Search Results

This chapter starts by defining this term and constituent elements and phases, then traces its development starting in the USA and the moving to Europe and, more recently, to Asia. These historical analyses demonstrate both how the field of ‘engaged’ philanthropy has changed over time, but also how important different socio-cultural contexts and traditions have been in its development. The chapter makes a clear connection with the work on ‘philanthrocapitalism’ earlier in the book. After the historical landscape analysis, the chapter goes on to discuss some of the criticisms that have been levelled at venture philanthropy. It concludes by raising the key question of whether venture philanthropy will become the norm for grant-making or will remain an ‘outsider’ activity within the sector.

This chapter describes the new capacity builders in the philanthropic and social-investment arenas. What characterizes these new capacity builders is their focus on organizational sustainability and scaling, with special emphasis on the acquisition of growth capital and earned income strategies. Included are high-engagement funders (also known as venture philanthropy funders) and specialty sustainability-oriented capacity builders. The chapter discusses the growing scope and scale of the new capacity builders and details the basic mechanics they utilize and the challenges they face. These challenges include the limitations of knowledge and experience, overly narrow approaches to identifying capacity needs, inappropriate measurement plans, unsuccessful exit strategies, difficult dynamics/power imbalances, organizational readiness, cultural fit, and insufficient capacity of the capacity builders. The chapter closes with a discussion of the track record of the new capacity builders to date and concludes that the high-engagement funder approach to building capacity seems to be the most successful.

This chapter considers the alliance between a venture philanthropy foundation and a community development organisation campaigning on migrant workers’ rights in Ireland. Drawing on Foucault’s concept of governmentality, the chapter suggests that the organisation’s worker mobilisation strategies and its alliances with trade unions contradict the neoliberal capitalist origins of its funder. It is argued that philanthropic funding does not inevitably moderate community development’s political goals. However, its worker empowerment agenda cannot be regarded as a complete victory for counter-hegemonic rationalities given Irish trade unionism’s complicity within the complicated history of Irish neoliberalisation. The chapter thus cautions against viewing the relationship between community development and philanthropy — or between community development and neoliberalism – in either/or terms and points to the narrowing space for resistance outside the parameters of neoliberal governmentality itself.

The chapter build on previous work to explore how philanthrocapitalism has evolved. Despite the financial crisis of 2008, engaged giving has expanded and become more institutionalized rather than withering away. Indeed, even governments are now advocates. The chapter functions as a set of debates addressing key critics of philanthrocapitalism—as such it is, itself, somewhat controversial. Yet, the chapter highlights several important issues that go beyond its particular perspective, such as the value of more diligent impact measurement and improved transparency and accountability in the grant-making sector. The chapter goes on to highlight some of the emerging innovations in this sector including philanthropic ‘marketplaces’ such as the Clinton Global Initiative. The chapter concludes with a cautious reminder that taking risks can pay off, but demonstrable successes are important too.