The Philanthropy Reader

Michael Moody, Beth Breeze

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317447894
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Philanthropy is both timeless and timely. Ancient Romans, Medieval aristocrats, and Victorian industrialists engaged in philanthropy, as do modern-day Chinese billionaires, South African activists, and Brazilian nuns. Today, philanthropic practice is evolving faster than ever before, with donors giving their time, talents, and social capital in creative new ways and in combination with their financial resources. These developments are generating complex new debates and adding new twists to enduring questions, from "why be philanthropic?" to "what does it mean to do philanthropy 'better'?" Addressing such questions requires greater understanding of the contested purpose and diverse practice of philanthropy.

With an international and interdisciplinary focus, The Philanthropy Reader serves as a one-stop resource that brings together essential and engaging extracts from key texts and major thinkers, and frames these in a way that captures the historical development, core concepts, perennial debates, global reach, and recent trends of this field. The book includes almost 100 seminal and illuminating writings about philanthropy, equipping readers with the guiding material they need to better grasp such a crucial yet complex and evolving topic. Additional readings and discussion questions also accompany the text as online supplements.

This text will be essential reading for students on philanthropy courses worldwide, and will also be of interest to anyone active in the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors — from donors and grantmakers, to advisers and fundraisers.

Section 1

WHAT IS PHILANTHROPY?

Editors’ introduction

Overview

The subject of this Reader is complex and contested, so the volume starts by exploring the fundamental question: What is philanthropy? Readings here examine the definition of philanthropy, why it exists, what makes it distinctive, how it balances the public and the private, and how different scholars from different disciplinary perspectives go about studying it. It is a testament to both the complex and the mostly understudied nature of our subject that we need to start with an entire section devoted to these basic – yet revealing – questions.

While philanthropy is something that all of the readers of this volume will have some ideas about – and, as the readings in this section show, it is something that touches all of our lives in meaningful ways – there is by no means widespread agreement about the definition of philanthropy, why it exists, what makes it distinctive, or how we should think about and study it. Philanthropy as we present it in this volume is also exceedingly diverse in its expression and complicated in its practice.

When we combine this complexity of philanthropy with the fact that it is often connected to some of the most cherished values and strong passions in any culture, it is clear why we need to devote this first section to exploring what philanthropy means.

There is no single answer to the question, ‘What is philanthropy?’ This is because:

• Most people, even professionals working in philanthropy, have a fairly limited knowledge of the field in all its diversity. We usually don’t study philanthropy in the same way we study government, business or other major spheres of social life.

• The nature of philanthropy varies in different national, cultural, historical and social contexts. It takes on a different complexion in different times and places – as illustrated throughout this Reader.

• Scholarly attempts to answer this question come from many perspectives and diverse disciplines, from economics, to sociology, to history, to political science, even to evolutionary biology.

• People experience philanthropy in distinctive ways depending on their identity in play at any given time – e.g. as wealthy donors, as recipients of charity, as professional fundraisers, as informal helpers.

The ‘essentially contested’ nature of the concept is noted by many of the readings in this section, but that does not mean philanthropy is essentially controversial – though it sometimes is. Rather, it means the definition and use of ‘philanthropy’ is often debated, and more, that these debates raise difficult yet essential questions, as is the case with other such contested concepts such as ‘democracy’ or ‘art’.

The readings in this section explore many fundamental questions, and help bring to the surface a number of the core issues about philanthropy addressed throughout this Reader. Issues such as:

• Is philanthropy voluntary or obligatory? Is it private or public? Is it purely other-directed and altruistic, or is there an element of self-interest and egoism? How do people explain why they do it? Is philanthropy only something rich people do?

• Why is philanthropy important to individuals and to society? Why do we value it so much and expect so much from it? How do we explain the emergence of philanthropy in so many places?

• How can and should we study philanthropy? What aspects of the subject are revealed, and what is obscured, when we look through the lens of a particular scholarly discipline?

To address these questions, the readings here are grouped into four subsections.

Why philanthropy matters

The first three readings introduce a broad conception of philanthropy and discuss the often underappreciated importance and quite impressive scope of philanthropic activities – both the ‘greatest achievements’ of philanthropy in the past, and the enduring ways that it impacts our everyday lives.

The working definition of philanthropy informing this whole volume – ‘voluntary action for the public good’ – comes originally from Robert Payton. As noted in the Robert Payton and Michael Moody reading here, this is a deliberately broad and affirmative conception of the subject, encompassing not just voluntary giving, but also voluntary service and association. ‘Philanthropy’ defined in this way is meant to be an umbrella term – or as Payton and Moody say, a ‘circus tent’ term – to stand alongside ‘government’ and ‘business’.

Philanthropy is a positive human response to the uncertainties of the human condition, and so deserves a positive definition that captures the range of ways humans try to make the world better through voluntary action. These diverse philanthropic responses are found in many corners of social life across the globe, manifested in voluntary action to educate children, help the poor, save the environment, preserve heritage, serve the sick, care for the elderly, and so on.

As noted in the introduction to this volume, we take a special focus here on elite giving, and the other two readings in this section – from Beth Breeze and from the organisation Philanthropy New York – examine some of the greatest achievements of institutional and major donor giving in the UK and US, respectively, as an illustration of just how pervasive philanthropy is and why it matters. As you look through those lists – from the abolition of slavery to the polio vaccine, from famine relief to Sesame Street – imagine a world in which donors and charitable foundations had not made these investments.

Contested definitions of philanthropy

Being careful at the start of this volume to explore the nuances of the definition of philanthropy is not a matter of scholarly positioning. Rather, this is a way of introducing the core questions and diverse manifestations of this contested yet powerful concept.

Readings in this section show how the meaning of philanthropy has developed over time, from Ancient Greece, to colonial Australia, to the contemporary Western academy. Anne O’Brien shows, for instance, how the concept of philanthropy that had developed in Britain up to the eighteenth century was imported to the Australian penal colonies and mingled there in close association with the welfare state paternalism of the governing authorities.

The debate over the meaning of philanthropy, then, is embedded in the specific circumstances of those historical places, but there are also some recurring issues inherent in the concept that these readings note. One of these is whether philanthropy is truly ‘voluntary’ or if the moral duty to give makes it somewhat ‘obligatory’. Another is how to reconcile the public focus of philanthropic actions with the private nature of the actors choosing to give to public purposes. Marty Sulek also shows how philanthropy sometimes refers to the intent of the action, and sometimes to the consequence. As Siobhan Daly explains, it is in these essential contests over meaning that the complexity of philanthropy is revealed.

Different lenses for studying and explaining philanthropy

We also want to be clear at the start of this volume that there is not one way – let alone one ‘best’ way – to study this complex, contested subject. In fact, as the study of philanthropy expands, it is essential that we embrace multiple lenses of analysis lest we find ourselves lost in disciplinary cul de sacs or discouraging new scholars who might take insightful new approaches. A multidisciplinary approach is most suitable, because philanthropy touches on the core subject matter of so many disciplines – from the economy and the state, to culture and motivation, to human nature and evolution.

Different ways of seeing the world, from different scholarly disciplines, involve defining and explaining philanthropy somewhat differently, using their own disciplinary theories and concepts. This section samples many – though certainly not all – of those approaches, and reveals how each lens shines a unique light on the subject, highlighting certain features while minimising others.

Philanthropy in the various readings in this section is explained as: behaviour that exists because it provides a ‘warm glow’ for self-interested actors (James Andreoni) and behaviour that survives because it serves reproductive fitness for a species (Samir Okasha). Other readings look at how the state incentivises philanthropy (Rob Reich), and how culture provides multiple messages that we use to make sense of our giving in ambivalent ways (Robert Wuthnow). The readings here also identify what experimental evidence tells us about the mechanisms that drive charitable giving (René Bekkers and Pamala Wiepking), as well as what research tells us about the psychological and emotional consequences of giving (Christian Smith and Hilary Davidson). We can see disciplinary variation in the terms used in this set of readings as well, from ‘altruism’, to ‘giving’, to ‘compassion’, to ‘generosity’.

The balance of private and public in philanthropy

One key conceptual duality runs through all sorts of different disciplinary understandings. This is the question of the balance of the private and the public, a balance that is the crux of both many scholarly debates and many practical concerns about philanthropy. Philanthropy is defined as private action pursuing a public goal, and is driven by both internal and external motives. It is about doing good for others and for society, but it also has clear and multiple benefits for the individual. Philanthropy creates both private and public value – one does not negate the other – and this makes it more complicated to assess.

Dwight F. Burlingame’s essay addresses this duality by explaining the value of a conceptual distinction between philanthropy and altruism, arguing they are both important but not equivalent. This harks back to a classic point made by Alexis de Tocqueville, who marvelled at how Americans in the early nineteenth century were quite comfortable with the notion that something could be in the public interest and also beneficial to their own self-interest. In fact, this notion was helpful in motivating people to work towards that public interest. Peter Frumkin elaborates on this duality, arguing that effective strategic giving needs to balance both the public and private values that it creates.

Discussion questions

• What role does philanthropy, as described in these readings, play in your own life? How would your life be different if philanthropy didn’t exist?

• What are the pros and cons of a broad definition of philanthropy? What might be better or worse if we define philanthropy more narrowly – e.g., as just giving by wealthy people or by big foundations? Do we really even need or want one definition in a complex global world?

• What do the different disciplinary approaches to explaining philanthropy – from economics, political science, psychology, evolutionary biology and others – have in common, if anything? Which approach is the most helpful for understanding philanthropy as you’ve experienced it?

• Does it diminish philanthropy to say that there is personal benefit from doing it? Why or why not? How can we know when the private and public benefits of philanthropy are in balance, and what does being out of balance look like?

1.1 Why philanthropy matters

Taking philanthropy seriously

Robert Payton and Michael Moody, 2008

What is philanthropy? An initial summary

[I]n our experiences thinking about and doing philanthropy in some professional capacity – over the course of about 50 years for one of us, a mere 20 years for the other – we have never stopped asking the question, “What is philanthropy?” Our simple answer has not changed. It is the same answer proposed by the senior one of us many years ago in a previous book: philanthropy is “voluntary action for the public good.”

[…]

Our definition itself encompasses many things. Of course it includes voluntary giving, when we give our money, either in cash or in property, often on the spot but more often by check – or even by deferred bequests, so-called “planned giving,” that will come out of our estates one day. But our definition also includes voluntary service, when we give our time and, sometimes, our talent; and our definition includes voluntary association, the organized activity without which most voluntary giving and service would be ineffective or even impossible.

[…]

Taking philanthropy seriously

Philanthropy, in the broad sense in which we define it, permeates our lives, whether we are conscious of it or not. There are few things that affect as many aspects of our lives as philanthropy, and yet there are few that are less well understood. Philanthropy is as important in our lives as are law and medicine, subjects about which we know tremendously more than we know about philanthropy. Philanthropy is an essential tool in our collective attempts to solve public problems, yet there is too little – or only ill-informed – consideration of philanthropy in our public conversation. Unlike business, philanthropy does not have its own regular section in the daily newspaper; unlike politics, philanthropy rarely makes the front page. Yet in the United States alone there are millions of volunteers at work as you read this, thousands of checks totaling millions of dollars are in the mail today to thousands of philanthropic organizations and institutions, some better known to you than rock groups, college football teams, or breakfast cereals.

[…]

Despite its prevalence in the culture, few Americans have thought very carefully about philanthropy – what it is, how it works, its motivations, its results, what part it plays in our society and in the world, the arguments for it and against it. Because philanthropy is commonplace, most people have opinions about it in this broad sense, but these opinions are often uninformed. For example, many Americans think that most philanthropic giving comes from large foundations like the Ford Foundation and from large corporations like Microsoft. In fact, a whopping 83 percent of all dollars given philanthropically in the US are given by individuals, not corporations or foundations. Similarly, many people assume that most if not all of the funds received and distributed by nonprofit organizations in the US come from philanthropic contributions. In fact, only a small percent of the revenues of the nonprofit sector – only one dollar out of every eight received, by one measurement – comes from private giving. As a whole, American nonprofit groups receive less from private giving than from government, and their largest source of revenue by far is neither private giving nor government grants but fees for the services and goods they sell.

Americans also do not have a widely shared understanding of why we do so much of our public work through philanthropy. Political and policy debates that reference philanthropy often reveal an alarming ignorance about the tradition and the sector. Relying on “charities” to deal with public problems becomes a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Editors’ introduction to The Philanthropy Reader
• Section 1: What Is Philanthrope?
• Section 2: Philanthropy Across Time and Place
• Section 3: Being a Philanthropist: Callings and Critiques
• Section 4: Philanthropists and Beneficiaries: A Complex Relationship
• Section 5: Philanthropic Practices and Institutions
• Section 6: Debates about Making Philanthropy Better
• Sources and copyright information
• Index