Populism that is sweeping parts of the U.S. nation and the world may be starting to creep into philanthropy.
“Elites often know best about how to advance the common good,” David Callahan argues at Inside Philanthropy. “But if funders won’t say such a thing aloud, the truth is that many believe exactly that … [except] America is in the midst of an epic backlash against elites, one that’s put a reality TV maestro in the White House.”
What's At StakeKristin A. Goss and Jeffrey M. Berry similarly argues at HistPhil that the populist surge now poses at least 3 challenges to elite philanthropy. “Will philanthropies reorient their giving – and their public voice – in a sustained way to counter threats to a high-functioning, civil, and inclusive democracy?
As this larger debate swirls around us, few leading foundations and philanthropists appear to be grasping what may be at stake.”
Why These Emerging Views Matter
The act of impact investing, intentionally investing for the purpose of change, positive good and financial return, is seen by many as a type of natural evolution of Philanthropy 2.0.
“Philanthropy is transitioning to impact investing, which is really having a Theory of Change around an idea, using your institution’s resources, to really have a focus area, have an impact, measure those results, and hold yourselves accountable for driving change,” former Goldman Sachs executive and now Whitehouse adviser Dina Habib Powell explained last year.
A populist-driven backlash against perceptions of philanthropy as “elitist” may touch impact investing as likewise a “haven for the elites.”
In many ways, this evolution is unavoidable. Modern philanthropy, dubbed “Philanthropy 2.0” in some circles, recognizes that yesterday’s Rockefeller and Carnegie solo approaches make it harder to make impact that scales and is sustainable.
Today’s networked approaches to philanthropy and investing with intentionality acknowledge that to solve big problems like malaria, hunger or climate change, it is not only necessary to deploy large funding but also the right levels of infrastructure that allows organizations, like the Gates Foundation for example, to double their impact output.
Redefining Roles
David Callahan suggests these are good reasons enough for the sector to engage in its own introspection about elite power.
“The larger backdrop here, of course, is that America is in the midst of an epic backlash against elites, one that’s put a reality TV maestro in the White House. So far, philanthropy has been insulated from this broader convulsion, but there are good reasons for the sector to engage in its own introspection about elite power. Some of that introspection is already occurring, to be sure, with new conversations underway about how philanthropoids and coastal do-gooders might get out of their supposed “bubbles.”
Still, there’s not yet much discussion about the bigger question regarding how much sway private philanthropy—and a growing class of savvy “super-citizens”—should have over public life in a democratic society like ours.”
As do Goss and Berry.
“Philanthropy is a critical element in the American system of interest articulation and representation. Philanthropic dollars support civil society organizations, which provide a voice to everyday people.
The election has provoked a surge in democratic engagement as evidenced by large and sustained protest marches, booming membership in legacy organizations such as the League of Women Voters, and the formation of political organizations urging constituents to speak out and even run against their elected officials.
Spontaneous individual donations of money and time have fueled this surge in engagement, yet thus far there is little evidence that leading foundations see a new or expanded role for themselves in these movements.
To be sure, some leading philanthropies and their donors have responded to the times. They have done so by verbally affirming their support for progressive causes, by providing new funds to organizations representing those commitments, or both.
In terms of funding, the Rockefeller Foundation has given $1.5 million to buttress civil rights and liberties; the California Endowment has allocated $25-million to support health care for vulnerable children; and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has pledged $20-million for reproductive health organizations harmed by the revived “global gag rule.” Pierre Omidyar has announced a $100 million effort to shore up journalism, and George Soros has pledged $10 million to combat hate crimes.
Likewise, the Center for Effective Philanthropy found in a recent survey that almost 30 percent of 162 foundation CEOs intended to make changes in light of Trump administration initiatives.
It’s possible that such changes haven’t been implemented yet. Perhaps America’s foundations are lumbering giants that just move slowly.”
Sources: Inside Philanthropy, HistPhil, New York Times, Alliance Magazine
