: Do Crises Forward the Better or the Worse in Individuals?" Previous editions of the Philanthropisms podcast partnership with ERNOP: Edition 1, edition 2, edition 3, edition 4 and edition 5.

In this episode we talk to philanthropy and social change experts Mandy van Deven and Chiara Cattaneo about their work on building and resourcing narrative power within civil society. Including:What is narrative power and why is it such an important tool for CSOs?Does narrative work tend to focus more on developing narratives that are relevant to cause areas in which philanthropic organisations work, or on developing narratives about the nature and role of philanthropy itself?What are the most prevalent narratives about philanthropy that need to be challenged or changed?What are the advantages of adopting an ecosystem approach to resourcing narrative work? How can funders support the various actors in the ecosystem to work well together?What infrastructure is required to enable CSOs to make the most of narrative as a tool?What particular role can foundations play in supporting narrative infrastructure?To what extent does developing narrative power require a willingness not to set specific goals/ timescales or to demand attribution of inputs to outcomes? Does this potentially make it harder to resource if funders demand measurability?How do you manage the tension between the urgency of issues such as climate breakdown or racial injustice and the fact that narrative work often requires patience and a willingness to work over longer timescales?Related LinksChiara's piece for Alliance  magazine about a session on narrative she and Mandy ran at the 2024 Philea conference.Mandy's article for Nonprofit Quarterly (with Jody Myrum) on funding narrative ecosystems.Mandy's blog for Philea about the Confluence event in Colombia in 2023Chiara's piece on "Social impact storytelling in Southeast Asia"Mandy's article on "Philanthropy's Role in Fortifying the Infrastructure for Narrative Power"Mandy's websiteThe Elemental project#Philanthropisms podcasts with Fozia Irfan, Sara Lomelin, Joshua Amponsem, Martha AwojobiWPM article on Radical PhilanthropyWPM article on language, philanthropy and civil society

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

In this episode we talk to Ian MacQuillin, Founder and Director of the fundraising think tank Rogare about the promise and perils of disintermediation in the charity sector, what a theory of fundraising ethics looks like, and why knowing more about the history of fundraising is important. Including:How did Rogare came about?What are the aims of the organisation, and what are its key themes/areas of interest currently? What is the current state of academic research on fundraising and charities? How much of this influences practice? What barriers are in the way of this happening more?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 AwojobiPhilanthropisms podcast on tainted donations

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

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

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

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

In 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" 

On 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

In 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

In this episode we speak to Mary Rose Gunn, Founder and CEO of The Fore, about why small charitable organisations are so valuable and how to support them to thrive. Including:How did The Fore come about, and what does the organisation exist to do?Is there too much competition and not enough collaboration in the charity sector? Why is this?How can we design more collaborative approaches? What kinds of resources and infrastructure will this require?How can philanthropic funders collaborate with the public sector more effectively?Do small charities have unique value (i.e. compared to larger ones?)Is one of the biggest barriers to philanthropic funders supporting small charities simply finding them in the first place? What can we do to overcome this barrierWhy is core cost funding so important for small charities and civil society organisations?What do small charities tend to use the money from core funding for?Should all small charities be aiming to grow and achieve scale, or is this not always the right goal? How can an organisation know?How important is resilience for small charities? What does this mean in practice?How big a challenge currently is burnout for leaders of small charities?What is required to make core cost funding work from the funder's point of view?Is part of the problem with the “overhead myth” that donors want some measure of the effectiveness of their giving, and in the absence of compelling evidence they are forced to rely on unhelpful financial measures like overhead ratios? What can we do to provide them with better metrics? What challenges do current grant application processes present for charities?Does this particularly disadvantage smaller organisations?When making relatively small grants, how do you maximise their impact?What additional support beyond just the money do small charities need? How does Fore provide this?What is required to make skilled volunteering work effectively? What kind of due diligence do donors need to do on small charities in order to fund them in a trust-based way?Related Links:The ForeMary Rose's essay for the Law Family Commission on Civil SocietyMary Rose being interviewed by Pioneers PostMary Rose's blog post, "The Inefficiency Myth – debunking a damaging small charity stereotype"WPM guest article from Tom Le Fanu, "Why we (still) need to move beyond “overheads” as a way of judging charities"WPM article, "If You Were a Philanthropist, What Would You Do?"Philanthropisms podcast with Dr Ewan KirkPhilanthropisms podcast with Emma Beeston & Beth BreezePhilanthropisms podcast with Tris Lumley

In the fourth 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: Pamala Wiepking (Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUI &  Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)  and Arjen De Wit ( Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam ), about developing a conceptual model to understand the benefits of core funding for nonprofit organisationsAli Body (Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent) about integrating philanthropy as a teaching tool within university courses.Rita Kottasz (Kingston University), about understanding what motivates people to give to food banks, and about creating a typology of disintermediation in the nonprofit sphere.Related links:Pamala and Arjen's paper "Unrestricted funding and nonprofit capacities:Developing a conceptual model" and the Research Note version.Ali's paper (with Emily Lau), "Teaching student philanthropy—Possibilities for practice within the UK higher education sector" and the Research Note version.Rita's paper (with Roger Bennett & Rohini Vijaygopal) "Who Gives to Food Banks? A Study of Influences Affecting Donations to Food Banks by Individuals" and her paper (with Ian MacQuillin, Juniper Locilento & Neil Gallaiford) on "A typology of disintermediated giving and asking in the non-profit sector" and the Research Note versionThe previous editions of the Philanthropisms/ERNOP series: Number 1, number 2, and number 3.

In this episode we talk to J. Bob Alotta - SVP, Global Progammes at Mozilla - about what is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence, philanthropy and civil society. Including:What role can open source approaches play in ensuring that AI is developed in a way that benefits society? What is Mozilla funding in this area, and how much other philanthropic funding is currently focussed on these kinds of initiatives?How optimistic should we be about the potential for developing open source approaches to AI at a time when there is such  huge commercial competition surrounding the technology? What will be required to make this happen?What is the aim of the new $200m Philanthropic Coalition on AI that Mozilla has joined?Why has Mozilla chosen to use the approach of funding individuals through its Fellowship program?What are some of the key opportunities that AI might bring for philanthropy and civil society?How much work is there to be done in terms of getting the datasets required to make philanthropy applications of AI feasible?Is the focus of some philanthropic funders and donors on the perceived existential risks of Artificial General Intelligence a distraction from the more immediate short term challenges the technology poses?What role has Effective Altruism played in making X risks the focus of philanthropic funding for AI research?What should we be focussing on as the most important immediate challenges with AI?Does the current turmoil at OpenAI suggest that trying to combine commercial drivers and philanthropic goals is a real challenge when it comes to the development of AI? Does Mozilla's own hybrid structure have lessons for how we can do this well?Does the voice of civil society organisations (and the people and communities they serve) get heard enough in current debates about AI?Do CSOs currently have the knowledge and capabilities to engage in these debates? If not, what new support and infrastructure do they need to do so (and what role can philanthropy play in achieving this?)Related Links:Mozilla FoundationMozilla FellowshipsMozilla Foundation's article, "Trustworthy AI Funding Principles: Learnings and Opportunities from Mozilla Foundation's 4+ Years of AI Grantmaking" Philanthropisms podcast 2024 tech predictionsPhilanthropisms podcast episode on Philanthropy, Civil Society & AIWhy Philanthropy Matters article, "What will 2024 bring for philanthropy and civil society?"WPM article, "OpenAI and the challenges of combining profit with purpose"Rhodri's Alliance article, "Artificial intelligence is coming for philanthropy"

As is now tradition, in our final episode of the year we take a look at some of the key themes and trends in philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what the coming year might bring. In this second of two parts, we focus on the opportunities and challenges that technology will bring. Including:Will Twitter (oh, alright, "X") finally give up and die? Will we settle on a replacement? And should we even do that, or should we rethink the whole idea of social media?Will the ongoing rise of influencer philanthropy, epitomised by MrBeast, bring more criticism and more pushback?Will the emergence of generative AI and its integration into already-ubiquitous tools lead to new opportunities for nonprofits in terms of productivity, accessibility and creativity?Will we see further scandals over nonprofit use of AI-generated content?Will  legal and ethical concerns about infringement of copyright and intellectual property rights in the creation of genAI tools have any impact on their use by nonprofits?Will recommender algorithms start to reshape how people make choices about giving?Will the "boomers" vs "doomers" narrative about the future of AI become entrenched, and will this create challenges for CSOs trying to highlight more immediate AI risks?Are new AI capabilities going to turbocharge cybersecurity risks? Is there any point caring about crypto and blockchain any more?Will the metaverse develop in a meaningful way, or is the required infrastructure still lacking?Are we beginning the transition towards a radically different future of work as a result of automation? What might this mean for philanthropy and civil society?Will we see more philanthropic funders get involved in debates over population slowdown? Does this risk taking them into ethically challenging ground?RELATED LINKS:Philanthropisms episodes on "philanthropy, civil society & AI" and "cryptophilanthropy: boom or bust?"WPM article on the chaos at OpenAIWPM article on MrBeast and PhilanthropyRhodri on The Bunker podcast discussing MrBeastWPM article on philanthropy, population debates and eugenicsRhodri's Alliance article "Artificial Intelligence is coming for philanthropy"WPM article on philanthropy and the metaverse

As is now tradition, in our final episode of the year we take a look at some of the key themes and trends in philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what 2024 might bring. In this first of two parts, we explore developments in the wider political and economic landscape,  as well as taking a deep dive into what to expect in philanthropy, everyday giving, grantmaking and the nonprofit sector. Including:Given the number of major elections worldwide, and the ongoing rise of political populism, will 2024 be a pivotal year from democracy?Will there be further attempts to roll back hard fought aspects of social progress?Will be see a global economic slowdown, or recession?Is there a danger of climate becoming politicised as an issue at the exact moment we need more concerted action?Will we move from talking about a decline in giving to taking action to address the challenge?Will we see further focus on the need to broaden our understanding of philanthropy and to learn from other cultures?Are concerns about the risks of allowing philanthropy to become 'platformised' going to become more acute?Will giving in response to conflicts test the limits of what we are willing to count as philanthropy?After a long period in which “efficiency” and “rationality” has been emphasised, are we seeing people reclaim the importance of "heart" in philanthropy?Will we see more criticism of billionaire wealth? What will this mean for elite philanthropy?Will the continued emergence of next gen donors start to shift philanthropic norms?Will the rise of China and India start to shift the centre of gravity of global philanthropy?Will we see more instances of donors withdrawing support for recipients over disagreements about positioning on contentious issues?Will we see a shift in debates about tainted donations, with more emphasis on accepting money as a default?Will we see the idea that companies can combine profit with purpose come in for further scrutiny (or criticism)?Will the continuing loss of infrastructure start to put a strain on the charity sector?How will traditional charities and funders respond to the growing prominence of social movements?Related Links:WPM article series on the nature and role of foundationsWPM guest article from Natasha Friend on embracing emotion in philanthropyWPM article on Leah Hunt-Hendrix and "radical philanthropy"WPM article, "What is Philanthropy For?"Reflections on the Gates Foundation 2023 Greater Giving SummitPhilanthropisms podcasts with Joshua Amponsem, Sara Lomelin and Elizabeth Barajas-Román

In this episode we talk to Dr Farahnaz Karim, Founder & CEO of Insaan Group, about catalytic philanthropy, impact investing and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Including:What does Insaan Group do, and how did the organisation come about?What does the current impact investing market landscape look like? Where is the money coming from, and where is it going?How do we ensure that the focus on social, as well as financial, returns is maintained in impact investing?Is it appropriate to use philanthropic grant money as "first loss" capital to lower the risk of impact investments and make them more appealing?Has the emergence of impact investing increased the overall volume of resources aimed at social good, or is there a danger it is "cannibalising" money that might otherwise have been  given as traditional donations?What is the role of government in relation to impact investing and philanthropy?Are social enterprise models a good way of developing trust in places where levels of trust in traditional philanthropy/NGOs are low?Can investment-type relationships be more empowering for those on the receiving end than gift-type relationships?Are the SDGs broadly focussed on the right things, or are there obvious gaps?Is the appeal of the SDGs partly pragmatic i.e. that even if they are not perfect, they represent a widely-understood and agreed framework for prioritisation and measurement?Is it a challenge for the SDGs that they are so huge in scale it can be difficult for individual organisations to relate them to their work? When it comes to impact measurement, do we need to balance quantitative data with qualitative data?Can technology play a role in making it easier to capture qualitative data? Related links:Insaan GroupFarahnaz's recent piece for Alliance, "Rethinking governance in philanthropy: where is the forgotten stakeholder?"Farahnaz's article for CircleMENA, "Towards the next paradigm shift in philanthropy" Farahnaz's 2022 Alliance piece, "Village to global village: Making sense of impact, ESG, and other ‘good' ideas"Farahnaz's 2021 Alliance piece, "The nature of capital and other threats to impact""Insaan – the Future of Philanthropy?" in Frank magazinePhilanthropisms podcast episodes with Sadaf Shallwani, Cassie Robinson and Aaron HorvathWPM short guide to measuring impact.

In this episode we speak to Elizabeth Barajas-Román, President & CEO of the Women's Funding Network, about taking a feminist approach to funding and what more philanthropy should be doing to drive gender equity. Including:What does it mean to be a feminist funder?Is feminist funding just for those who are interested in gender and women's issues, or can the principles be applied by funders in other areas?What are the similarities and the differences in terms of the context for gender equity issues across different geographic regions?How important is it to take an intersectional approach when funding gender issues? Is it ever a challenge to balance specificity in focusing on the particular needs of intersectional groups against the desire to address gender-based issues more broadly? Or can the two be mutually reinforcing?How important is the rise of women as donors (individually, or using collective models) for ensuring the growth of gender equity funding?What impact has the US Supreme Court's decision to roll back the abortion rights in Roe v Wade had on the landscape for gender equity and women's philanthropy in the US?Has it had an impact on gender equity and women's rights orgs work in other countries too?Does the rollback of Roe vs Wade suggest that philanthropic funders in the US were complacent about the need to defend previously won freedoms? Does it suggest that gender issues were not taken seriously enough?Is philanthropy too often paternalistic, and centered on decisions being made about communities rather than by them? Is this a particular problem for women's organisations? Is there a risk that funders can co-opt social movements or grassroots orgs, by deliberately introducing grant stipulations etc aimed to direct the focus of the movement away from controversial areas or soften their tactics?Do participatory approaches come more naturally to orgs with roots in the history of feminism and women's rights? What can other funders learn from them?Related linksWomen's Funding NetworkWFN's "Time is Now" pledgeElizabeth's article for Chronicle of Philanthropy (with Saida Agostini-Bostic,  president of Funders for LGBTQ Issues), "The Onslaught of Anti-Trans Legislation Demands a Crisis Response From Philanthropy"Elizabeth's piece for Candid, "How gender justice funders are taking historic action on policy".Elizabeth's pieces for Alliance, "The equitable way forward: giving circles" and "This Black history month, give where it counts".Elizabeth's SSIR article, "Women's Funds After the Pandemic"Philanthropisms podcast with Sara Lomelin, Philanthropy TogetherPhilanthropisms podcast with Lorena Gonzalez & Jes Olvera

In this episode we speak to Sara Lomelin, founding CEO of Philanthropy Together, about the rise of giving circles and the intersection between philanthropy, community and identity. Including:How did Philanthropy Together come about, and what is the organisation's mission?Who gets involved in giving circles? Are they different from"typical donors"?Do collective giving models appeal more to younger donors?What different approaches to giving circles take to decision-making?Are there models of collective giving that bring recipients into the decision making process as well as donors?How much collective giving takes place through long-term giving circles, and how much is through shorter-term “pop-up” collaborations? Is it possible to combine the strengths of both of these approaches?Are giving circles more likely to give to smaller grassroots orgs that might be perceived as "risky" by institutional funders?Can collective giving models help to make philanthropy more justice-focussed? Can collective giving help to build a sense of shared identity, or does it rely on there being a pre-existing sense of identity around which a group can be formed?  How do identity-based groups accommodate intersectional identities?Does collective giving build social capital? If so, is it merely “bonding” social capital or also “bridging”?The internet allows us to form communities of interest, identity or purpose that are not tied to geographic boundaries- in this context, is there still a meaningful relationship between ‘place' and ‘community'? How can we learn more effectively from other cultures of giving where collective or horizontal models are more common?What is the relationship between collective giving and mutual aid? Is it more common to see a focus on notions such as solidarity when people are giving collectively?Do collective giving models address some of the concerns about the potentially anti-democratic nature of elite philanthropy?Should elite philanthropy fund collective giving models in recognition of their unique value? Or should elite philanthropists adopt practices and insights from collective giving? Related Links:Philanthropy TogetherHali Lee's article on "Cultures of Generosity and Philanthropy Within Communities of Color"Sara's talk at the 2022 TED conference, "Your invitation to disrupt philanthropy"Sara's 2021 article with Asha Curran in Ms magazineSara's Alliance magazine article with Isis Krause on "The future of collective giving and what's next for Philanthropy Together"Philanthropisms podcast with Mihaela GiurgiuWPM article on the 2023 Gates Foundation Greater Giving SummitWPM article on the language we use to talk about philanthropy

In this episode we talk to Joshua Amponsem, co-founder and Strategy Director of the  Youth Climate Justice Fund, a newly-formed organisation that aims to support youth-led climate movements with trust-based funding, resources and youth-to-youth development. We discuss: How did YCJF come about? What is the organisation's mission and what does it aim to do?Why is so little philanthropy currently aimed at climate issues? Why is only a tiny fraction of that funding aimed at youth-led climate justice? (Despite the obvious success of youth climate leaders in putting these issues on the agenda).Do we need to stop seeing climate as a “cause area” and see it instead as a cross-cutting issue that affects all funders and civil society orgs?What do youth-led climate movements need apart from money? (e.g. leadership training & support, physical protection).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 the goal of YCJF to reduce the risk for funders of supporting youth-led climate movements and activists, or to get funders to accept and be comfortable with those risks?Is there a danger that even well-intentioned funders inadvertently skew the direction of movements by virtue of the choices they make about what to fund and what not to fund? How can we avoid this risk?How can we ensure that power and decision making within philanthropy is shifted towards the people and communities who would have been seen as the traditional ‘beneficiaries'? Why is this particularly important for youth-led movements?How is YCJF using participatory methods in its decision-making? What are the strengths of doing so? (And does it also bring challenges?)Do we need to measure impact in social change or social justice philanthropy? If so, how can we do it in a way that helps rather than harms grantees?Are there some sources of funding that present particular practical and ethical challenges for climate movements (e.g. money from the fossil fuel industry etc). Is it possible for movements to accept money from these sources without damaging their own legitimacy? If so, what does this require?Related links:Youth Climate Justice Fund websiteRead the Youth Climate Justice StudyJoshua's recent Alliance magazine piece (with Nathan Méténier), "More power to youth: Doing climate philanthropy differently"Profile of YCJF in Inside Philanthropy (£) Philanthropisms podcast with Lorena Gonzalez & Jes OlveraWPM short guides to core cost funding and impact measurement

This is the third edition of our partnership with the  European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), in which we talk to academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes. In this episode we hear from:Marlou Ramaekers from Vrije Universitat in Amsterdam, on how behaviour modelling and encouragement from parents and partners influence our informal volunteeringNina Sooter from the University of Geneva, on using virtual reality for fundraisingLivia Ventura from the Cambridge Institute of Sustainability Leadership, on applying a theoretical lens to our understanding of B Corporations.Related Links:September 2023 Edition of ERNOP Research NotesMarlou's paper "Informal Volunteering and Socialization Effects: Examining Modelling and Encouragement by Parents and Partner"Nina's paper with (Giuseppe Ugazio), "Virtual reality for philanthropy: A promising tool to innovate fundraising"  Livia's paper "Philanthropy and the For-profit Corporation: The Benefit Corporation as the New Form of Firm Altruism" Previous Philanthropisms/ERNOP partnership podcasts: number 1 and number 2The Why Philanthropy Matters website

In this episode we talk to Aaron Horvath, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Stanford University's Center on Philanthropy & Civil Society, about his research on how nonprofits responded in an unexpected way to new regulatory reporting demands- going well above and beyond what was expected of them. Including:What is the notion of "supererogation" and how is it applied in this research to analyse the response of nonprofits to new accountability demands?Why did nonprofits choose to report more than was asked of them?Are there any risks involved in doing so?What form does supererogation take? Is it primarily narrative (i.e. nonprofits adding contextual written information to “tell their story”) or do they also create alternative quantitative measures?Is supererogation with respect to external measures a demonstration of empowerment, or does it reflect disempowerment?Why has there been an increased emphasis on measurement and metrics in the nonprofit world?Is there a danger that external metrics reinforce the tendency for nonprofits to see themselves as accountable to regulators, funders or donors, rather than to their recipients?Do rankings and ratings lead to a greater degree of homogeneity in the nonprofit world? Is the desire to have metrics that can be applied equally to all CSOs regardless of cause area fundamentally misguided?If there are elements of value in the work of civil society that we cannot capture in any of our current measurement systems, do we need to find better ways of measuring, or give up on the idea that everything is measurable?Has the tide turned against metrics and impact measurement in the nonprofit world in recent years? If so, why?Why have LLCs become popular among certain groups of elite donors? Should we believe the narratives about a greater desire for flexibility, or be sceptical about whether it is driven more by a desire to bypass mimimal transparency and accountability requirements?Do LLCs undermine the “Grand Bargain”, in which the power to influence through philanthropy is balanced by accountability to wider society? Was this Grand Bargain actually functioning in practice anyway?Related linksAaron's paper "Organizational Supererogation and theTransformation of Nonprofit Accountability"Aaron's websiteAaron's HistPhil piece "Civil society by the numbers? Nonprofits, accountability, and the creative politics of quantitative discipline"Aaron's article for Alliance (with Micah McElroy) "LLCs – Good apples from a rotten tree"Aaron's essay in the 2022 Stanford PACS Blueprint, "Counting Alone?"Philanthropisms podcast with Michael Thatcher of CharityNavigatorWPM article on the history of attempts to count charitable giving

In this episode, we talk to Lorena Gonzalez and Jes Olvera from the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights about their work supporting unaccompanied child migrants in the US, and what it means to put justice at the heart of their approach to philanthropy. Including:What is the current landscape of philanthropic funding for immigrant rights like in the US?The issue of immigration is highly politicised (especially in the US), so when working as a funder in this field do you try to depoliticise it, or accept the reality that it will inevitably be seen through a political lens and work accordingly?Is philanthropy too often paternalistic, and centered on decisions being made about communities rather than by them?Can “funder ego” or “saviour mindset” present barriers to genuine efforts to share power?Is this a particular problem when working with children, because there is a natural tendency to act in a paternalistic way towards them and want to “save” them?What happens when there is also a racial element to this power dynamic?How can funders overcome any concerns they might have about the perceived risks of shifting power into the hands of young immigrants?What is Community-Centric Fundraising, and why has the Young Center adopted these principles in its work?Why is core-cost and multi-year funding so important when supporting movements and grassroots orgs?Does a focus on justice and solidarity require taking a different approach to philanthropy? What does this mean in practice?Does viewing things through the lens of justice change the nature of the relationship between funders and recipients? (I.e., they are no longer “beneficiaries” in receipt of a “gift”, but rather able to make justice-based claims for things they are due by rights).Do we need to measure impact in social change or social justice philanthropy? If so, how can we do it in a way that helps rather than harms grantees?Related links:The Young Center's website and blogLorena and Jes's guest article for Why Philanthropy Matters, “Solidarity NOT Charity – What it means to be a funder in solidarity with immigrant communities”Sign up for the Young Center's upcoming free online event with author Isabel AllendeSign up for the Young Center's upcoming Waymakers Race, Walk, Roll fundraising event (September 15-October 1)Understanding White Supremacy CultureVolunteer as a child advocateThe Principles of Community-Centric FundraisingPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Martha AwojobiPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Sara Slaughter and Derek MitchellPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Derek BardowellPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Sadaf Shallwani

In this episode we talk to Martha Awojobi, Founder/CEO of JMB Consulting about the upcoming BAMEOnline conference and about what it means to bring the principles of anti-racism to bear on philanthropy, charity & fundraising. Including: How did the BAMEOnline conference come about, who is it for, and why is it needed?Does philanthropy and the charity sector have a diversity problem?What does it mean for organisations in the charity and philanthropy world, and those working in them, to be anti-racist? 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?Is the momentum we saw following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 being maintained, or are racial justice efforts already stalling? Can “funder ego” or a “saviour mindset” present barriers to genuine efforts to share power?Does prioritisation of certain kinds of knowledge act as a barrier? How is this reflected in grant application processes, funding decisions etc?Does the success of XR, BLM and other “new power” organisations suggest that there is untapped appetite for participation and power sharing? 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 role can storytelling and the creative arts play in allowing us to imagine different ways of doing things?What is needed to get more of this in civil society and the charity sector?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?Is philanthropy a reflection of the “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?Links:BAME Online 2023JMB ConsultingCivil Society, "EDI strategies are a ‘waste of money', says charity consultant"Martha writing in Third Sector, "It will take courage, ambition and sacrifice to dismantle white supremacy in the charity sector".Martha as a guest on the Starts At The Top podcast and on the Charity Impact podcastPhilanthropisms episode with Jake Ferguson & Vanessa Thomas from Baobab FoundationPhilanthropisms episode with Derek Bardowell.Philanthropisms Episode with Edgar Villanueva.

In this episode we hear from three academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused Research Notes from the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP). We have:Claire van Teunenbroek from the University of Twente in the Netherlands, talking about her work on crowdfunding and philanthropyTobias Jung from the University of St Andrews in Scotland, talking about his paper on how the concept of spectrality can be applied to further our understanding of philanthropyFiona Fairbairn of the University of Kent, talking about her paper on charity galas and whether they are still relevant.Related LinksERNOP Research Notes The ERNOP research note for Claire's paper: "What is key for crowdfunding success and how can we explain it?"Claire's paper (with Carolina Dall Chiesa & Laura Hesse) "The contribution of crowdfunding for philanthropy:A systematic review and framework of donation and reward crowdfunding"Tobias's paper (with Kevin Orr) "What lies beneath? Spectrality as a focal phenomenon and a focal theory for strengthening engagement with philanthropic foundations"Fiona's paper, "Are charity galas still relevant? An examination of generational differences in attitudes towards gala fundraising events"Claire's personal websiteTobias's profile page at St Andrews

In this episode we take a deep dive into the opportunities and challenges that artificial intelligence might bring for philanthropy and civil society. Including:Why is everyone talking about AI all of a sudden?What do we actually mean by "AI"?How much of the talk about "AI For Good" is substantive, and how much is hype?What are some of the best examples of nonprofits/funders currently making use of AI?What impact will the emergence of new AI capabilites around process automation, image recognition, natural language processing, content generation etc have on the way that nonprofits work?What are the risks of "naive automation"? Why should make sure that there are still "humans in the loop"?How do we guard against the risk of systems like ChatGPT providing false or inaccurate information?What lessons can we learn from recent examples of nonprofits using ChatGPT and generative AI badly?How will AI affect the wider financial and regulatory environment for CSOs?What impact will AI, in the form of recommender algorithms, have on the ways in which we make choices about where and how to give?Could we see the emergence of fully automated "philgorithms"?How can nonprofits combat the risks of algorithmic bias, both in terms of how it affects them and the people/communities they serve?What role can nonprofits play in addressing AI-driven misinformation & disinformation?What role does civil society have to play in exploring new visions for a "post-work" future?Should we take warnings of existential risks from AI seriously? If so, what does this mean for philanthropy?What role should funders/CSOs play in highlighting the potential harms of AI? What barriers prevent them from doing this at present?Related Links:WPM guide to  philanthropy and AI Rhod's piece for NPC's 20th anniversary essay collection, "Would AI be good or bad for philanthropy? Will AI replace grant-makers?"NPC's recent event "AI in the charity sector: getting past the hype", where Rhod was a panellist alongside Tania Duarte of We And AI and Tris Lumley of NPCRhod's Alliance article "Artificial intelligence is coming for philanthropy"Philanthropisms podcast 2023 Predictions episodePhilanthropisms podcast episode on the Platformisation of Philanthropy

On this episode, we talk to philosopher and lawyer Patricia Illingworth about her recent book Giving Now: Accelerating Human Rights for All, and about how we can apply the framework of human rights to some of the big questions about the nature and role of philanthropy. Including:What does it mean to use human rights as a framework for understanding donor responsibilities?Is philanthropy a choice or a duty?Do human rights responsibilities apply to all philanthropy, or just a certain portion of it? If a donor has given substantially to rights-furthering causes, is it acceptable for them to give additionally in a different way?Would an idealized world still contain philanthropy, or would it be one in which all philanthropy was unnecessary? If there was still some philanthropy in an idealized world, what kind would it be? Is the rise of “purpose-driven business” and “compassionate capitalism” something we should welcome or be sceptical about?Should nonprofits always reject tainted donations, or is it possible to “turn bad money into good”?Can a human rights lens help us to determine whether source of wealth are tainted, and what course of action we should take? In cases where wealth itself isn't tainted through its mode of creation, but the donor may be ethically problematic, is it more or less acceptable to take the money?What is “moral self-licensing” and why does it provide a basis for thinking that nonprofits should not accept untainted money from tainted donors? Do charities or funders that make use of “poverty porn” infringe on the human rights of recipients? What does this mean for nonprofit fundraising?Can philanthropy be used to strengthen democracy, or is it inherently anti-democratic? How can a human rights lens help us to determine when philanthropy is acting positively even though it is running counter to democracy?Why is a philosophical perspective on philanthropy valuable/important? Related Links:Patricia's book Giving NowExcerpt in SSIR, "Tackling Moral Self-Licensing"Patricia's personal websitePhilanthropisms podcast episode on tainted donationsPhilanthropisms podcast episode on combining profit & purposePhilanthropisms podcast episode with Emma Saunders-HastingsPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Ben SoskisWPM article on Patagonia and nonprofit corporate ownershipWPM guide to tainted donations

In this episode we take a deep dive into an issue that has been generating a lot of debate recently: is pluralism in philanthropy a good thing, or not? Including:What has caused the latest furore, and what has the reaction been?Is philanthropic freedom genuinely under threat, and if so why? Or is this just a straw man?Should donors and foundations be free to "engage in the unfettered pursuit of their own mission, interests and prerogatives", or are there arguments for constraining this freedom?Is there an inherent tension in philanthropy between individual liberty and systemic equity? How can we balance these competing demands?Should we value pluralism because it enables diversity of thought and values, and provides the material for a healthy "battle of ideas" that can strengthen democracy? Is pluralism a necessary part of allowing marginalised groups and communities to overcome the "tyranny of the majority" and drive social change?Is accepting that civil society will contain things we may not like or agree with the necessary cost of pluralism? Is this a price worth paying?Is pluralism a noble idea in theory but naive in practice, when in reality power is skewed towards defence of the status quo and vested interests?Can everyday giving help to produce a form of pluralism that avoids some of the problems that come when we rely on elite philanthropy?Do we need to constrain pluralism, and if so how?To what extent is this a US-specific debate?Do nonprofits need to be "civil" or "polite" when they disagree? Or does this ignore the historical reality of social change?Related linksThe letter to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that has sparked this debate, "We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism"Vu Le, "Philanthropy's equivalent of “All Lives Matter”"Edgar Villanueva, "Debunking the Myth of Philanthropic Pluralism"Phil Buchanan, "Who Is Threatening ‘Philanthropic Freedom?'"Philip Rojc, "The End of Philanthropic History and that Pluralism Op-Ed"Philanthropisms podcast with Edgar VillanuevaPhilanthropisms podcast with Emma Saunders-HastingsWhy Philanthropy Matters article, "Voluntary Woke? Philanthropy, Civil Society & The Culture Wars"Rhod's article for Beacon Collaborative, "Can we agree to disagree when it comes to philanthropy?"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell verdict in "Bob Jones University vs United States"JS  Mill, "Endowments"

In this episode we take a look at the long history of the relationship between philanthropy and music. Including:Philanthropy supporting musicPatronage & philanthropyWho gets to decide which music count as "art"?How did Victorian paternalism tie in with the promotion of music?How and when did the state come to accept responsibility for funding music?Musicians as PhilanthropistsHow does the fact that many musicians come from relatively modest or poor backgrounds inform their giving?Celebrity musician philanthropy: from Jenny Lind to John LegendThe history of charity fundraising concertsPhilanthropy in MusicAre there any good songs about philanthropy?Related LinksRhod's article on "Marcus Rashford, Dolly Parton and public perceptions of Philanthropy"Classic FM, "Who were the great patrons of music?"Classic FM, "Seven times when great composers made some noise for charity"Drummond (1978)  "The Royal Society of Musicians in the Eighteenth Century"Uy, Michael Sy (2017) "The Big Bang of Music Patronage in the United States: The National Endowment for the Arts, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation". (PhD Thesis)Samples (2016) "The Humbug and the Nightingale: P. T. Barnum, Jenny Lind, and the Branding of a Star Singer for American Reception"Rolling Stone, "Prince, the Secret Philanthropist: ‘His Cause Was Humanity'"Guardian, "The philanthropic acts of George Michael: from £5k tips to nurses' gigs"Nonprofit Quarterly, "Sankofa Philanthropy: Hip Hop's Sixth Element"BBC, "10 pop stars who donated unbelievable amounts of money"Rolling Stone, "Heal the World: 20 Songs for a Good Cause"Lee (2010)"Heeding the Call: An Historical Overview of Philanthropy in Rock"

In this episode we talk to philanthropist Dr Ewan Kirk, founder of the Turner Kirk Trust, about why he believes it is so important that philanthropists are willing to take risks and give the organisations they support  'permission to fail'. Including:Why is it so important to give charities permission to fail?What factors make something a “good” failure rather than a “bad” one? What is the nature of the risk in philanthropy? Is philanthropy as a whole too risk averse? Can we do anything to encourage donors/funders to take more risks and be willing to “fail”? Why is it important, in terms of giving charities the freedom to take risks, that we get away from asking them to deliver specific outcomes?Should we still try to gauge the effectiveness/success of funding?Would more unrestricted funding help to foster a culture of risk taking and innovation?When looking for genuinely transformative solutions to long-standing problems, it is necessary to support ‘upstream' work (e.g. research, policy and advocacy) as well as ‘downstream' work (e.g. direct interventions)? Is there sometimes a danger that philanthropists go too far in looking for “big bets” or “moonshots”, and overlook more immediate issues and potential solutions as a result?Is it necessary to rein this tendency in at all? (i.e. to set parameters for what is “acceptable risk” when it comes to deploying philanthropic resources?)If one of the potential “exits” for risk-taking philanthropists is to get the state to adopt innovations or change the way it does things, what is best way of ensuring that this happens?If philanthropy genuinely has a higher risk tolerance than the public sector, why is that?Could the state itself become more risk-tolerant, or will it always need philanthropy? Related links:The Turner Kirk TrustEwan's interview for the Beacon Collaborative on "Why donors should give charities ‘permission to fail'"Why Philanthropy Matters short guide to core cost fundingWhy Philanthropy Matters short guide to impact measurement   

In this episode we talk to Michael Thatcher, CEO of US nonprofit rating service Charity Navigator,  about why and how the organisation tries to help people to choose charities more effectively. Including:What is Charity Navigator? What is its mission and what services does it offer to try to achieve that goal?What criteria does the Charity Navigator rating system encompass?What are the biggest challenges when it comes to gathering and providing data on nonprofit organisations?What are the key audiences for charity ratings and how do they use the information?Can ratings systems help to address the problem of donors focusing on unhelpful measures like overhead ratios? How do growing debates about whether measurement in the non-profit world too often becomes a tool for reinforcing the power dynamics between donors and recipients affect the work of charity ratings services and platforms?One of the functions of a rating service like Charity Navigator is to help keep people safe from charity fraud. How do you do this in a way that boosts trust in non-profits, rather than contributing to cynicism?Are nonprofit platforms neutral intermediaries, or do they have a role in shaping giving to make it more effective/equitable? What role does Charity Navigator play in disaster/crisis response? What specific challenges does this pose?  Do platforms like Charity Navigator have any role in rebalancing inequities in how funding is distributed (i.e. by highlighting under-resourced cause areas or geographies)?What responsibilities do platforms bear for the choice of which organisations do and don't make it onto their lists? Is it ever necessary to take decisions to exclude certain organisations, even where they are legal?With increasing focus on giving to social movements, grassroots organisations and even individuals, does Charity Navigator have any plans to expand its ratings beyond traditional non-profits? What new possibilities might emerging tech offer for Charity Navigator's work in the future?Related Links:Charity NavigatorMashable article on Charity Navigator's new websiteVox article on Charity Navigator's merger with Impact MattersPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Martha Lackritz-PeltierPhilanthropisms podcast episode on the Platformization of Philanthropy