At its heart,
philanthropy is a good thing. A private individual gives their time, expertise
and most often, money to support others.
But
philanthropy does not happen in isolation. It takes place in a context of
politics and power and so it quickly becomes contested and complicated. Would
more good be achieved if people paid more taxes instead? Should decisions about
what causes get funding be determined by a wealthy elite? This opens up
philanthropy to criticism and there are, rightly, calls for it to be more
democratic, more strategic and transparent.
But
criticism is often levelled at individual philanthropists and the choices they
make and this raises a number of issues:
First of
all, philanthropy is a public expression of your values. It is an exposing
place to be. When philanthropists are then criticised, is it any wonder some
chose to stay anonymous or only support safe causes and organisations? This
goes against the desire for greater transparency. It also discourages
independent philanthropists from their vital role of taking the risks that
government funders cannot.
Secondly, it
discourages philanthropy altogether. Promoting philanthropy and encouraging
more people to give takes public support and peer role models. Philanthropy’s
not the answer to all social ills, but in the UK alone there are estimates that
persuading more wealthy people to give could easily grow giving by £1.3bn to
£5.2bn. (see below). I am fascinated by what we consider acceptable. If you
decide to go into banking, no one berates you for not being a doctor or a
teacher. So why are we so quick to criticise philanthropic acts?
And lastly,
choosing which causes to invest in and which organisations to back is not easy
to do. And because philanthropy is personal, people will have different
priorities: health, social justice, art, animal welfare. I have certainly heard
it argued passionately that there is no point trying to address poverty as
climate change is the key issue. And vice versa that environmental change can
only occur if injustice is tackled first. Advice, research, consultation with
those affected are all incredibly helpful. But there is no right answer.
Criticising someone’s choices suggests that there is one right thing to do and
worse, supports the idea of the philanthropist as powerful saviour.
Philanthropy is better and stronger when everyone is engaged in it and all
their gifts are combined – not everyone will support the arts so it is OK if
some people do. There is plenty of room to give to small and large, local and
global, crisis support and campaigns for long-term systemic change.
So yes, we
can educate philanthropists about need. We can help them to make as much
difference as they can with their money. Buts let’s do so in a way that creates
an encouraging and constructive space that attracts others to join.
Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and
philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping
options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring.
www.emmabeeston.co.uk ; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01
