Reynaldo Tahulending’s Post

Is philanthropy flawed? Read the full article: https://bit.ly/4aL7wa9 The vast majority of wealth owners and managers recognise some responsibility in the face of the many societal issues locally and globally. Philanthropy is the positive link between the adversarial concepts of wealth and society; wealth invariably, although not always, comes at the expense of society. Philanthropy seeks to mitigate the effects of unfettered growth for the elite with the distribution of wealth and benefits to worthwhile causes. Philanthropy has been criticised as being fundamentally flawed. If wealth were more equitably distributed and governments had progressive tax systems, the argument goes, then there would be no need for philanthropy, and no need for individuals to fund basic human rights like access to food and water. Put another way, the reliance on philanthropy today highlights extreme and unjust wealth inequality. Emma Saunders-Hastings, in her book, Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality, Paul Vallely in Philanthropy: From Aristotle to Zuckerberg, or Anand Giridharadas in Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, among others, provide a comprehensive review of prevailing criticisms. The economist Robert Reich argues that wealthy philanthropists are largely unaccountable and invest in areas that reflect personal interests rather than public need. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Harvard Kennedy School Executive Education, ClimateWorks Foundation, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, World Economic Forum, McKinsey & Company TAB Global #philanthropy #wealthdisparity #socialchange #impactmaximization #climatechange #sustainabledevelopmentgoals #publicprivatepartnerships #localcommunities #crossborderphilanthropy #monitoringandevaluation #timelimitedphilanthropy #donorgiving #globaltrends #strategicapproaches #wealthandsociety #theasianbanker #tabglobal

Philanthropy or Political Investment? A Reality Check Philanthropy is the essence of selfless giving—uplifting society without expecting anything in return. However, in the political landscape, social work is often reduced to a strategic investment, carefully designed to yield electoral dividends. What should be an act of compassion is frequently repackaged as a campaign tool, where noble deeds are leveraged for personal and political gain. Many leaders project themselves as philanthropists by funding welfare schemes, distributing aid, or launching charitable initiatives. While these efforts appear commendable, they often serve as instruments to secure votes rather than address systemic issues. The intent behind such actions becomes questionable when they are used as a means to demand political loyalty. What was once an act of service transforms into a transactional exercise, where public welfare becomes a carefully calculated strategy rather than a genuine commitment to societal progress. In contrast, true philanthropy seeks no recognition or return. It is about investing in sustainable change—education that empowers, healthcare that saves lives without bias, and initiatives that foster independence rather than dependency. Genuine social service operates outside the realm of electoral politics and remains rooted in the well-being of people, not in the pursuit of power. This distinction raises a critical question: Can social work still be considered philanthropy when it is used as a political currency? True leaders serve without seeking rewards, letting their actions speak for themselves. As responsible citizens, we must recognize and differentiate between authentic service and opportunistic altruism. It is time to hold our leaders accountable and demand a society where sharing and caring are not just political tools but fundamental values guiding our collective progress. Let us support those who prioritize humanity over ambition, ensuring that social service remains an act of selflessness, not a stepping stone to power.

“The man of wealth [must become] the…agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.” - Andrew Carnegie Strategic philanthropy is rooted in the paternalistic notion that wealthy donors—by their education, business acumen, etc.—are a) capable of understanding the needs of the poor and b) have unique wisdom to determine how their resources can best address society's most intractable challenges. This has been the prevailing philanthropic model for several decades (my entire professional career). I not only embraced it but also helped perpetuate it for many years. I was wrong. A growing body of research shows that the strategic philanthropy model is fundamentally flawed. With the benefit of hindsight, I now realize it doesn't even pass the "common sense test." 1) For starters, donors generally lack the lived experiences to understand the complexity (or, in many cases, simplicity) of the challenges they are trying to address. This is particularly true in international development. 2) My experience has been that most donors are well-intentioned. However, it is also naive to believe their motives are entirely altruistic. At best, tax incentives, desire for social status, business interests, etc., distort how funding is allocated and deployed. At worst, donors may overlook systemic changes that, while effective, might undermine their own wealth and privilege. 3) Increasingly, efforts to affect social change (especially in the US) are being thwarted by government laws, policies, and court decisions that seek to maintain the status quo (e.g., the Florida appeals court ruling against the Fearless Fund). 4) When a problem CAN be effectively (and profitably) addressed by the private sector, a smart entrepreneur will identify the need and address it. Absent a compelling commercial incentive, the challenge falls to the government. When the government can't (or won't) step in, it is inevitably punted to the social sector. The problem is that these big, systemic challenges are usually too great in scope and scale for the social sector to have any chance of effectively addressing them. Takeaways: 1) Governments are responsible for building and maintaining an equitable and sustainable society. They are the only ones who can achieve scale. We need to change the nonprofit laws regarding advocacy and do a better job of holding governments accountable. 2) The social sector still has an important role to play. Nonprofits working in the field (optimally, locally led) are best positioned to understand realities on the ground. 3) Financial oversight, capacity building, and impact evaluation remain important, but funders (and, in the case of international programs, western development professionals) need to adopt a more humble and collaborative posture. Thanks, Glen Galaich, for sharing this thought-provoking article.

An interesting piece of research from Stanford Social Innovation Review- “Where Strategic Philanthropy Went Wrong”, discusses the belief that despite significant progress in the scale and sophistication of strategic philanthropy, societal conditions across the United States have not improved. The authors suggest a new approach called empowerment philanthropy, which aims to foster political and economic self-determination by helping people find their own solutions and ensuring an effective multiracial democracy. Two key takeaways for us, especially in the context of our upcoming event on Philanthropies role in Politics and Policy: Philanthropy’s efforts on many issues in the US seems to be overwhelmed by the scale and immediate effects of government laws, policies, and court decisions.  Philanthropy may never create a more equitable and sustainable society in the longterm without facing its inherent limitations and increasing its engagement with the political process. The article in full can be found here https://lnkd.in/g3KNWrvn

I have SO MANY opinions about this SSIR article 👇 Do you agree strategic philanthropy has gone wrong? Mark Kramer (FSG, Collective Impact) and Steve Phillips (author, journalist) wrote about proof that Strategic Philanthropy didn’t work and what they think should come next. Stepping back, hearing someone with a reputation for thought leadership express that they’ve changed their point of view is refreshing. 🪴 ✅ I agree with many proof points that call into question what has been considered strategic. ✅ I agree with the attention given to the public sector, celebrating government for fulfilling its role. ✅ I also agree with their focus on raising wages as a central tenet of a better future. ❓ I disagree with the focus on universal basic income (UBI) issued by public sector bodies. That avoids the market solution - minimum wage increasing. . . The thesis 🧾 I told you strategic philanthropy would work, I was wrong. New solution: empower people! Now, let me tell you the right way to empower them. 🧾 . . ❓There’s something contradictory in there… can you spot it? Strategic philanthropy was a top-down, judgement-oriented point of view on solving societal challenges. Despite supposed intention to become bottom-up, the solutions proposed in the article still sound pretty judgy. Voting is good, great, important, and DEFINITELY on everyone's mind right now. 📥 ☑️ 💙 However, strong-arming people into voting and engaging with politics isn’t empowering their freedom. The opening line of the section on what will make things better says to “trust the wisdom of the poor.” The authors are doling out advice to philanthropists and in the year 2024, described the group they intend to empower “poor.” Can we 🔹trust🔹 anything they say after that? ⛔ And as for the first half of the phrase… Trusting the wisdom… the whole article is about advocating for the authors' wisdom. 🤔 Which brings me back to my early 1990s CD collection 💿 for a quote from Ms. Alanis Morisette… isn’t it ironic? https://lnkd.in/ee797AuW

Woah--great Stanford Social Innovation Review article https://lnkd.in/gMguNnvw by Mark Kramer and Steve Phillips: "Where Strategic Philanthropy Went Wrong." They argue that "strategic philanthropy" has been ineffective at solving urgent challenges in our society. We operate on the model where the wealthy decide how to allocate charitable resources (which causes to fund, which programs to fund) when what we should be doing, is allocating resources to those affected by challenges and empowering them to make their own choices: "Instead of making choices for other people, philanthropists must learn to empower individuals economically and politically to make choices for themselves and then celebrate their successes to inspire others, thus opening a far more pivotal role in fast-tracking widespread, lasting social and environmental progress." "Carnegie’s belief that the wealthy are wise because of their wealth and those in poverty are ignorant because of their poverty laid the foundation for a persistently paternalistic approach to philanthropy that endures to this day. No wonder philanthropy’s track record is as underwhelming as it is." This ties back to the themes we discussed at the Ensemble Capital Management Tactical Philanthropy Panel (Sara Lomelin Dwayne Marsh Jaimi Cortes, MBA Adam Pisoni Sean Stannard-Stockton, CFA, CAP Shilpa Andalkar, CFP®, CDFA® Ludo Thomasson, CFP®) on Collaborative Funds--one great way that (even) individual donors can give their money to let "others" decide how to allocate the resources--especially when the Funds are curated by folks from the communities the nonprofit recipients are supporting. Check out a database of 400+ collaborative funds here: https://lnkd.in/g55YQ5Ha

In a world where connections matter more than ever, investing in social capital can be a game-changer for philanthropy. Our latest article on Inside Philanthropy explores why building and funding relationships is crucial for creating lasting social impact. Julia Freeland Fisher, Guest Contributor reports: The importance of social capital in philanthropy Strategies for investing in relationships and networks Impact on community building and social change Join the conversation on how fostering strong relationships can enhance philanthropic efforts. Tagging MassMutual Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Walton Family Foundation The Joyce Foundation #SocialCapital #RelationshipBuilding #CommunityDevelopment #SocialImpact #CommunityResilience #Collaboration #SocialChange #InvestInRelationships #TrustBuilding #NetworkStrengthening #SustainableImpact #CommunitySupport #InsidePhilanthropy #Philanthropy

As we wrap up quite the busy month for all things impact—with Climate Week, Clinton Global Initiative, and the United Nations General Assembly. But this past September I also created something else—the New Philanthropy Framework. True to the principles demonstrated in the framework, this is a collaboration between myself and Wendy Wecksell ("WxL"), who pioneered the "EQ of Wealth and works with women who are on a mission to deliver high impact to the world, and also my partner in crime with the creation of AtlasDaughters. It’s a way to do high-impact philanthropy built on collaboration, partnership, and inclusion. It's bring a venture-minded approach to impact. About breaking down silos that are typically separated by power dynamics, for and non for profit investments, top-down instead of ground-up. It really is the future of impact... The trends by topic evolve they way we think about: Wealth EQ/IQ: Traditional philanthropy separates the assets (the IQ) from the dynamics or relationships within the family (EQ). The future philanthropy will integrate both. Family View of Money, Philanthropists, “Next-Gen”: The main takeaway here is about multi-generational inclusion. Instead of the wealth-creator having full ownership around decision making and vision. Philanthropy will continue to be used as a tool to bring families closer together and the definition of “philanthropist” will extend beyond the matriarch and/or patriarch figure and into younger generations, especially children. Power Dynamics: We’re moving away from funders considering themselves “experts” to the experts being the people and communities the closest to the challenges. This is a tenet and trust-based philanthropy, whose principles are built into this framework. Fundraising: Raising capital isn’t about finding money, it’s about finding your people. We’re continuing to move away from transactional approaches and doubling-down into fundraising as matchmaking with money, which leads to maximum collaboration and cooperation. Ideal Investors, Decision Makers, Engagement: The theme with these sections is about funders going beyond the checkbook — they’re bringing their networks, their skills and their time to the work. Philanthropists are true teammates to organizations, institutions, peer funders, and family members to make sure every resource is being utilized to accelerate progress. Decision-making and Transparency: We’re saying good-bye to closed door meetings, decisions, and an overall opaque process. Instead, decisions and grants will be open and flexible to the needs of the organization or institution. It’s not about control, it’s about coalitions. ROI: We are evolving away from old-school philanthropy of wanting your name on a building (the “The Edifice Complex”) What’s next in philanthropy is moving away from optics, ego, and extra work, and continuing to head towards impact as a team. On my mind... :)

A good article from Kevin Starr in the Stanford Social Innovation Review on Big Bet Philanthropy (a new adjective philanthropy!). There's some good insights from those on the front line on the upside and downside - as always, interested in your views and insights. One of the big questions for me is whether 3 years of a big bet approach to solving a social problem can have more impact than 10 years of consistency of guaranteed funding? Is lack of money for big ideas a problem to be solved? Or is lack of consistency in funding a bigger barrier to impact? A quote from Starr below: "It’s fun to feel like your money is going to make the critical difference. The problem is, it won’t, at least not in the long run. Even a Very Big Check cannot solve the problem." Letting go of attribution is a tricky thing, because attribution inspires more giving. It's one reason theory of change work can be really effective, if done in the right way within Foundations. Jane Magor Emily Wellard-Baring Stevie McGregor Sharon N. Andrew Baker Daniel Tomé Tania Cecconi Drew Bourgeois https://lnkd.in/g5ETcG-H

Still trying to understand philanthropy. It's a kaleidoscope that keeps opening up. A spot of academic fan-girling yesterday for the annual Shirley Lecture at the University of Kent's Centre for Philanthropy. Dr Beth Breeze OBE inaugural speech as the UK's first professor of philanthropy looked at why, despite its omnipresence in society (municipal buildings, life saving vaccines, human rights movements, the list goes on) it's still seen as a non-serious, marginalised subject. Great to talk to historian Hugh Cunningham, who for me has written the best book on the history of philanthropy (The Reputation of Philanthropy Since 1750 - Britain and Beyond). If only, this history was taught in our curriculum it would help dispel so many myths. We learned nothing about the golden age of philanthropy when I studied the industrial revolution at school. (Although to be fair we learned nothing about the slave trade either. Two major omissions). And finally, it's not often you get to hear a global superstar like Michael Moody of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University speak. This was a real treat and a fascinating, mind-expanding look at why we need to find a new way to define philanthropy during this moment of monumental change. What's different about now? - We have an increasingly diverse 'givingscape' e.g. Go Fund Me, DAFs, ESGs - The borders between the three pillars of philanthropy, government and business are blurring - There is more scrutiny over giving - There is a decline in trust - Traditional giving and volunteering as a fundamental human activity is going down. Moody believes 'private action INTENDED for the public good' may now be a better, more modified definition. Thanks to Beth, Karl Wilding Claire Routley and the whole team for a fantastic and inspiring day.