Philanthropy
Philanthropy is a form of altruism that consists of "private initiatives for the public good, focusing on quality of life".[1] Philanthropy contrasts with business initiatives, which are private initiatives for private good, focusing on material gain; and with government endeavors that are public initiatives for public good, such as those that focus on the provision of public services.[1] A person who practices philanthropy is a philanthropist.
For other uses, see Philanthropy (disambiguation).Oceania[edit]
Australia[edit]
Structured giving in Australia through foundations[48] is slowly growing, although public data on the philanthropic sector is sparse.[49] There is no public registry of philanthropic foundations as distinct from charities more generally.
Two foundation types for which some data is available[50][51] are Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs)[52] and Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs).[53] Private Ancillary Funds have some similarities to private family foundations in the US and Europe, and do not have a public fundraising requirement.[54] Public Ancillary Funds include community foundations, some corporate foundations, and foundations that solely support single organisations such as hospitals, schools, museums, and art galleries.[55] They must raise funds from the general public.[56]
Differences between traditional and new philanthropy[edit]
Impact investment versus traditional philanthropy[edit]
Traditional philanthropy and impact investment can be distinguished by how they serve society. Traditional philanthropy is usually short-term, where organizations obtain resources for causes through fund-raising and one-off donations.[57] The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation are examples of such; they focus more on financial contributions to social causes and less on actions and processes of benevolence. Impact investment, on the other hand, focuses on the interaction between individual wellbeing and broader society by promoting sustainability. Stressing the importance of impact and change, they invest in different sectors of society, including housing, infrastructure, healthcare and energy.[58]
A suggested explanation for the preference for impact investment philanthropy to traditional philanthropy is the gaining prominence of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) since 2015. Almost every SDG is linked to environmental protection and sustainability because of rising concerns about how globalisation, consumerism, and population growth may affect the environment. As a result, development agencies have seen increased demands for accountability as they face greater pressure to fit with current developmental agendas.
Traditional philanthropy versus philanthrocapitalism[edit]
Philanthrocapitalism differs from traditional philanthropy in how it operates. Traditional philanthropy is about charity, mercy, and selfless devotion improving recipients' wellbeing.[58] Philanthrocapitalism, is philanthropy transformed by business and the market,[59] where profit-oriented business models are designed that work for the good of humanity.[60] Share value companies are an example. They help develop and deliver curricula in education, strengthen their own businesses and improve the job prospects of people.[61] Firms improve social outcomes, but while they do so, they also benefit themselves.
The rise of philanthrocapitalism can be attributed to global capitalism. There is an understanding that philanthropy is not worthwhile if no economic benefit can be derived by philanthropy organisations, both from a social and private perspective. Therefore, philanthropy has been seen as a tool to sustain economic and firm growth, based on human capital theory. Through education, specific skills are taught that enhance people's capacity to learn and their productivity at work.
Intel invests in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricular standards in the US and provides learning resources and materials for schools, for its innovation and revenue.[62] The New Employment Opportunities initiative in Latin America is a regional collaboration to train one million youth by 2022 to raise employment standards and ultimately provide a talented pool of labour for companies.
Promoting equity through science and health philanthropy[edit]
Philanthropy has the potential to foster equity and inclusivity in various fields, such as scientific research, development, and healthcare. Addressing systemic inequalities in these sectors can lead to more diverse perspectives, innovations, and better overall outcomes.
Scholars have examined the importance of philanthropic support in promoting equity in different areas. For example, Christopherson et al.[63] highlight the need to prioritize underrepresented groups, promote equitable partnerships, and advocate for diverse leadership within the scientific community. In the healthcare sector, Thompson et al.[64] emphasize the role of philanthropy in empowering communities to reduce health disparities and address the root causes of these disparities. Research by Chandra et al.[65] demonstrates the potential of strategic philanthropy to tackle health inequalities through initiatives that focus on prevention, early intervention, and building community capacity. Similarly, a report by the Bridgespan Group[66] suggests that philanthropy can create systemic change by investing in long-term solutions that address the underlying causes of social issues, including those related to science and health disparities.
To advance equity in science and healthcare, philanthropists can adopt several key strategies:
Through these approaches, philanthropy can significantly promote equity within scientific and health communities, leading to more inclusive and effective advancements.
Criticism[edit]
Philanthropy has been used by ultra high-net-worth individuals to offset their larger tax liabilities through charitable contribution deductions enabled by the tax code. In the book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World by Anand Giridharadas, he asserts that various philanthropic initiatives by the wealthy elite in practice function to entrench the power structures and special interests of the wealthy elite.[74] For example, despite Robert F. Smith's generosity by paying off the student debt incurred by the Morehouse class of 2019, he simultaneously fought against changes to the tax code that could have made more money available to help low-income students pay for college. As a result, Giridharadas argues, Smith's philanthropic giving functions to reinforce the prevailing status quo and perpetuates income inequality, instead of addressing the root cause of social issues.[75]
The ability of wealthy people to deduct a significant amount of their tax liabilities in the form of philanthropic giving, as noted by the late German billionaire shipping magnate and philanthropist Peter Kramer, functioned as "a bad transfer of power", from democratically elected politicians to unelected billionaires, whereby it is no longer "the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich who decide". The Global Policy Forum, an independent policy watchdog which functions to monitor the activities of the United Nations General Assembly, warned governments and international organisations that they should "assess the growing influence of major philanthropic foundations, and especially the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation… and analyse the intended and unintended risks and side-effects of their activities" prior to accepting money from rich donors. In 2015, Global Policy Forum also warned elected politicians that they should be particularly concerned about "the unpredictable and insufficient financing of public goods, the lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and the prevailing practice of applying business logic to the provision of public goods".[76]
Giridharadas also argues that philanthropy distracts the public from some of the ill-gotten gains that were derived via profit. For example, the Sackler family were known for their generous philanthropic giving to various cultural institutions worldwide. However, their philanthropic giving functioned as deception and propaganda, as their legacy of generosity was tainted by the subsequent exposure of Purdue Pharma's role in encouraging and exacerbating the opioid epidemic.[77] As a result of their exposed ill-gotten gains from the social issues caused by the philanthropic donors, the British institutions of the National Portrait Gallery, London and the Tate, along with the American institution Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, announced their rejection of charitable giving from the Sackler family trusts.[77]
