Philanthropy
is currently at a point where it is susceptible to change and making the
correct decisions now will address issues such as billionaire philanthropy and
the increase in the inequality between the rich and poor. According to a demographic
presented by the Global Philanthropy Report, 890 billion dollars worth of
philanthropy foundation assets belong to the United States. 450 billion dollars
worth of assets belong to 9 major countries combined. This is a testament to the
fact that the current system in which philanthropy operates is not effective.
According to the head of policy at
the Charities Aid Foundation, one of the most important methods of improvement
are to embrace structural change. For many critics, philanthropy is deemed as a
part of the issue rather than the solution as it serves as a distraction from the
change needed to be made to address the challenges imposed by inequality, such
as to taxation policies. Another solution is to democratize philanthropy as
this will ensure that it is not a tool used by powerful people to take
advantage of inequality. There are two effective methods of enacting this. First,
participatory grant making can be enacted, as this will allow for beneficiaries
to have a say. Often times, a criticism of billionaire donations is that they
do not know what is best for the people of need. The other is for philanthropists
to donate to organizations that have a more extensive base. This will prevent a
personal bias from playing a role and ensure that the process is more
democratic.
Finally, a controversy of great
discussion is whether we can differentiate between how money is made and how it
is used for philanthropic means. As a result, if we want to see results be
made, we must follow the principle, “First do no harm”. This will help address
the issue of inequality since these unethical practices are often times the
reason why the divide between the rich and poor is increasing. Furthermore, it
is clear that structural change is essential to ensure that the effect of philanthropy
is maximized. For some, this may consist of abandoning philanthropy as it may
be a distraction. However, it is clear that there are many means to incorporate
it into structural reform.
Arpeet Patel
Arpeet Patel
I tried commenting on this before spring break but half of my comments never post so I'll try to quote that one with some new reflections. I found the do no harm principle interesting because it makes me think of a Native American tribal rule that would predict how this new rule could affect their kin three or more generations down the line. Philanthropy certainly shouldn't exacerbate the issues their attempting to solve. Reich discussed philanthropy in relation to two terms we often associate with our democratic society; liberty and equality. Donors cant have full liberty to decide where their money goes and we expect equality and justice for all, even the disadvantaged. The two ideas come at the expense of one another. Structural reform is mandated if we hope to see any change
ReplyDeleteEzekiel Torres^
DeleteThank you for sharing this Arpeet. I also believe that there definitely should be structural change in the way that philanthropy is set up because a lot of money isn't used effectively. The system that is currently in place is based on a foundation of philanthropy that was established during the times of Robber Barons in the 19th century. This system allowed for the tax reduction for the wealthy philanthropists that choose to donate large sums of their money for social good. The idea behind this is that these wealthy individuals have to be very intelligent if they have accumulated so much wealth, and they should get to do what they want with their money. As we know now, the richest people are not all knowing in every aspect of life, and therefore may not have the best solution to a societal problem, all they have is the funds to fund their idea. I also agree with you that philanthropy should change, but I think it should follow the model that Rob Reich spoke about in his book "Just Giving". He discussed how big philanthropists should experiment with different solutions to a societal problem, and once they find the most effective answer they present it to the government to implement nationally. Although change is needed, I don't think it is likely that either of our ideas will be implemented. There will continue to be this ineffective system in place because large philanthropists won't want to adopt a new model that gives them less control over where their money goes.
ReplyDelete