Ben Soskis: The Current & Future State of US Philanthropy

In this episode Rhod talks to Ben Soskis, a Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institute's Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy and co-Editor of the website HistPhil.org, about the big issues and themes in US philanthropy over the last few years and where things might go in the future. Including:

• How has the pandemic shifted perceptions of philanthropy in the US over the short term? Are those perceptions likely to get better or worse over the longer-term, post pandemic?
• Mackenzie Scott: What are the most interesting/encouraging things about her emergence as a major philanthropist? What are the main questions that still need answering? Has she had an impact on the general public perception of philanthropy?
• Elon Musk: Is he the world's first "Troll Philanthropist"? What does his emergence as a major giver mean for the norms of philanthropic discourse? 
• Bill Gates: Has any of the controversy over the Gates Foundation’s involvement in vaccine development had an effect on the overall narrative about philanthropy in the US?
• Have the norms around time horizons in philanthropy shifted as a result of the pandemic? i.e. will we see more calls for foundations to spend down their endowments?
• Why are a growing number of elite donors/institutional funders interested in supporting the growth of everyday giving? What opportunities (and potential challenges) does the involvement of big money philanthropy in developing cultures of mass giving present?
• Why are we seeing more emphasis on direct cash giving in recent years? Is the growth primarily driven by individual P2P giving, or by organisations employing direct giving models? If the latter, is this primarily driven by a desire to democratise/shift power or by a belief that it delivers better results in terms of outcomes?

Related Links:

• The HistPhil website
• Ben's Urban Institute paper on "Norms and Narratives That Shape US Charitable and Philanthropic Giving"
• The recent New York Times article "Elon Musk’s Latest Innovation: Troll Philanthropy" (which Ben and Rhod were both quoted in).
• Rhod's blog on "MacKenzie Scott & the History of Challenging Philanthropy’s Status Quo"
•  Rhod's blog "The Edgelord Giveth: Elon Musk & a new era of discourse about philanthropy?"
• Rhod's previous conversation with Ben on the CAF Giving Thought podcast 

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropist Podcast with Roger Davis. Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rodri Davis, and this week we have an interview, and it's with Ben Soskis. Now, Ben is a senior research associate at the Centre on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute in the US, which is a big think tank over there. He's also one of the editors of Histville, which is a website that pulls together writing on the history of philanthropy from academics and practitioners, and it's one of my favourite resources, as you can imagine. And I've known Ben for a while now. He's been a guest on a previous podcast that I hosted, the Cat Giving Thought Podcast. And we've subsequently managed to meet in person at a conference and speak on a panel. And he's certainly somebody whose thinking and writing on philanthropy I always look out for because it's always interesting and it kind of challenges and informs my own thinking. So it was great to have a chance to sit down with Ben. And this time I decided to take the sort of focus of what we were talking about to be what's happened in philanthropy and particularly philanthropy in the US over the last few years. Because obviously there's been a lot of debate around philanthropy already, and then the impact of the pandemic has sort of shifted narratives and thinking about philanthropy in lots of interesting ways. And I wanted to get some insights and thoughts from Ben on that. So we sat down a couple of weeks ago now, and it's worth saying that because actually some of the things that we discuss about things like kind of Mackenzie Scott's giving uh and Elon Musk's philanthropy, which are things that we discuss in the podcast, um, have moved on since then. Um kind of new news stories have come up and there have been new developments in them. Uh so just bear in mind that that even though this kind of covers some of those, it doesn't necessarily take into account uh some of the things that have happened more recently. Um but yeah, we discussed a whole load of things. We discussed the impact of the pandemic on philanthropy, on the narratives that we have about philanthropy, sort of public perceptions of philanthropy. Um we talked about uh the uh the rise of direct cash giving, again, you know, something that sort of seemed to be quite prominent as part of the response to the philanthropy and the more of a uh the pandemic and a sort of focus on cash giving, and whether that would herald a longer-term shift in in philanthropy. Linked to that is also the idea of there's kind of a renewed focus on everyday giving and giving at more modest levels, particularly in the US at the moment. Um, and quite a few big philanthropists and philanthropic institutions are sort of getting on board with that and talked to Ben a bit about you know why that is and what we need to sort of watch out for there. Uh, and then we talked about some of the sort of specific big givers and their stories that have been in the press over the last couple of years and and what's interesting about them. So, as I say, we talked about Mackenzie Scott, uh, we talked about Jeff Bezos as well and Bill Gates in passing, uh, and then we talked about Elon Musk's emergence onto the philanthropic scene and what that might mean for kind of norms about how we talk about philanthropy. Um, so without further ado, let's get into the conversation. Um, it's a really good one, so I hope you enjoy it. And I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping and admin. Okay, great. So I'm here with Ben Soskis. Hi, Ben. Hello. And Ben is a senior research associate um in the Centre on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute, and also the co-editor of Histphil, which is one of my favourite websites, all about the history of philanthropy, um, and someone that I've kind of you know talked to uh a lot about issues around philanthropy, and we've got a kind of shared interest in the history of it and how that kind of informs thinking about it in the present day. So I was very keen to get Ben on uh to have a conversation, um, particularly about what's been going on in philanthropy and particularly kind of US philanthropy over the last few years in light of the pandemic. Um, so maybe the best place to start, Ben, would just be um for you to kind of give us some framing thoughts on how you feel the pandemic has shifted perceptions of philanthropy in the US.

SPEAKER_01 4:45

Sure. Um, well, I'll I'll focus on perceptions of philanthropy. There's a separate question about how it's shifted or perhaps not shifted, the practice of philanthropy. Um I think that those are both equally important to um to spend some time on. Um so um I you know early in the pandemic, um I I noted uh a kind of one type of framing um of philanthropy as facing a test, um, and that the pandemic would be a kind of defining test of um of philanthropy. And I, you know, I think this made some sense because in the years preceding philanthropy, uh, the pandemic, there was a you know, a kind of mounting sense of uneasiness. Um, the critiques were surging. I think you could say there was a um the kind of um legitimation of philanthropy was more precarious than it's been in the past. And so I think for various reasons, um a whole different sides of that uh of that um uh uh argument um latched onto the pandemic as a moment uh to test philanthropy. And what's interesting to me is is um, you know, I don't think we're gonna get uh an answer that's satisfying. Um and I think there's a couple of reasons for that. One um is that about the nature of the pandemic itself. It is really hard to determine the temporal vantage point um that it makes sense to actually assess uh philanthropy's contributions. Um, you know, we're still in the midst of the pandemic in, you know, by almost all accounts. And um and I think um there was a kind of surge of uh of uh kind of commendation in the early moments when the vaccine was um kind of on the horizon. Uh then there was a uh like a low moment um when it was very clear that the vaccine would not be equitably distributed. Um and I think we're kind of at a time now where there's a lot of um, you know, there there was there was also a celebration of of a kind of the generosity of of ordinary people. I think we're we're sort of past that that moment. And you know, taking a step back, what what you have is both a sense of failed opportunities. So, you know, philanthropy was not able to manage uh and to uh assist in in the kind of equitable um distribution of a COVID vaccine, but also that that at some basic level, philanthropy helped to produce that vaccine in the first place. And so this counterfactual of in the absence of philanthropy would things have been much, much worse, I think still um kind of um hovers over a lot of the debate. Um and so there is there there doesn't seem to be a kind of a complete vindication of one side or the other. Uh and what I think is gonna happen is that uh because of that, you know, not so surprisingly, the pandemic is gonna be a touch point um for decades. I mean, I I really I do believe this. Um both sides are are going to um uh you know you point to the pandemic uh as justifying either a kind of you know uh affirmation of of philanthropy or a critique of philanthropy, but it's it's not gonna be satisfying. It really isn't. Um and you know, maybe that's uh maybe that's not so surprising. Um I I think, I mean, I I wrote a piece um midway through last year where I called the pandemic a failed COVID test. And and you know, I meant that a little bit, I guess, tongue in cheek. Um, but but the ultimate meaning of that phrase to me was that if we were looking at the pandemic to give us some kind of ultimate answers about how philanthropy functions in our society um and and to offer either complete legitimation or you know, can complete um uh you know uh like disaffirmation, uh I, you know, I I don't think I don't think we'll get it. And I think what many folks, you know, like me and uh I assume like you are left with is you know kind of not so different than when we entered the pandemic. Uh I think uneasiness with the role philanthropy played, a realization that in many ways it it represents you know deep and enduring um problems and about the um unequal distribution of wealth, but also understanding the value that it that it does hold. And um, you know, that's I think the kind of ambivalence that that is gonna that really defines the the moment that we're in.

SPEAKER_00 9:13

Yeah, I I mean I I agree. I think it's it certainly feels as though, I mean, I guess that naive expectation that we might have had, and I certainly felt feeling count myself as guilty of this, that in those early stages of the pandemic, it was easy to get caught up in the sense of, oh, well, everything's changed forever, and uh, you know, up to and including philanthropy, and it will probably clarify, you know, or answer some of those questions in one direction or another. And actually, the reality is, depending on your point of view about philanthropy, you can probably pick or choose aspects of the pandemic, as you could with most other things, to back up that argument. I mean, there's definitely a case that, you know, if you believe in the sort of innovative power or the power of discovery of philanthropy, you can certainly find arguments in favour of that in terms of what they did in terms of funding vaccine research. But then equally, I guess the huge upsurge of interest in things like mutual aid suggests that there's a wider dissatisfaction with some of the power imbalances in traditional approaches to philanthropy. So um, you know, it definitely feels as though it's complicated the picture rather than simplified it. Um, do you get any sense of that that some of those issues that that maybe people like you or I have been kind of thinking about for a while have um become more a part of sort of wider public discourse or there's kind of more awareness of them as issues um among the general public because of the pandemic?

SPEAKER_01 10:32

Yeah, I mean, I I I do I think the interest in critiques of philanthropy was mounting before the pandemic. So it's not, I mean, I don't think there's a radical kind of rupture in in the way that uh uh the public understood uh uh philanthropy before and after. I do think it's it's it it amplified many of those critiques. I mean, two the two things you mentioned, I think are are really interesting. I always thought uh that one of the problems with um the way that I think many people approach the critique of philanthropy, like the mega philanthropy, was this this issue of a counterfactual. You know, what was the alternative? And one thing that I think the the current movement has done, especially with respect to this idea of a kind of a people's vaccine, or you know, the um the a challenge to a kind of philanthropy model of vaccine uh manufacture and distribution, in which you know, basically the vaccine is privately um uh manufactured and then you know allocated through um the uh goodwill of of nation states or private philanthropies or uh multilateral institutions, you know, that philanthropy model I think has faced a really fundamental challenge, which is intelligible to many, many people now in a way that perhaps it wasn't in the past. You know, so when you say the philanthropy the philanthropy model just doesn't work, um, you know, I I think there is now a kind of alternative model that um that that makes sense in in a very kind of visceral way, and and in a way that I think has gotten a lot of um attention and um and and scrutiny. Um and so I think that um that's something really important. Uh and and that I think will won't just color uh and shape the way people think about philanthropy's relationship to public health, but philanthropy's relationship to all public goods. Um that that you know, there is this there's an alt, there's always an alternative, and I think people sometimes would gesture kind of grandly and somewhat uh you know abstractly to kind of socialism or or uh you know the alternatives to capitalism. Often this you see you hear this a lot in the in the um kind of US debate. Um yeah, but without it without a real plan or you know, it's it's it's the alternative, the actual practical alternative that they that we're proposing was often kind of submerged in the critique. The current debate uh around the vaccines is is not like that at all. And and I think that that's really important. And so, you know, I I uh I think it's and it's not ended. Um so that that I think will be a kind of model for critics to um to point to and to use to kind of uh help frame a kind of uh uh more general critique of private philanthropy. I mean, you mentioned mutual aid, and um, you know, I I think there is one thing um that we saw even before the pandemic, but certainly in the first, you know, first half of the pandemic, there was an enormous uh attention, um, not just to mutual aid, but to kind of smaller scale uh acts of generosity and kindness. And um, you know, kind of paralleling this idea of um, you know, megaphilanthropy facing this test, there was this other narrative about um the kind of you know uh um um demotic, like everyday giving um that could really be harnessed and was and it's an incredibly powerful force. And I I think in some respects that does function as a critique of philanthropy as well. I don't think it always does. Um I I think often, you know, often that those two things can can coexist. Um, and so you know, the the uh one one question about um that combines both the uh the practice and perception of of giving during the um uh the pandemic, and one that I think you've written really well about Rod, um, is this idea of you know, we saw a lot of attention to mutual aid uh and um even you know, not just attention, but also increased practice and enthusiasm for and what the kind of long-term consequences of that might be in terms of how people think about um generosity and giving uh and the that the relationship between those types of behaviors to what we call philanthropy, uh, you know, is is a pretty important question. I I don't think we have a great answer to yet. There is now a lot of it of interest among researchers to try to go beyond the kind of traditional understanding of what constitutes charitable giving, um, at least in the US context, which is um financial contributions to um tax-deductible nonprofit organizations. And you know, that um to include person-to-person giving, uh, mutual aid. Um, and I think there is the kind of implicit um critique there, on sometimes explicit critique there, of the way in which you know, our focus on nonprofits and the financialized forms of philanthropy is uh enables a kind of veneration of of elite philanthropy. Um, and you know, and that we should um kind of recalibrate the way we think about you know what what's worthy of praise and what's and what's worthy of attention. Um and in fact, you know, there's there's been efforts to kind of reclaim this idea of philanthropy itself. You know, who is a philanthropist? It's not just Bill Gates, or maybe not maybe it's not Bill Gates. It really should be uh the people who um you know made major sacrifices uh during the pandemic, um, whether financial or otherwise, with without being um incredibly rich. And and as a researcher who really does focus on on um philanthropy, meaning large-scale giving, um, you know, I'm torn about this because I actually I completely agree with um you know, with the kind of sentiment and the idea that that that we should um value and um and and be attentive to uh the vast range of of giving behaviors out there. Um but I I also you know, as somebody who um thinks about power, um I think that kind of maintaining a focus on large-scale giving uh reflects the kind of brutal realities of the political economy that we exist in, in which um a few people have enormous amounts of money and and can wield enormous amounts of power. And so I, you know, I'm I'm I'm maybe even in the minority kind of wanting to maintain that kind of um exclusive definition of philanthropy in a sense, even if it sometimes insults a more like expansive um uh, you know, uh celebration of other types of forms of giving. Because I do think it then reflects real imbalances of power.

SPEAKER_00 17:35

Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think on that, I mean the language question is really interesting. Because I mean, I I absolutely buy the arguments that there are wider forms of sort of generosity and and altruistic behavior that we should pay more attention to. And perhaps, you know, we've had a slightly kind of narrow focus on particularly sort of financial transactions as the main mode of thinking, and that's overly limited. But then do we expand the definition of philanthropy to encompass those, or do we increase our lexicon and keep philanthropy as a separate piece of terminology that talks about something quite particular? Um, I was gonna ask actually, I think one of the things I think is really interesting in terms of this increased focus on everyday giving is the, I mean, I don't know whether I can class it as a trend at the moment because I don't have the evidence to back that up, but I do have a sense that there are a growing number of larger donors, sort of elite donors and institutional funders who are kind of interested in the idea of encouraging mass giving and everyday giving as part of what they do as a sort of, you know, even if it's not their kind of core area of focus, something that they see as a wider good that they can justify as part of their philanthropic mission. But do you think there is any element of that, whether consciously or not, that is partly about sort of deliberately wanting to elide the distinction between philanthropy, understood in the elite sense and the everyday sense, because perhaps that acts as something of uh an antidote to some of the arguments about the kind of anti-democratic nature of philanthropy, which always seem to me much more pointed at the elite end than they are at the kind of everyday giving end. So it's actually, I don't know whether I'm being overly cynical, but it seems as though there's obviously a kind of element of enlightened self-interest for the elite philanthropist in saying, oh no, no, no, you know, it's that's philanthropy too, and it's all part of the same wonderful broad picture. Yeah, that's a I think it's a great point.

SPEAKER_01 19:23

It's sort of the version of what I was suggesting that that those distinctions actually are can be useful in maintaining that critique. Um, but but yeah, but you're also you're you're you're right that I think, at least from a researcher's perspective, there is a um now a real interest in in sh in shifting some focus and attention. Um and I think you know that it it's not so surprising. Uh I there's, you know, it I think you can trace it to a couple of of reasons. And and one is something that I know you've looked at pretty closely, um, which is the trend from really the last two decades of a kind of declining participation rates in uh in uh you know uh C3 giving um in giving to nonprofits, that that, you know, I think a lot of the attention has come from the fundraising community. Um and that that worries them. Um and and it and it converges with the kind of general concerns about kind of democratic um and civic life, not just in the in the United States, but you know, in many, in many places. So that, you know, I think um the that those concerns and those anxieties have have been channeled into um into attention on you know what is what is behind that uh that decline. And if you want to ask that question in an honest way, you first have to ask whether there really is a decline in giving. I mean, meaning, like, is are we what are we seeing a redefinition of giving or kind of rechanneling of giving, or are we seeing an actual decline of giving? And so uh what's interesting in in the US context is there's a bunch of of um research efforts underway. And I and there's a kind of um, you know, there's they're often um kind of straddling between these two positions, which is one, a real fear about decline of giving to um, you know, tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, and you know, uh almost a sense of crisis around those figures, and then a sense of possibility or kind of you know, a a less a less um crisis-oriented inquiry, um, which is um, you know, committed to uh a more expansive vision of what um giving um means and that is open to this idea that actually people are just giving differently as opposed to giving less. Um and so I think that's one that's one um issue. But uh there there has been a lot of attention on you know on on smaller scale um acts of giving. And I do think that part of that attention does represent, as we said before, you know, a discomfort with um with how much you know with with the imbalance of. attention and celebration that elite giving gets to. So there there is there is a kind of implicit critique there. And there's a historic, there's um historical um precedence for this. Early in the 20th century, kind of at the at the beginning of mass fundraising, um and a lot of this fundraising back then was was really focused on on um health campaigns. You know some of the most effective uh campaigns were built around this idea that you know don't let rich people get all the favor as philanthropists. You know you can also you can also make the contributions that matter and and you know say the the early campaigns for tuberculosis and so on. So that that that's been a kind of powerful strain in in um the language of of of mobilizing givers. At the same time, you know back in the early 20th century elite givers um and and sort of large large wealthy people really started uh thinking about how they could expand the giving base as a way to kind of sloth off their own responsibilities. There was worries about how much of the charitable burden they would have to bear. And they started sometimes sometimes implicitly but sometimes actually in ways that really dramatically echo um current rhetoric, you know, talking about the kind of democratization of giving, the democratization of philanthropy. And I think you and I both share a kind of suspicion of that language because that you know you really have to kind of inquire into what's behind it and what the motives are. But I think it's fair to say that that language can be used quite cynically um but you can't deny that it has this critical edge or that has a has the potentials for a kind of critical edge directed towards large scale giving from the wealthy.

SPEAKER_00 23:45

No, absolutely I think that sort of that implicit criticism is a yeah is a really interesting point. And and certainly as you were saying um just just a little while ago about that idea that you know how we interpret the potential phenomenon of there being a declining level of participation in giving and whether that is a genuine phenomenon or whether it's actually just that we're broadening our behaviour into other areas and and that is then looking like a resulting drop in giving to what what would have been seen as sort of traditional nonprofits? To me that I mean it's one of the most interesting questions there is the one of if if there is something going on and people are sort of shifting their behaviours and giving elsewhere, you know, in some sense does that matter? And and actually rather than people in the more traditional nonprofit world just going, well it's terrible because we've got less money what is the more positive case if there is one that can be made for the the remaining unique value of people giving money with no expectation of a financial return to a legal structure like a 501 or a registered charity? You know, does that serve a purpose that some of these other potential approaches don't? Because if not it sort of seems to me that we shouldn't be particularly bothered about it. But if if it if there is something that's in danger of being lost, we need to be much clearer about what that is rather than just assuming that that everyone kind of knows what the value of that kind of giving is yeah that's that's that's a terrific point.

SPEAKER_01 25:10

I think to some extent the language of decline you know and and and the way that we've um studied a lot of these um these trends are is through a kind of charting of rising um numbers or falling numbers and and that focus can sometimes really um evade exactly the questions you're asking which is you know what kind of questions about purpose and and fundamental rationales. And and you know I I think it's it's probably a good thing um for uh for that conversation to be happening now. You know it and it it's a different type of conversation about more or less um which I think is really how how a lot of the um the the discourse around um the kind of giving numbers and and um is is often framed. So that yeah I I would I welcome that um I think you know and and and um there's been pretty profound shifts not just in um how you know not just in the fundamental legal structures that that shape um giving in in um in the US at least um but even within uh within those structures you know the uh the the the kind of shift to from like membership based organizations in which you know financial contributions are um sometimes subordinated to or at least coequal with engagement and and um you know a personal kind of involvement um versus uh a model in which the giving itself is the way in one um defines one's relationship to the organization. You know that that and that was uh scholars like Feta Scotchbull and others have written about you know it's a pretty profound shift that that occurred um in the second half of the 20th century as you got more kind of centralized organizations that sucked in um finances and uh and then redistributed them um themselves as opposed to a kind of more federated structure where that that really um relied on on people's um uh membership you know there there is I think it's valuable to kind of think through um those questions as well and I I do think you know the the technological innovations of the last couple of of decades you know can and and maybe even the the kind of um the advent of of of and popularity of of Zoom and other kinds of modes of of being and communicating you know I think what it means to to give and and to be a member of an organization now might be in a state of flux um as well. And so you know this is a good time to be having some of those conversations and thinking about you know the the relationship between giving um and and identifying and being a member of these organizations.

SPEAKER_00 27:48

Yeah I don't I absolutely agree I think that the whole question of sort of participation and what it means and and whether traditional nonprofits I mean I I often think there's there's an argument to be made that a lot of them have fallen into a trap of of do viewing things through too transactional a lens and and undervaluing actually the desire for participation amongst people who might otherwise be supporting them and just seeing them as as kind of sources of of financial income. And maybe that's why they're or one reason why they're losing out to some of these kind of you know grassroots movements and social movements that are organizing more online in kind of less hierarchical ways. I think is you know it's a hypothesis that needs testing. One thing as well it made me think of is is as you're saying there about the kind of you know centralization of um of some of these approaches in the nonprofit world into organizations. I wonder whether um technology is actually bringing us full circle back around to kind of much older models of giving when it comes to the giving of cash. And I'm thinking here of the kind of direct person to person giving that we're seeing a lot more of and some of that is kind of done in through the auspices of organizations, the kind of slightly more theoretical approach of direct cash transfers that organizations like give directly are doing. But also it seems to me there's this huge growing area of people just giving directly to other individuals through Venmo and Cash App and that kind of thing. I mean what's your take on on sort of how we should be interpreting that in relation to to sort of more traditional philanthropy yeah it's a great question.

SPEAKER_01 29:16

I mean so when I when I was thinking about what what would actually be an enduring consequence of of the pandemic you know and you know I know there was a lot of attention to increased payout rates and you know and and some and some shifts in in practice I I think the increased popularity of cash as a as a uh instrument of of philanthropy very well might likely be if not the most one of the most important developments that came out of the pandemic. And and you know as I think you alluded to it's it's not the case that this is entirely new. I mean cash has been really since the 90s um both in through and governmental transfer programs and and then in some humanitarian aid and some philanthropic uh programs you know cash has has has been increasing in in popularity pretty steadily but the pandemic was a moment at which you know it was it was sort of pretty shocking uh almost every crisis of the last couple of decades at least the ones I can remember and paid close attention to there was always a kind of central charitable organization um that people rallied around you know and often in in the US context it was often the Red Cross not always you know and early in that pandemic there really wasn't one and in part that was because the pandemic really hit so many different places in in different ways but there was a a a time at which give directly this this charity that basically facilitates direct cash transfers initially in Africa but um it's it's developed uh some some work in the US when when that was be that had become the kind of um celebrity charity of the moment um and it was it was really striking i mean that that was some that the the idea that you know give directly had been a kind of uh I don't want to say a niche uh it was I think celebrated by the effective altruist community um you know give well was a big champion but it was being you know highlighted by Ariana Grande and you know a whole bunch of of celebrities and I think this idea of giving people cash directly touched on a kind of really primal nerve and and I I think you can make an argument that it it's that it you know it kind of um enacted a a partial reconciliation between these contending traditions of of philanthropy you know which has long defined itself against charitable giving you know charitable giving basically uh to being defined as sort of aid to address immediate suffering whereas philanthropy was addressed to kind of root causes and larger systems and structures but there was this moment in which those two um almost dichotomous approaches seemed to kind of converge in the sense of you know we need that you can by giving people money you can also begin to make longer term changes that there was something very powerful in the in the gesture itself and and then the the kind of uh respect for individual agency and autonomy um and and that you know it wasn't necessarily the kind of reactionary move of you know uh ignoring kind of large structural issues um that that had had sometimes been critiqued and during the pandemic you know you we had uh a moment in which speed you know this is another interesting dynamic that kind of I think flipped a lot of the traditional um norms associated with philanthropy going back you know one thing that philanthropy tended to pride itself on was its you know it's like judiciousness its sense of long-term time horizons you know its patience um its willingness often to the frustration of people who who asked for money to you know take its time and to uh you know do thinking that couldn't be rushed et cetera et cetera even before the pandemic we saw increased interest in rapid response giving but speed became a kind of philanthropic virtue in a way that you know I don't think we've seen in in it for for a long time um you know there was a real sense that government was not providing aid quickly enough and and that you know clearly I don't think there are any major donors who thought that philanthropy could literally substitute for government but there was a a recognition or an acknowledgement that getting money out the door as quickly as possible was a powerful act um an act that also you know was tied to the the increased focus on equity and on um power imbalances and and and so you know the the cash took on these much larger meanings um I think in a in a very powerful way and and so you had a number of major donors um and major foundations that you know had never experimented with cash before from thinking of of foundations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who began to experiment uh with cash and I've I've thought about what this could mean you know clearly again foundations and philanthropy does not have enough money to take on you know large deficiencies in social welfare but and so you know there's always a question of what will these cash experiments, the direct cash giving, will they just stop once some definition of crisis ends? I think there's two interesting things to think about there. One is you know which crisis I think you know in in many respects um you know cash was a response to the pandemic but there are multiple crises that are afflicting populations all over the world you know crises of economic precarity crises of uh racial injustice and so you know the logic that led one to um turn to cash during a pandemic could could be applied much more generally and and so a terminal point of one crisis doesn't necessarily suggest a terminal point of any other crises crisis. So you know I I think when some of these experiments end will be an interesting moment in terms of how they think about what constitutes a crisis. But the other question is um you know in in in humanitarian aid organizations there's been something of a push and this is something that you know Give Directly has has championed to think about cash transfers as a benchmark. You know we know that cash is pretty cost effective um in fact you know quite cost effective and we know um that it's a way to kind of honor the agency of of recipients to to do as as they see fit to spend money in ways that that um they think would can help. So given that fact it places a kind of burden on on the donor to beat cash. And I think that's a really valuable experiment to always be doing precisely so you can maintain that benchmark. I mean it is really valuable I think to have to have to defend one's own prerogatives as a donor and one's own sense of of um you know uh preferences and and you know that that is something that um is it can only be valuable in the in the same way that I think investors um you know should be able to beat an index fund if they want to dabble in the market um you know they have to basically be able to defend that um and justify it. So I I I'm hoping that some of these cash experiments really extend you know quite far into the future as a kind of you know as a kind of uh chastening um exercise for donors. And and you know and I think I think that that could be a kind of permanent change that we could see. I would certainly welcome it.

SPEAKER_00 37:00

Yeah absolutely I think I think that point about it being a benchmark is really important because it was sort of strikes me in the context of international development if if through sort of giving through large INGOs and international aid agencies you can't provably be doing more than good than just giving the money directly to people on the ground then you should probably question why you're doing that with all the associated kind of costs and complexity that it that it has. So as a as a kind of constant test it's really important. I'm just going to ask actually because when you were talking there I think I think this whole question of I I I can't work out how to uh to what terminology to use I in my own head I kind of call it the re-charitization of philanthropy but it's an absolutely hideous kind of logism but this idea that actually you know that kind of historical split between charity and philanthropy we're actually seeing sort of the two come back together at least ostensibly in in interesting ways but it strikes me there's kind of there are different reasons that donors might arrive at the same end result. And you mentioned there the sort of interest of the effective altruist community and something like give directly and it strikes me that comes from very much the sort of most rational end of the market which is actually they've just found that the economic evidence is that this is a good way to deliver the sort of outcomes that they're interested in. So it makes sense on that basis and they're not really you know that's the the driving force behind doing it. But then there might be a separate set of people for whom the interest is in addressing issues of power imbalance and then actually it's less about that. It's more about the agency that you give to people by empowering them through giving them cash directly. And what I wanted to ask actually is sort of I think that and what you were saying there about the timeliness and sense of urgency of philanthropy um the obvious place to go there it seems to me is kind of Mackenzie Scott and what she's been doing in giving because she seems to combine these things really interestingly and the thing I can't work out in my own hand I'll be really interested in your take on this is is is Mackenzie Scott's rationale for doing this is more the latter in terms of the sort of shift of power and recognizing some of the power imbalances in philanthropy and that's why she's taking the approach to giving that she's taking as a thought experiment could she be comfortable with the idea of producing measurably worse outcomes in in the sense that an effective altruist might measure things but say actually it's better to have done it in the way that I do it even if I could produce better outcomes by taking a more sort of paternalistic top-down approach? Or is that still a question that that remains to be answered because we don't quite know what her approach is yeah I mean that's a great question and I think it's also a question about what you mean by measurably worse.

SPEAKER_01 39:36

I mean so if if you I mean I I think whether or not we think about the agency and um you know and and autonomy of of uh of beneficiaries as you know as part of of what what we how we define an outcome um it it makes that question even more complicated to to adjudicate. But I think I think um I mean part of this is because the the that it's a very good question and and I don't think we know and part of it is because Scott herself has not been tremendously transparent about some of the calculations that she's making and we we we we've been given you know medium posts um and it's a kind of confessional style I think of uh of a philanthropic persona which can be very powerful uh in that you know it's it's a kind of more it leans more to the literary end of the spectrum and say a giving pledge letter but you know the some of the trade-offs that almost any approach has um are you know she's not directly engaging in and and it's because the process itself is is kind of behind closed doors um there's not a you know we don't have a a chance to kind of push on on on those questions and you know or to see a kind of potential range you know what what are some of the other ways that that she could give you know that or or you know who else was she contemplating that didn't that didn't pass muster and that you know would give us more of a of a clearer sense about um exactly what her priorities are. So I mean that that's a good example of in some sense she's has a very powerful you know a very powerful philanthropic persona and and you know is speaking directly to to the public but you know as as we both know she it's off it's also one of the least transparent um uh ways of of giving you know it's it we doesn't she doesn't have a foundation she relies on intermediaries and and advisors who are um you know have been entirely um silent about you know their their thinking and their approach and then their uh who they're who they're consulting and so you know I I I think there is a lot of I I wouldn't be surprised if if Scott's model the model of of reliance on intermediaries and a kind of diffuse network of advisors becomes more more of a of a norm. I mean I think that's something that that we might be seeing we I would not be surprised if that's one of the defining characteristics of of the next couple of decades of of big giving and and and I think what what that means is that we'll have a lot of these conversations where we just don't know you know we we just don't we're we're not entirely clear about the process and therefore we're not entirely clear about the principles themselves. And so yeah I mean I I don't mean to to punt the question but I think it points to a kind of a larger really important dynamic. But but I but I don't want to minimize you know I think in a lot of the coverage of of Scott you you you now get people set talking about uh you know she's not transparent um this is a problem I I don't want to minimize the fact that what she is doing is you know it's pretty bold um and and offers a pretty stark challenge to the kind of technocratic models that have really defined philanthropy uh large scale philanthropy for the last couple of decades um anyway and it's it's it's really interesting we're in this kind of interesting moment now you know because you step back especially with with kind of Bill Gates's um some something of Bill Gates's star fading a bit and you know you try to think about what are the norms of large scale giving who are the people who are defining these these norms you know for for for a while for at least a decade I think you really could point to Gates himself as the defining normative figure in philanthropy that you know he he he was the he both defined philanthropy to the public but also I think for a lot of other um younger donors he he um offered a model that they could emulate um of you know of a kind of technocratic approach a data driven approach approach that was you know rooted in a large philanthropic bureaucracy but that had an enormous scope and ambitions and and now you have a you have a you have a real diversity a kind of fracturing and uh of norms uh you you have someone like Scott who you know who who offers a really different model and and I think a model that now if you're kind of a an emerging philanthropist or even however you want to define that term, right? Either as someone with lots of money or someone who doesn't but but wants to give, I think you have to contend with that model. But you know I I know that that we we were sort of joking about this before you also have someone like Elon Musk who in a sense his defining character Characteristics is a public rejection of any norms, right? Like this idea that there are no um no uh uh giving norms that he has to follow, that that basically philanthropy is indistinguishable from a kind of a form of trolling um that he seems to delight in, but that is fundamentally public. Right. So the interesting thing about someone like um Musk is that for a long time he he insisted that giving was his private affair. He had no interest in discussing anything publicly. Uh and therefore the norm itself was just a norm of discretion, of privacy, which is, you know, has a long tradition. Um it's something that has been claimed by a number of other tech givers before him. And you know, this is someone like Steve Jobs, for instance. And and that, and that was, um, I think sometimes an excuse for, sometimes kind of bled into this idea of, you know, my my giving is actually my work, you know, something you couldn't really. And that was another, another argument about, you know, basically, I don't have to engage publicly as a philanthropist, leave me alone. But now we have this idea of I do have to engage publicly as a philanthropist. I enjoy engaging public publicly as a philanthropist, and my engagement is going to be based on on you know, on the sense of antagonizing the public, kind of celebrating my own idiosyncrasies, you know, and and what does that do to this idea of what are philanthropic norms today? Um, you know, what what, you know, honestly, it's it's you know it's sort of it's sort of bizarre for someone who's been following this pretty closely. Um, but I think, you know, what you really have is is a like a an expanding palette of of approaches to philanthropy that I I we are in a moment when there is the kind of defining norms are as volatile, you know, I think as they've ever been. Um I'd say, or at least, at least been in in last several decades. So, you know, somewhat frightening, um, but also I think a moment of real possibility and and uh you know uh of uh excitement uh in the space.

SPEAKER_00 46:02

Yeah, I agree. And I think I think it's I mean, it's it's a fascinating time. And as you say, the kind of the fact that there's um the ability to disintermediate the communication between the philanthropist and the public, and it doesn't have to be kind of filtered through institutional norms anymore, means that we might get these kind of entirely unvarnished presentations of people's views on philanthropy, which is fascinating. Because I guess I mean, in a way, it uh harks back to you know some of uh times kind of a hundred years ago or more when you you got many more philanthropists sort of writing essays outlining their sort of philosophies of of giving. But in that sense, I guess they were kind of you know still quite considered pieces that were then published in in sort of mainstream outlets, whereas now you get the version where it's Elon Musk just decides to come up with a thread on Twitter at 11 o'clock at night telling you what he thinks about stuff, and you know, it's probably going to be slightly problematic. But then at the same time, you've got, you know, as you say, the kind of the the default mode for presenting vast gifts now is no longer for the philanthropist to kind of line up and have a photo shoot and and talk to the New York Times, it's to write a post on Medium. And if if you have Mackenzie Scott, that entails a kind of quite introspective literary take that acknowledges all of the problems with philanthropy. And if you're Elon Musk, it really doesn't, it's something very different. Um, and I yeah, I do, I think it'll be fascinating. And I I I wonder actually on to your point on on Musk and the impact that he will have. I mean, I think you know, he he certainly has a kind of Trumpian vibe about him in terms of the way that he uses the possibilities of sort of directly putting forward his views to the to the public, for better or worse. Um, and I wonder whether one immediate knock-on effect of that will be that that narrative that has always been there in his uh his previous thoughts on philanthropy and and in the the thoughts of people I think like um Sergei Brynn and Larry Page and others, which is not only the the you know, the way in which I make money and the fact that I'm a big employer means that you know that's basically a part of my philanthropy. I think there's something about the particular mindset of tech donors, which is you know, they they very firmly believe the things that they are building or have built have at least as much social value as anything they could ever do through philanthropy. And and you know, with somebody like um Elon Musk, I you know, I'd imagine if pushed on it, he'd start talking about his experiments with bringing spaceflight to a mass market. You know, that that to him, I think, is indistinguishable from anything that we might otherwise class as philanthropy. And and again, is that okay or is that sort of problematic? And is it something that we need to sort of challenge as a as an argument? I don't, I don't know.

SPEAKER_01 48:40

Yeah, I mean, so I mean that for a while that was Musk's argument. I mean, he's he's made the argument explicitly. What's interesting now is that he's he he ha he's recognized for whatever reason that that's not adequate, or at least that he's not satisfied with that. So he's he's shifted a bit to sort of more direct engagement about what his, you know, what else he'll be doing. Yeah, and and but it's a great question. I think you know, we we are at this moment where we're maybe at the tail end of a kind of the celebration of tech as a form of good in its own respect. I mean, I'm sure. Um, but yeah, but then you but you're right to suggest that it it's it certainly not hasn't been extinguished entirely, certainly not in Silicon Valley. So you have the you know, you have the persistence of that argument, which goes back, you know, goes back uh quite quite a while. You know, standard oil, um Rockefeller would would um would often point to the fact that he brought light to you know uh to to communities all over the the country. And uh yeah, so um, but but I I think one very just going back to sort of an earlier conversation, I think one really important uh dimension to the contemporary critique, it's not new, but I think the amount of focus on it now is is new, like the amount of actual scrutiny, um, and that that's you know really attending to or seeing beyond the kind of platitudes about what good is being done through technology or through enterprise and entrepreneurialism, and thinking about the you know, the costs of of those technologies and lining them up against philanthropy. This is this is you know the kind of right-hand-left-hand argument that I think you know is is often the dominant one on social media. You know, and sometimes it can be a little bit frustrating, um, but but overall, I think it's you know it's enormously powerful. And and and so, and I think, you know, what it what it often has done is in this weird way, I think you were kind of you know you you were you were um referencing someone like um Andrew Carnegie, who thought about philanthropy as a way to kind of justify the accumulation of wealth. And and you know, that was an explicit kind of dimension of his gospel of wealth, um, you know, written um hundred and uh nearly 150 years ago. Um, but but these days I think philanthropy has a weirdly opposite role, which is it actually is sort of drawing attention back to the technology or the source of accumulation and increasing scrutiny on the problematic nature of uh of enterprise and sometimes even delegitimizing wealth. You know, so philanthropy has is is, I don't think you know, you still hear lots of arguments about philanthropy as a way that you know performs all this reputation laundering. Um, but if you actually follow a lot of the, you know, the kind of chains of arguments uh uh on social media and then in the media more generally, um when you know, when large donors give gifts, I think it's it often um kind of directs attention backwards and you get more people thinking about well, where did this money come from? Um, you know, what exactly is the source of this money, both in terms of the largest structures of political economy and the actual modes of production. Um, you know, that's definitely true with someone like Jeff Bezos. Um I think it it uh it very well might start to be more true with someone like Elon Musk. And so that means I think philanthropy's role now in like larger discourse about political economy is much more complicated than you know than it's traditionally uh been considered. Certainly more much more complicated than Andrew Carnegie um thought, but also much more complicated than I think some of like the harshest critics um imagine. Um it's now really, I think, almost the central node of how many people think about what's fair and what's just in in the world in which we live. Um and that's you know, that's I think a really powerful place to be.

SPEAKER_00 52:19

Yeah, I think I think that that idea that philanthropy kind of unavoidably has to be contextualized, particularly against where the wealth has come from in the first place. And there's no question of separating the sort of left hand of how it was accumulated from the right hand of attempting to do good through giving it away. Does it does seem like one of those areas where there's a much more clear consensus, if not a sort of 100% consensus on that. And the you know, the idea of doing good with bad money seems quaintly old-fashioned in in a lot of ways. Um, I just wanted to, I'm aware I'm in danger of taking up far too much for your time, Ben, because I could uh talk about this stuff for ages, but I just wanted to come on because we we sort of touched on it there, that there's this sort of broader question of where wealth is created, and that that seems to me a sort of wider version of a very old problem, probably the oldest problem of philanthropy, which is that one of tainted wealth and the idea that some sources of wealth are kind of have um ethical concerns attached to them that mean that even when you want to do good through giving them away, you the balance doesn't quite work out. Um, I just wanted to ask, because you wrote a really interesting piece recently that sort of touched on this in the light of things like the um the controversy around the Sackler family, asking whether part of the problem, or at least one dimension of it, is that very often the the benefit to the donor, um, the reputational benefit is overt because there's become such a norm of offering naming rights and institutions or or kind of buildings, and that actually we could partially solve the problem by overcoming that. Do you think it would be better? It so say as a thought experiment, if you have a donor and their money is some is seen to be tainted by you know some group of people, if they give anonymously and claim no benefit for it, is that then sort of okay from their point of view and from the point of view of the recipient organization? And so does that sort of shift us away from a norm of transparency in some sense?

SPEAKER_01 54:02

Yeah, yeah, good question. I sort of mentioned this very briefly. This is a piece I wrote recently in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. So my issue is I think that there are um three dimensions to naming rights that I think have all been kind of conflated. Um one is a per a purely transactional or contractional obligation between the donor and the and a beneficiary institution, where you know it's it's the most cynical version where you you give me money, if I give you money, I want I want my name on the wall. Um and I think you know, we can all agree that's pretty problematic, especially from a tax uh perspective, because that um the IRS basically has decided that that benefit is is is not is not valued in the calculations of of um what is tax deductible. But then there are these two other um rationales um that I think are that you know are I think too often kind of mixed. One is this sense of institutional gratitude. Um I I know there's a lot of discomfort with um the public being grateful to to a philanthropist, and you know, that touches on this idea of you know, what is the this idea of um who has the right to this money in the first place and where it came from, et cetera, et cetera. I don't think it's unusual or or or wrong for an institution to be grateful, um, because there's a you know, there's a host of different institutions that money could have gone to, and it's certainly gratitude in that respect seems certainly understandable. Putting a name on an institution, though, I think, ver um blends into a third idea, which is this idea of kind of combining the identity of the donor and the identity of the institution, and therefore the identity of the values in which that institution embodies and has been rooted in. And so, you know, what I I would I explicitly said I don't mean when I say that I think we have to reconsider naming rights, that we should necessarily embrace an ethic of anonymity. I do think there's issues with transparency there. Sometimes it might be appropriate, but I would I do not feel comfortable um kind of offering that as a as a uh as a full uh alternative. Um but I think, for instance, institutions could very easily just or could try harder, let me say, to disentangle the kind of imperatives of gratitude, say with a plaque or with a you know uh a uh a dinner. There's all sorts of ways in which you can show that you appreciate a gift, but that uh that don't um send a message and don't kind of um corrupt the public square with the sense that the people who we value, the institutions that we value, are all associated with people who made lots of money. And that seems to be a real corruption of, you know, of the of whatever, however you want to define what what a public value is or the way in which values are uh manifested in the public space. It does not make sense to me when I stop to think about it, that when you look around at who is now named on our on many of our buildings, they're not people whose, you know, who we necessarily want to celebrate for any inherent virtue. They're people who have just made lots of money. And and the act of, and if we are celebrating a virtue, it's the act of giving, which itself is, you know, can only can sometimes be exhausted by that gift itself and doesn't extend to any other um you know element of their personalities. And so, you know, I think the larger picture of larger point I want to make in the piece is you know that there are there are issues about philanthropy which um can be traced to the relationship between a donor and the institution. But I think what we've what we've seen is that the public has certain rights um and certain interests that need to be defended as well. And uh maybe one of the you know defining um characteristics of your work, of my work, many of the people that really focus on on philanthropy in a larger um framework is is bringing that public interest more into the conversation and and kind of um you know thinking about it as a co-equal um voice uh in the donor grant uh beneficiary institution relationship. And if you do that, um then you know thinking carefully about what those names mean, what the what the names do, you know, what what what purpose they serve, um what value they can have, you know, I think you you start to think of it very differently. And I'll just end here. You one of the alternatives I offered, and I would love to see this happen, well, um, is more people making donations based on uh if they want to claim naming rights, um having those naming rights be based on people that they admire and want to be celebrated um in it publicly, especially people who have not had the chance before. Uh so people who have been marginalized or because they're not wealthy and powerful, uh, you know, haven't had the chance to be celebrated. I think that offers an enormous opportunity. And so, you know, it's it's a it's a way that that um you know still maintains the legitimacy of large-scale giving, sees it as an important part of how many of our institutions are able to be to sustain themselves, but also really tries to think about you know the place of philanthropy uh with respect to public values and the public interest more generally.

SPEAKER_00 59:06

Yeah, absolutely. And I think yeah, playing an uh an additional role there in sort of rebalancing some of the inequities of history that have kind of hidden uh figures who might otherwise be known, I think would be a powerful additional role. I do suddenly strike me. I wonder just when you were saying there, but you know, your point about um the fact that people shouldn't necessarily be rewarded simply for having accumulated that wealth and making the gift in the first place, because in some ways the gift almost sort of exhausts itself in the act of being made. I guess the idea that that the the alternative would be for people to have naming rights, but the right to sort of nominate somebody else's name opens up the intriguing possibility that you might end up with buildings or institutions named after a donor, but only because somebody else decided that they were so admirable that they wanted to name it. And then and in that case, I guess that's fine. They've sort of earned it in some sense that's more indirect.

SPEAKER_01 59:55

In fact, that that's that's the final point I make in this chronicle piece that basically it it if you if it this that if you really insist on having a building named after you, there is an avenue open for you, and that is live live an exemplary life. Yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 1:00:09

It's that easy, yeah.

unknown 1:00:11

Exactly.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:12

Go to it, yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 1:00:13

Uh listen, Ben, uh, I won't take up any more of your time. I can keep talking about this stuff for ages, but um, it's been an absolute pleasure to have a chance to chat to you on the podcast. Um, just before you uh I'll let you go, just have you got anything that you particularly want to flag up that you've got coming up in terms of publications or events or anything like that?

SPEAKER_01 1:00:27

No, no, all I'll say is that Roger you're a tremendous asset to us all. You know, I I um really admire your work and um just thanks for everything you do. It's it's terrific. Oh thanks, Ben. Cheers. Okay, bye-bye.

SPEAKER_00 1:00:49

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Ben for coming on the podcast. It was great as ever to have a chance to catch up with him and get his thoughts uh on what's been going on in philanthropy. You know, enormous amount of food for thought there, and certainly lots of things that kind of got me thinking a lot. Um, I'll put links in the show notes to things that are relevant to what we were talking about, things that's been that Ben's written recently, things that I've written. Um if you're interested in checking out some of the other episodes of the podcast, do look at the website which is philanthropisms.com, uh, and you can also find an email address there where you can get in touch if you've got ideas for topics that we could cover on the show or people that I could talk to. If you want more sort of uh thoughts and uh probably less formed thoughts on philanthropy, do uh check out my Twitter feed at Rodri underscore h underscore Davis or at philiteracy if you want stuff that's more sort of about history and theory of philanthropy. Um I'll also put links in the show notes to where you can find Ben on Twitter because I'd certainly recommend uh checking out his profile for some perhaps more considered thoughts about philanthropy. Um, other than that, just you know it remains to say like, subscribe, please do tell anyone about the podcast that you think might be interested in checking it out. And other than that, we'll see you next time.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:57

Bye bye, we're gonna be able to do that.