I’m a social justice gal. That means I don’t really do “charity”. I have one of those, “Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for today. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime. Until the waters are polluted and the fish all die. Help him to organize with his peers, and he’ll demand all the justice, and fish, they deserve” posters. Yes, the print has to be small.
So while I monitor philanthropy, because I know that most nonprofits and the jobs of many social workers depend on it, and, while I celebrate advances in philanthropy in the spirit of “something is better than nothing“, and while I’ve certainly interacted with philanthropists as a grantee, I tend to look askance at any thought that reforming philanthropy is the way to change the world. And really rich people kind of freak me out.
So, that’s why I was really surprised to find myself pulling out tons of sticky notes when I read the book with the rather dubious title of Philanthrocapitalism. But there I was, on page 10, totally agreeing with, “if philanthrocapitalists are to be a legitimate part of the solution to the world’s problems, a new “social contract” is needed to spell out what it means to be a good billionaire, in terms of how much is given and in what way, how much tax is paid, whether the money has been made in a legitimate way, and what the rich can expect from everyone else in return.”
That obviously raises a lot of questions:
What to do about foundations based on money that was not raised in an entirely ‘legitimate’ way (there’s a difference, obviously, in the business philosophy of Rockefeller v. Google)? How do I deal with the reality that it’s hard to be as outraged about how the eBay guy made his billions as Carnegie’s violent repression of the Homestead Strike? And what about holding foundations accountable for their investments today, and the impact those investments may have on the perpetuation of social injustice?
How to set tax rates that will compel giving to the public good (one way or another!), because, as generous as some of these billionaires are, does anyone really need $100 million houses? And, connected to below, just because giving to Carnegie Hall may be better than buying another yacht, we shouldn’t settle for that choice–we know how to set tax rates so that really rich people will have to give money away voluntarily or see it taken on Tax Day.
How to reform our nonprofit code so that only institutions that truly serve the ‘public good’ warrant deductions? The U.K. is addressing this one with a 2006 Charities Act that may disqualify some of its prestigious schools from tax-privileged status, but we’ve got to ask ourselves whether someone giving to his or her own already well-endowed alma mater or prestigious cultural institution deserves the same tax benefit as someone providing clean drinking water or solving malaria (or funding a local arts institution or providing college scholarships to low-income students).
How to harness the entrepreneurial, can-do spirit of some of these philanthropists without riding roughshod over the grassroots leaders and nonprofit professionals whose lives have been wrapped up in these problems for years? For that matter, does every billionaire really need his (or her, but they’re mostly his) own foundation? I’m all for a race to see who can save the world faster, but is some of that overlap overkill?
How to bridge the gap that persists, on the ground if not in the minds of these philanthropists, between social enterprise and traditional nonprofit work? How to bring the best that the social entrepreneurs offer–a sharp focus on outcomes and transparency and flexibility and accountability–to the world of social change work, which sometimes is fuzzy and stop-and-go and even obscure, without diluting the former or denigrating the latter?
How to build a strong commitment to social justice among these kinds of ‘influencers’ in society, even before they become philanthropists, since that’s what would really begin to change the way that business gets done and governments function? I know, today that sounds crazy, but it’s not without precedent. Changing the rules of that game could go a long way.
Instead of turning to philanthropy because innovation is easier there than in government, or because there is a perception of greater accountability or better results, why don’t we pour resources into reforming those aspects of government service provision and social problem solving that we feel aren’t living up to their potential? Why can’t we learn from more of the innovations happening outside of government and seek to institutionalize them so that they’re more broadly available?
I don’t have any of the answers to these questions. It’s a testament to the rather amazing work that a lot of money is doing around the world that I’m much more willing to listen.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Philanthrocapitalism, Part I
I’m a social justice gal. That means I don’t really do “charity”. I have one of those, “Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for today. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime. Until the waters are polluted and the fish all die. Help him to organize with his peers, and he’ll demand all the justice, and fish, they deserve” posters. Yes, the print has to be small.
So while I monitor philanthropy, because I know that most nonprofits and the jobs of many social workers depend on it, and, while I celebrate advances in philanthropy in the spirit of “something is better than nothing“, and while I’ve certainly interacted with philanthropists as a grantee, I tend to look askance at any thought that reforming philanthropy is the way to change the world. And really rich people kind of freak me out.
So, that’s why I was really surprised to find myself pulling out tons of sticky notes when I read the book with the rather dubious title of Philanthrocapitalism. But there I was, on page 10, totally agreeing with, “if philanthrocapitalists are to be a legitimate part of the solution to the world’s problems, a new “social contract” is needed to spell out what it means to be a good billionaire, in terms of how much is given and in what way, how much tax is paid, whether the money has been made in a legitimate way, and what the rich can expect from everyone else in return.”
That obviously raises a lot of questions:
I don’t have any of the answers to these questions. It’s a testament to the rather amazing work that a lot of money is doing around the world that I’m much more willing to listen.
Share this:
Like this: