Speaking at the opening plenary of Harvard University’s 20th annual social enterprise conference, author and social critic Anand Giridharadas called for jettisoning impact rhetoric and placing our energy instead into social movements, political activism, and structural change.
Do we need a statement of ethics for the recipients of donations?
Looking at mega-gifts in isolation from their sources and the dynamics they set up makes little societal sense.
More funding for the nonprofit sector sounds like good news, but there is an underside, says one commentator after another. What’s the big deal, anyway?
Will the increasingly prominent trend of declining small donations make itself felt today, on #GivingTuesday?
Michael Bloomberg’s $1.8 billion gift to Johns Hopkins, his alma mater, is part of a larger trend in which elite universities are seeking to reduce financial barriers to education. However, many schools remain financially far out of reach for most Americans of modest means.
The latest US Trust report on high-net-worth donors reveals that little has changed, save for an increase in the number of billionaires and the wealth gap.
Can you be rich, hold on to economic power, and solve entrenched social problems at the same time? Such a formula, suggests social critic Anand Giridharadas, is far more likely to reinforce social problems than lead to their resolution.
Another reason to worry about the phenomenon of mega-gifts in philanthropy—does it crowd out giving from others?
An outsider gets a bright idea that he promises will revolutionize a field and gains access to a wealthy funder. The donor or foundation takes a big risk and makes a mega-grant, then the organization lands on the field like a giant unsocialized toddler and goes belly-up within a few years, with little to show for the endeavor.
