28 June 2022

Philanthropists want to be in control. Just like governments.

Emma Saunders-Hastings, in her recent book about philanthopy, asks an important question:

Before Parisian firefighters had fully extinguished the blaze that ravaged Notre- Dame in April 2019, lavish pledges rolled in from philanthropists eager to support the cathedral’s reconstruction: 100 million from Bernard Arnault, France’s richest person; ... commitments in the millions and tens of millions of euros from individual and corporate donors in France and abroad. The pledges were greeted with a mixed reception: conventional expressions of gratitude in some quarters but swift criticism from others. Why, some skeptics asked, were private funds so readily available to repair a building
but not to address rising inequality in French society? Emma Saunders-Hastings, Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality, March 2022

Or, indeed, other social and environmental problems such as unemployment, crime, or global concerns, such as war?

Later, Ms Saunders-Hastings grants that 'some donors have a better grasp of the measures that would best promote people’s substantive interests than the elected officials whom they are seeking to influence or bypass'. She concludes: 

Democratic societies need different ways of promoting reciprocity and long-
term attention to the public good— ones that do not require reliance on the
competence and goodwill of hereditary or economic elites. Contemporary philanthropy has not yet solved this problem.  

It seems to me that Ms Saunders-Hastings' first question is relatively easy to answer: philanthopists are unlikely to want to undermine the system that allows them to accumulate and maintain their vast wealth; including by influencing government policy. Also important, I believe, is that philanthropists are biased in favour of projects that are highly visible, where their contributions can be easily identified. In this, it is not very different from governments, which also favour the glamorous and photogenic over more mundane goals that require multiple approaches and much experimentation and refinement before they can be achieved: hence the persistence of some of our most grievous social problems. 

I have tried, with no success, to interest philanthropists in the Social Policy Bond concept. It seems to me that they are reluctant to relinquish control over the destination of their funds. In this respect, also, they are similar to governments. It's an understandable bias - though regrettable. My wish is that all funding bodies, private or public sector, would reward those who solve our most persistent, long-term problems, rather than insist on dictating who shall receive their funding and how they shall allocate it.

No comments: