Afleveringen
-
Send us a text
In 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 âthe social responsibility of business is to increase its profitsâ? 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?Links
Ted'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 text
In 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 naĂŻve 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 canât 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 âdisagree wellâ? 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 donât 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 âResistanceâ 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 âact anti-democratically to save democracyâ through philanthropy? Or is that a dangerous road to go down?Related Links
Daniel'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. Hereâs 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 -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Send us a text
In 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.
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.
In this episode we hear from:Related Links
Marlene 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 âWhyâ 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 text
In 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 text
In 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 âwin-winâ 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 âsaferâ 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 âimpact washingâ or âpurpose washingâ- 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 Links
Social and Sustainable CapitalScott's blog series for Beacon Collaborative, "What is Impact Investing?", "The UK Social Investment Market", and "Impact Investing and the 3 Dimensions of Capital"."What Do Impact Investors Do Differently?" Harvard Business School paperImpact Investing Institute, "The UK impact investing market: Size, scope, and potential".WPM article, "Is 'Purpose' Always a Good Thing?"Philanthropisms podcast conversation with Farahnaz KarimPhilanthropisms epsiode on "P -
Send us a text
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), the co-editors of the newly published Routledge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Philanthropy. We discuss:
How the book came about, what is in it, and what the aim of it is.What are some of the key opportunities that AI might bring for philanthropy and civil society?What are some good examples of AI being used to address social and environmental issues?Are these examples skewed towards any particular geographic regions or cause areas? If so, how can we overcome any inequalities?How are philanthropic organisations using AI to improve their own operations? (e.g. Efficiency, accessibility, impact measurement, grant applications/grant making?)How much work is there to be done in terms of getting the datasets required to make philanthropy applications of AI feasible? Is there a skills and knowledge gap in the nonprofit sector when it comes to AI?If nonprofit engagement with AI requires partnership with tech companies, how do we ensure genuine partnerships (i.e. overcome power imbalances etc)?Is there a danger that people and organisations from the tech sector are prone to âtech solutionismâ (i.e. assuming that all problems, including complex, long-standing social ones, can be solved by technology)? How can civil society mitigate against this tendency?Should we take concerns about AI-driven automation making human workers redundant seriously? Or, will AI merely open up opportunities to focus on different things?Does the voice of civil society organisations (and the people and communities they serve) get heard enough in current debates about AI?What new laws and regulations might be required to ensure that AI is developed in a way that benefits society? What role can philanthropy and CSOs play in ensuring this?What do we still not know? i.e. where are the most urgent gaps for further research in philanthropy and AI?Related Links:
The Routledge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Philanthropy (open access)Rhod's chapter for the handbook, "Guided Choices: the ethics of using algorithmic systems to shape philanthropic decisionâmaking"University of Geneva Philanthropy and AI projectThe Altruist LeagueWPM to Philanthropy and AIPhilanthropisms episode on "Philanthropy, Civil Society & AI"Philanthropisms podcast conversation with J Bob Alotta from Mozilla FoundationWPM article "Philanthropy & Civil Society in a Post-Work Future?" -
Send us a text
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, "Foundersâ Fortunes and Philanthropy: A History of the US Charitable Contribution Deduction"The history of UK tax relief on donations in Rhod's 2016 book "Public Good by Private Means" (p. 109)Discussion of proposed measures affecting charitable donations in 1922 Finance Bill, Hansard 20 Jun 1922OECD 2020 policy report on Taxation and PhilanthropyCAF's 2016 report "Donation States: International comparison of the tax treatment of donations" -
Send us a text
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 âwarehousedâ 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 âDonor-centric fundraisingâ (DCF) and âCommunity-centric fundraisingâ (CCF) become increasingly fractious? Is there room to find common middle ground?Related Links:
Lisa's WebsiteLisa's Substack blog, Philanthropy451Lisa's 2021 SSIR article "Leading with Humanity" (an extract from her book "Philanthropy Revolution" with Larissa Kostoff).Philanthropisms podcast conversations with Kate Symondson on next gen philanthropy, Ian MacQuillin on fundraising ethics and Emma Beeston and Beth Breeze on advising philanthropists.Philanthropisms podcast on gratitude and recognition -
Send us a text
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.
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 (UniversitÀt Freiburg), on research into whether "charitable ethnocentrism" reduces the likelihood of some donors to give internationally
In this episode we hear from:Related Links
ERNOP'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. MĂŒller) "Exploring the role of charitable ethnocentrism and donation motives in international giving: Empirical evidence from Germany" and the ERNOP research note version.
If you would like to contribute to making academic work accessible and more relevant for people working in, with or for philanthropy, then why not consider becoming an ERNOP practitioner expert and help translate academic work on philanthropy into research notes in close collaboration with the authors of the original work.https://ernop.eu/information-for-practitioner-experts/
Or, if you or your organisation might be interested in supportiong ERNOP's wider mission to advance philanthropy research and make it accessible to those working in, with, and for philanthropy, then why not consider joining as a member:https://ernop.eu/member-portal/subscription-plan/
-
Send us a text
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 âUndeserving Poorâ"WPM article, "MacKenzie Scott & the History of Challenging Philanthropyâs 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 canât 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. -
Send us a text
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 links
3 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 Sectorâs âRich Relationsâ?
Foundations and their grantmaking activities" -
Send us a text
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 âphilanthropyâ 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 âgenerosityâ instead, is there still a use for âphilanthropyâ 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 âgrand theoryâ 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 âdecolonize philanthropy researchâ 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 âPhilanthropy: Key debates and contending perspectivesâ, 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?" -
Send us a text
In the sixth 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.
RenĂ© Bekkers (Vrije University, Amsterdam), about his work on measuring coherence and consensus within the growing field of nonprofit studiesTara Bryan (University of Nebraska, Omaha) & VladimĂr HyĂĄnek (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 RenĂ©'s paperThe ERNOP Research Note for Tara and VladimĂr's paperThe ERNOP Research Note for Julia's paperRenĂ©'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: -
Send us a text
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 "Philanthropyâs 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 -
Send us a text
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 foundationsâ missions be reflected in their investments as well as their grants?Is it important to scrutinise or critique philanthropy? If so, whyIs it a challenge to get nuanced or balanced discussion about philanthropy issues in an increasingly polarised environment?Related Links:
The Symondson FoundationKate's blog for NPC, "Why Funders Need to Champion Small Charities"Kate's blog for Alliance, "How a UK Funder is Responding to the Cost of Living Crisis"Kate's blog for Beacon Collaborative, "Why Taking a Considered Approach Towards Philanthropy Matters".Philanthropisms podcast with Mary Rose GunnPhilanthropisms podcast with Dr Ewan KirkPhilanthropisms episode on gratitude and recognitionPhilanthropisms podcast episode on the cost of living crisis (with Angela Kail from NPC)WPM short guides on measuring impact and core cost funding. -
Send us a text
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 âworthyâ or âgoodâ)? 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 ârightâ 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 Awojobi
Related Links -
Send us a text
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 -
Send us a text
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 âempty signifierâ 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 âdeservingâ and âundeservingâ 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 âphilanthropy-as-resistanceâ, 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
Aneliseâs BookAneliseâs websiteAneliseâs 2015 paper, âA "Voice of Benevolence from the Western Wilderness": The Politics of Native Philanthropy in the Trans-Mississippi Westâ Bates College article about Anelise and her bookWPM article, âCold as Charity: philanthropy and the notion of the âundeserving poorâPhilanthropisms episodes on tainted donations and disaster response philanthropyPhilanthropisms interviews with Tyrone McKinley Walker, Maribel Morey and Ben Soskis -
Send us a text
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 âotheringâ 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 philanthropyâs 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 âgiving wageâ â 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 Philanthropyâs Status Quo"Philanthropisms podcast with Patricia IllingworthPhilanthropisms podcast with Emma Saunders-Hastings -
Send us a text
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. - Laat meer zien
