Afleveringen
-
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 links
Pamala'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.
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.
In this episode we hear from: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/
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.
Related Links: -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
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 Links
Chiara'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. Including
How 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?Disintermediation
What 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 Donations
Why 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 Fundraising
What 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?
Ian'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
Related Links -
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?
Transformative 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.
Related Links -
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 links
Anelise’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 Links
Amy'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.
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.
In this episode we hear from: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?
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"
Related Links: -
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
UnCharitable 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
-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 links -
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 Links
Wealth 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?
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
Related Links: -
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.
Pamala and Arjen's paper "Unrestricted funding and nonprofit capacities:
Related links:
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?)
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"
Related Links: -
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?
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
RELATED LINKS: -
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?
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.
Related links: -
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 links
Women'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 - Laat meer zien
