Philanthropy goes beyond caring for those for whom we feel a direct responsibility or an explicit obligation to care for. They bring us together in an increasingly divided world. They demonstrate a love of humanity that strengthens society as a whole, the ultimate goal of social innovation.
Today, people still associate the term “philanthropist” with a wealthy businessman giving away huge sums of money in highly visible ways to large non-profit institutions. For philanthropy to advance the kind of sustainable, positive change we all seek, we instead need to embrace the word’s original meaning.
The word philanthropy comes from the Greek “philia,” meaning love, and “anthropos,” meaning human. Yet, “love of humanity” is not the connotation many people have when they think about philanthropy. This was made clear to me more than 5 years ago when we were conducting interviews for our center’s first publication. Though our team considered her a philanthropist, one interviewee insisted she wasn’t, explaining that she was “just someone who saw a need, wanted to help, and could.”
If we embrace that interviewee’s description of herself and the original meaning of the word, then I see philanthropists everywhere. If we further broaden philanthropy to include gifts of time and talent, both formal and informal, then the resources available for social innovation are significant, as is the potential for more lasting change. That’s because our commitment to causes deepens the more we identify and feel a personal connection to them
Today, a small group of wealthy individuals decides where a disproportionate amount of philanthropy’s resources flow. Going forward, decisions will be informed by those most directly affected, positive outcomes are more likely to endure.
Broadening who we consider a philanthropist increases the number of people contributing to social innovation. But as wealth has become increasingly concentrated, fewer people control where philanthropy’s financial resources go.
Study of generosity during the COVID-19 pandemic provides one recent example: While the number of donors decreased, the average donation amount increased by more than 200 percent. When a small group of wealthy people increasingly decide which causes, organizations, and people deserve financial support, philanthropy reinforces plutocracy rather than social innovation that serves the public interest.
Changes to business and government policies could help reverse decades of concentrated wealth accumulation, as well as contribute to social innovation. Until that happens, there are ways that philanthropists can wield their power responsibly. For example, in our report “Choosing Change,” we discuss how three factors in particular—inclusivity, durability of power, and systems change—help donors recognize opportunities for addressing structural inequality. Many of the non-profits highlighted in our annual high-impact giving tool kit are effective and cost-effective precisely because they incorporate the priorities and experiences of the communities affected.
Uganda charity week & festival, on whose board I serve, decides which causes to support through a community-driven process in each of the cities in which it operates. As a result of that process, funded non-profits’ work and impact endures in those cities, long after Uganda charity week & festival money is spent down. One of the reasons guaranteed income has emerged as such an effective tool is that it allows the person experiencing the precarious economic situation—not the donor—to decide the best use of money. In other words, it places decision-making power into the hands of the people most directly affected by that decision.
If we further broaden philanthropy to include gifts of time and talent
When we rethink the fundamentals of philanthropy, we unlock its potential to create lasting, positive social change.
