Category Archives: philanthropy

The Basis of the Debate over Philanthrocapitalism

Non-profit consultant and expert grant writer, Derek Link, shares some information on the debate surrounding Philanthrocapitalism in the non-profit world:

There is often a separation between donors, those of us who give money to causes in order to feel good about helping, and the doers, the volunteers and staffers who do the work of organizations that receive the money. Philanthrocapitalism challenges this model through the creation of organizations that don’t simply distribute donated wealth, but which actually engage in commerce to create wealth for distribution.

The debate over the concept of Philanthrocapitalism challenges the fundamental underpinning of charity, that nobody should become wealthy by doing charity work; for in doing so, that person is personally benefitting from charity dollars. Mother Theresa is perhaps the most visible patron saint of self-sacrificing charity work. She gave most of her life to the poor in India, living among them each day. People like Mother Theresa contribute to a fundamental belief that to do good one must sacrifice, that in order to understand the needs of those you serve, one must feel their pain, and live with the mission at some level.

The Philanthrocapitalism paradigm is challenging the natural order of the charity world. Many people engaged in charity work are employed at low wages and they accept these sacrificially out of commitment to the cause. They sacrifice higher paid jobs in the for profit world to serve a cause. The incursion of capitalists into the world of philanthropy is unsettling to those who think a non-profit executive or consultant earning $200k or better per year is in effect robbing valuable resources from the cause.

The concerns about the potential for corruption of civil society ideals via Philanthrocapitalism are understandable because most non-profit organizations still rely on the trust and goodwill of donors. Non-profits do not want to be painted with the broad brush of recent capitalist corruption. Just witness the hotly debated compensation levels of Wall Street executives and how that has damaged the image of the free market capitalists.

What would happen if the compensation levels of non profit executives were to become widely known? This is public information, just not considered newsworthy yet. The average struggling American worker may feel justifiably outraged that their donated dollars are making people wealthy instead of providing the services they donated toward.

——————————–

Related Posts:

Changing Lives through Social Entrepreneurship

Is Your NonProfit a Closed Organization?

Does Philanthropy Serve the Common Good?

——————————–

Visit GrantGoddess.com for grant writing and non-profit development resources.

 

The Basis of the Debate over Philanthrocapitalism

Non-profit consultant and expert grant writer, Derek Link, shares some information on the debate surrounding Philanthrocapitalism in the non-profit world:

There is often a separation between donors, those of us who give money to causes in order to feel good about helping, and the doers, the volunteers and staffers who do the work of organizations that receive the money. Philanthrocapitalism challenges this model through the creation of organizations that don’t simply distribute donated wealth, but which actually engage in commerce to create wealth for distribution.

The debate over the concept of Philanthrocapitalism challenges the fundamental underpinning of charity, that nobody should become wealthy by doing charity work; for in doing so, that person is personally benefitting from charity dollars. Mother Theresa is perhaps the most visible patron saint of self-sacrificing charity work. She gave most of her life to the poor in India, living among them each day. People like Mother Theresa contribute to a fundamental belief that to do good one must sacrifice, that in order to understand the needs of those you serve, one must feel their pain, and live with the mission at some level.

The Philanthrocapitalism paradigm is challenging the natural order of the charity world. Many people engaged in charity work are employed at low wages and they accept these sacrificially out of commitment to the cause. They sacrifice higher paid jobs in the for profit world to serve a cause. The incursion of capitalists into the world of philanthropy is unsettling to those who think a non-profit executive or consultant earning $200k or better per year is in effect robbing valuable resources from the cause.

The concerns about the potential for corruption of civil society ideals via Philanthrocapitalism are understandable because most non-profit organizations still rely on the trust and goodwill of donors. Non-profits do not want to be painted with the broad brush of recent capitalist corruption. Just witness the hotly debated compensation levels of Wall Street executives and how that has damaged the image of the free market capitalists.

What would happen if the compensation levels of non profit executives were to become widely known? This is public information, just not considered newsworthy yet. The average struggling American worker may feel justifiably outraged that their donated dollars are making people wealthy instead of providing the services they donated toward.

——————————–

Related Posts:

Changing Lives through Social Entrepreneurship

Is Your NonProfit a Closed Organization?

Does Philanthropy Serve the Common Good?

——————————–

Visit GrantGoddess.com for grant writing and non-profit development resources.

 

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com

Does Philanthropy Serve the Common Good?

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, shares some thoughts on philanthropy:

I love when I hear that a foundation is changing its priorities.It tells me that someone is paying attention, that the Board isn’t asleep at the wheel, and that the Executive Director is in a learning curve about the needs of the community they serve. Changing priorities tells me that a foundation may be avoiding the trap of entrenchment in some ideologically-static mission.

Michael Edwards recently wrote an article, “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good” in which he asserts that, “The best way to reinvent philanthropy is for ordinary people to get involved in a way that does not reinforce the unhealthy patterns of the past.”

I can see from grant research why he would make such an assertion because I see many foundations that give away lots of money, yet all of it goes to a specific political or religious cause. The question isn’t whether the recipients of the money are doing nice things with it, the civil society questions should be, “Are those the most important things to be doing?” and, “Should the government be giving tax breaks for giving money away when it merely represents maintenance of social inequalities or blatant promotion of personal bias?”

Social change must be driven by social needs but when the wealthy foundations are rewarded for doing nothing more than supporting programs for the wealthy as when donations are made to a senior center serving relatively well-to-do seniors, or the wealthy children who attend schools of a certain religion, the social responsibility a foundation assumes by accepting tax breaks is undermined.

The idea that foundations should be established for the public good is fundamental to civil society principles. But if a foundation refuses to change its mission even when more pressing concerns are evident in their community, one must question the motives and the relevance of their existence and whether our government should be granting tax exempt status for organizations that are nothing more than proponents of a class, race, religious, or political point of view.

Does Philanthropy Serve the Common Good?

Non-profit Consultant, Derek Link, shares some thoughts on philanthropy:

I love when I hear that a foundation is changing its priorities.It tells me that someone is paying attention, that the Board isn’t asleep at the wheel, and that the Executive Director is in a learning curve about the needs of the community they serve. Changing priorities tells me that a foundation may be avoiding the trap of entrenchment in some ideologically-static mission.

Michael Edwards recently wrote an article, “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good” in which he asserts that, “The best way to reinvent philanthropy is for ordinary people to get involved in a way that does not reinforce the unhealthy patterns of the past.”

I can see from grant research why he would make such an assertion because I see many foundations that give away lots of money, yet all of it goes to a specific political or religious cause. The question isn’t whether the recipients of the money are doing nice things with it, the civil society questions should be, “Are those the most important things to be doing?” and, “Should the government be giving tax breaks for giving money away when it merely represents maintenance of social inequalities or blatant promotion of personal bias?”

Social change must be driven by social needs but when the wealthy foundations are rewarded for doing nothing more than supporting programs for the wealthy as when donations are made to a senior center serving relatively well-to-do seniors, or the wealthy children who attend schools of a certain religion, the social responsibility a foundation assumes by accepting tax breaks is undermined.

The idea that foundations should be established for the public good is fundamental to civil society principles. But if a foundation refuses to change its mission even when more pressing concerns are evident in their community, one must question the motives and the relevance of their existence and whether our government should be granting tax exempt status for organizations that are nothing more than proponents of a class, race, religious, or political point of view.

Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com