|  | WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 2023 NEWSLETTER! | Hello philanthropoids, Blwyddyn Newydd Dda! (That’s “happy new year” for any non-Welsh speakers). I realise it is a bit of a stretch to be wishing you that at the end of January, but one of my projects for this year (not resolutions, you’ll note, but projects- because that way you can stop them without feeling such a sense of failure…) is to brush up my extremely rusty Welsh, so I thought I would take the opportunity to practice on all of you. Anyway, I hope you all had a break of some sort over the festive period and are making it through the bleak midwinter OK. (Unless you are in the Southern Hemisphere, of course, in which case I hope you are having a good summer!) I’m feeling reasonably refreshed and (I think) ready to take on whatever 2023 has offer. So far that certainly seems to include plenty more interesting news and debate about philanthropy, so without further ado let’s take a look at some of the things that have caught my eye and I’ll also give a brief update on what we’ve been doing at WPM and what we have coming up. Best, Rhodri | | | | PHILANTHROPY IN THE NEWS | | Bezos’s Philanthropy: big player, or could do better? | An article in Vox this month took a detailed look at what we know about Jeff Bezos’s philanthropic giving so far and cast a critical eye over what this tells us about him as a donor. (With comments from a range of philanthropy people including - I should flag up in the interests of full disclosure – me). So does Bezos’s penchant for setting up new initiatives and holding big launch announcements suggest that he sees philanthropy as primarily a PR tool? Or does the fact that he has managed to get millions of dollars out of the door to climate-focussed organisations mean that we should put such reservations aside and take him seriously as a major climate philanthropist? And how can we square Bezos’s efforts to do good through his giving against the ongoing criticisms of his tax affairs and problematic working practices at Amazon? |  | | | Pragmatic Radicalism? | There was an intriguing development right at the start of the new year, with an announcement from Extinction Rebellion that they are changing their strategy: moving away from the disruptive tactics for which they have become famous and focussing instead on movement building and less confrontational forms of influencing. As they put it; “this year, we prioritise attendance over arrest and relationships over roadblocks.” To my mind this raises a number of really interesting questions. For instance, is this any sort of admission that disruption is not necessarily that effective as a tool, or is it merely a result of XR reaching a different phase in its organisational development which calls for a different approach? Do all radical groups end up “maturing” in this way? Is it an easier decision to abandon disruptive tactics when new groups like Just Stop Oil, which employ even more radical forms of direct action, have now emerged? And does the distinction being drawn between disruption and movement building imply that the two are in tension (i.e. that disruptive tactics present a barrier to wider inclusion?) Is this always true, or can groups build a wide coalition of support whilst still engaging in radical action? So many questions… |  | | | Philanthropy & Local Journalism | A long awaited report from the UK House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the sustainability of local journalism came out this month, and had a whole section devoted to the role that philanthropy can play. One of the main barriers up to now is that it has been difficult for news organisations to get charitable status, since journalism is not itself seen as an acceptable charitable purpose (so an organisation could only be charitable if had some other purpose and was using journalism as a means of furthering that). The DCMS report therefore recommends that “the Government [should] indicate what options it might consider to make it easier for local news organisations to achieve charitable status.” Importantly, the report also acknowledges that charitable status is not a panacea. In particular, some organisations might be wary of adopting it due to concerns that this might limit their ability to speak out on certain issues, so efforts must also be made to find ways of encouraging philanthropy to local news publishers for whom charitable status is not suitable. Given the ongoing attacks on the legitimacy of charitable involvement in “political” issues, this seems wise. (For more on that issue, see this WPM article). |  | | | The Charitable Status of Private Schools | As one group of MPs calls for our legal definition of charity to expand to include news outlets, another group (this time in the form of the Labour Party) is calling for that definition to be tightened elsewhere by removing charitable status from Britain’s private schools. Since Labour is not currently in power this looks unlikely to go anywhere, for now at least (indeed the Government has already rejected the calls for an Inquiry). However, this is also not the first time this issue has been raised by any means: in fact, taking aim at this perceived loophole in charity law has been a recurrent motif of Labour Party politics throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. And it may be that against the backdrop of the cost of living crisis, and with public finances in a rather parlous state, Labour feel they have a better opportunity than ever before to build public support for this policy and finally make it a reality. Critics of their proposal argue that removing the charitable statue of private schools wouldn’t in reality raise that much in additional revenue, and that furthermore it would result in many of the bursaries and scholarships that private schools currently offer being taken away, so it might actually end disadvantaging pupils from poorer backgrounds. Personally I find it quite hard to buy such arguments. For one thing, like various other aspects of the UK charity sector, the charitable status of private schools is less a matter of “deep-seated point of principle” and more a matter of “weird historical fudge and realpolitik”. In this case, the fact that at the time that reform of education and charity law was taking place in the mid-19th century, a small group of the nation’s most powerful private schools (including Eton, Harrow, Westminster and Rugby, which had all been around for a long time already at that point) were able (with the powerful backing of the church and many establishment figures) to ensure a carve-out which meant they would not be affected by any proposed reforms. Thus when the Charity Commission was established in 1853, these schools were granted “special status”, which meant they were largely exempt from the scrutiny that could now be applied to other endowed schools. This was then further strengthened by the Public Schools Act of 1868, which granted this same small handful of schools an astonishing level of freedom and independence (certainly in comparison to other schools of the time), whilst at the same time also allowing them to retain their charitable endowments. Unsurprisingly other private schools wanted in on this gig, and over time a growing number were able to argue successfully that they deserved the same status – leading us to the present day, where we now have around 1,300 UK private schools that benefit from charitable status and the tax advantages that brings. Defenders of public schools often try to appeal to arguments about the “public benefit” they offer through offering bursaries and scholarships, or through twinning arrangements they may have, in which they allow local state schools to take advantage of their facilities. However such arguments always feel like a bit of a stretch to me, as these kinds of benefits are only felt by a small handful of recipients and don’t really stack up as a riposte to arguments that it would better if education as a whole was more equitable. Perhaps the more compelling case for accepting the charitable status of private schools, to my mind, is to argue that it may represent a slippery slope - in terms of allowing the state to reshape the boundaries of charity for political reasons. If so, the argument goes, then even if you don’t hold a torch for private schools you should be willing to defend their right to charitable status because sooner or later the government may come for a groups of charities you do care about. Quite how much weight we should lend to this line of thinking I’m not sure, but we certainly shouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. There are many other countries around the world where charitable or non-profit status is much more overtly politicised, and aligned with government priorities, and we should take great care not to go down that road. |  | | | Mr Beast gets a beasting? | Scepticism about philanthropy is hardly new, but this month it played out in a slightly different forum than usual, as YouTube star Mr Beast responded to claims from some of his fans that his widely-publicised philanthropy is just a “way to avoid paying taxes”. If you have not heard of Mr Beast before, firstly congratulations - and just to fill you in, he is a YouTube creator who has made millions from his videos. Initially these mostly involved performing expensive stunts, but over time he has branched out into in other videos where he surprises people and gives them life-changing donations. He even has an entire channel dedicated to these types of videos (“Beast Philanthropy”), and it was a series of videos on this about plans to build a orphanages in South Africa that led to the cynical response from some fans. Mr Beast himself responded quickly (and, it has to be said, pretty amicably) to refute these accusations and to claim that philanthropy is core to his outlook on life and something he is passionate about. Which is as you would expect. But where it gets more interesting is when you look at the ensuing debate below his tweet (though that comes with the usual health warning about below the line comments…), because there was perhaps less scepticism than you might expect, and plenty of people willing to make an uncynical case that philanthropy is a good thing. It is sometimes easy for people like me to assume that the whole world thinks about these issues in the same way that those of us in the philanthro-sphere do, so it is always fascinating to get these occasional reminders of what average punters might actually think! |  | | | | Non-profit unions | One of the trends we identified in our Philanthropisms podcast predictions for 2023 was the increasing likelihood of industrial disputes and strikes in the philanthropy world; and this certainly seems to be playing out so far. A fascinating article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy took an in-depth look at the rise of unionisation in the US non-profit sector, whilst an article in Civil Society highlighted a number of cases of potential strike action in the UK charity sector (including the British Museum, the National Library of Wales and even the charity regulator, the Charity Commission for England and Wales). Does this reflect a shift in attitude towards work in the non-profit world? For a long time, the assumption seemed to be that non-profit workers would be more likely to accept poor pay and working conditions because they were compensated by the “warm glow” of doing good, but that no longer seems to be the case. Perhaps because there are now so many more options for employment across the public and private sectors that also claim to be “purpose-driven”, employees (particularly younger ones) are much less willing to accept this kind of unspoken trade-off, and more likely to want to unionise in order to demand fair pay and employment rights. The economic situation is clearly a factor too. Many non-profit staff will have found their wages falling in real terms due to the effects of inflation, so they need to seek pay increases just to break even. Yet at the same time the finances of many non-profit organisations are in dire straits, and they may struggle to raise wages at a time when they are looking to cut costs across the board. If this situation continues, it seems inevitable that we will see further union involvement and strike action in the charity world in coming years. (For more on the impact of the cost of living crisis on civil society and philanthropy, check out this Philanthropisms podcast episode from last year). |  | | | Gates Foundation letter | In this year’s annual letter from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CEO Mark Suzmann focused on defending the organisation against criticisms that it has too much influence. At times in the letter Suzman leans into the criticism, acknowledging that the Gates Foundation has a lot of influence, but arguing that this is actually a good thing because they are able to take risks and test innovations that the public and private sector aren’t (which is a long-standing line of argument in favour of endowed foundations, stretching back at least as far as John Stuart Mill), or because they do their best to use that influence on behalf of communities and groups who don’t themselves have the ability to do so. At other times, Suzman pushes back on the idea that the Gates Foundation has that much influence at all; arguing that they don’t shape global health priorities but rather respond to them. Whatever your own take on these issues, the letter it is a worthwhile read because it is really interesting to hear a big foundation address these kinds of critiques directly. |  | | | | Rod Stewart Wades In… | Late-breaking news as I write this newsletter: legendary singer Rod Stewart called in to a TV phone-in on Sky News and offered to pay for hospital scans for anyone who can’t afford them and express his dismay at the current government’s handling of the NHS. Stewart stated that he is a long time Conservative party supporter, but that he had lost faith in the current leadership and felt they needed to stand aside so that something could be done about the parlous state of the health service. In the meantime, he made his offer to pay for hospital scans and outlined his hope that other wealthy people would step up and follow suit. This is a fascinating (and pleasingly weird) new development in the long-standing debate over the respective roles of state provision and philanthropy when it comes to healthcare. By offering to use his giving to make up for deficiencies in state provision some might argue that Stewart is typifying one of the main critical challenges, which is that philanthropy can become a means to paper over the cracks and thus take pressure of the government to increase their own spending. But then at the same time, Stewart’s offer seems to be motivated by a genuine desire to help, and he has also been clear that there needs to be more fundamental reform to address the underlying causes, so should we welcome this kind of philanthropy as a necessary solution to acute short-term challenges in welfare provision? (Also, it was revealed in the course of this story that Stewart was at home playing with his model trains when he heard the news segment and felt compelled to phone in, and that is a mental picture that justifies the price of admission by itself if you ask me…) |  | | | | | | | | WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING | | Here’s our regular brief update on what we’ve been doing at Why Philanthropy Matters over the last month that you may have missed: | | Philanthropy, Population Debates and the Shadow of Eugenics: There has been a growing debate in recent years between those who believe that over-population is the main demographic challenge facing our world and those who are more concerned about falling birth rates leading to underpopulation in the future. In this article we take a look at why philanthropy has long played an integral part in discussions about population, and what the problematic history of this interaction might tell us about some of the risks we face now. |  | | | Return of the podcast! After a much-needed break over the midwinter period, the Philanthropisms podcast returned with an episode taking a deep dive into the relationship between philanthropy and business. |  | | | More comment on Sam Bankman-Fried and EA: Rhod was quoted in an article in Town & Country magazine talking about what is going to happen to Effective Altruism in the wake of the SBF fallout. |  | | | Guten Tag Philanthropische Volk! On 14th February, I am celebrating Valentine's Day by speaking to a group of German philanthropoids as part of the ImpulseStiften series. If you are a German-speaking philanthropoid, do sign up to come along! (Although I will be speaking in English, as my GCSE German is sadly not up to it…) | | | | | | | OTHER INTERESTING STUFF | | Finally, here are a few things that I didn’t put in the news section (although some of them would almost certainly have qualified), but which I wanted to make sure to flag up as they will definitely be of interest. | Final Report of the Law Family Commission on Civil Society After two years of research, writing, events and engagement, the Law Family Commission on Civil Society (run by Pro Bono Economics) released its final report. This contained a number of interesting recommendations for philanthropy, such as encouraging the creation of local philanthropy champions and making data from philanthropic funders better quality and more open. As ever, the real test will be in whether the ideas get picked up an implemented- and this commission had some pretty heavyweight people behind it, so it certainly has a better chance than many previous efforts of making that happen. (Full disclosure, I was on the technical panel for the Commission and also wrote an essay for them as part of their output: on how we get not just more, but “better” giving).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Well, that’s all for this time. But I’ll be back with another smorgasbord of philanthropy offering next month! Best, Rhodri | | |
|
|
|
|
|
