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

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

“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

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

When was the last time you took a moment to reflect on how to navigate change with unwavering confidence to shockproof your philanthropy? The world around us is evolving at an unprecedented pace, and as philanthropists, it's essential to adapt and thrive in turbulent times. I discuss three distinct forms of innovation that can help funders leverage the power of innovative philanthropy for social good. Explore them all in one convenient location here: https://ow.ly/aVx650S5j4h In the realm of philanthropy, it's vital to break free from conventional boundaries and explore new frontiers of transformative giving. Let's challenge the status quo, question assumptions, and embrace innovative approaches that maximize our impact. Don't let the notion of "Delusional Altruism" hinder your progress. Instead, let's redefine our giving practices and unlock our full potential to create lasting change and make a significant difference. Remember, change is not a barrier; it's an opportunity for growth and transformation. Embrace it, explore new possibilities, and let your philanthropy shine brighter than ever before. #Philanthropy #EmpowerYourImpact #TransformationalGiving

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.

❓𝗜𝘀 𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹? 𝗔𝘁 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗴 "𝗬𝗘𝗦" and that's what our Director, Sarah Durieux, defended recently in front of a tribunal of foundation CEOs during the European Academy of Strategic Philanthropy: 1️⃣ 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹, 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘆. Philanthropy means exercising power. In a context of scarcity, in economic decline and with the rise of inequality, philanthropists are exercising power over people with less financial means. Philanthropists also exercise power by conferring certain social status to individuals or groups by offering public support to their grantees. 2️⃣ 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁. Social sciences have proven a long time ago that where we come from as well as who and what we come across in our lives define our worldviews. Therefore, individuals in philanthropy have opinions and this influences the way they see the world and make choices. The mission that philanthropic organisations define for themselves, the programmes they design, the initiatives they support... None of them are neutral, they all are political choices! 3️⃣ 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 – 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗴? If philanthropy is about making change, not grants, then philanthropy is political. System change is about changing the way our human-made processes, regulations and beliefs are developed. This is political. When philanthropy helps people build their power to become bearers of change instead of beneficiaries of charitable help, this, too, is political. 👉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸? 𝗜𝘀 𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹?

Now I'm not one to say, "We told you so," but here we are. It's frustrating that perspectives that challenge the current philanthropic model are mostly valid when they are not coming from communities and practitioners whose lived experiences bear out the premise that strategic philanthropy was a harmful mechanism used to justify inequitable funding practices. Strategic philanthropy created metrics and barriers that did not consider the resources and infrastructure of grassroots, small, and mid-sized organizations - who are all doing worthy work in communities - to meet externally conceived KPI's. For example, strategic philanthropy sometimes steered resources away from communities' most urgent needs in favor of philanthropy's whims and ideas. I once heard a senior leader of an international foundation say, "We're just experimenting to see what sticks." What a waste! Strategic philanthropy elevated white organizational norms around organizational effectiveness with no regard for what services were offered, what communities needed, and how communities felt about the services offered. Strategic philanthropy elevated "research and data" but often failed to fund organizations with the closest proximity to communities so that they could meet those demands. Strategic philanthropy failed to fund BIPOC, women and LGBTQIA leaders. Strategic philanthropy elevated "scale" over "impact". I could go on. The incredibly wise Ana Oliveira, President and CEO of The New York Women's Foundation has been championing a kind of "Radical Generosity" that promotes, unapologetically, the idea that "problems and solutions reside in the same communities." Yes, the foundation is strategic, but strategy brings focus to the work. It does not dictate what communities need or how they should address man-made systemic problems like poverty, economic injustice, homophobia, and sexism. Support for nonprofits should not mean control of nonprofits - i.e. using funding as bait to get institutions to bend to the will of people who couldn't survive under the conditions that impacted communities must contend with. These tactics are not true to philanthropy. The very word philanthropy literally means love of humanity. Support for nonprofits means giving people the resources it actually takes to be effective; it means playing a supportive role to subject matter experts; it means equitable funding across communities and identities. I am encouraged that the academy and other students of the sector are finally assessing their practices. But, as Ana often says, "Philanthropy has lost its sense of urgency." The reality is we've been toying with solving seemingly intractable problems in our society while remaining largely uncommitted to disrupting and dismantling the systems that make all of this work necessary. Yes, let's pull the babies out of the water. But, also, who the heck is throwing the damn babies into the water in the first place?