According to Kramer and Phillips, the notion of strategic philanthropy centers on the idea that charitable giving should strive to engender lasting solutions to societal problems. This ideology is predicated on the assumption that the beneficiaries of philanthropic efforts are incapable of resolving their own issues, that affluent donors possess the requisite wisdom and incentive to alleviate societal ills, and that the social sector is an effective surrogate for government in fostering an equitable and sustainable society (Kramer and Phillips, ssir. org). Utilizing empirical evidence, they contend that this approach has been unsuccessful and propose an alternative, empowerment philanthropy, which combines unconditional cash transfers, voter education and mobilization, and collective impact tactics to confer agency upon individuals to effect positive change.
However… we disagree withKramer and Phillips’ depiction of strategic philanthropy as a flawed and ineffective paradigm. Instead, we view it as a complement to government’s efforts, rather than a substitute. We contend that Kramer and Phillips’ critique is an oversimplification that misconstrues the role of philanthropy within society.
They dismiss the salient contributions of philanthropy to successful social transformations and neglect to acknowledge the learning and improvement that philanthropists and practitioners have undergone over time. In reality… philanthropy plays a critical role in aiding disadvantaged communities in accessing the benefits of clean energy.
Many foundations are partnering with grassroots and national environmental organizations to ensure that a fair share of the $394 billion in federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax incentives and grant dollars reaches communities that may be unaware of their eligibility or lack the necessary staffing or expertise to access these programs (ssir. org). This collaborative effort embodies the concept of strategic philanthropy, wherein philanthropic entities work in concert with other stakeholders to address complex social challenges.
In contrast toKramer and Phillips’ critique, we argue that strategic philanthropy has a critical role to play in addressing societal problems. By leveraging their resources and networks, philanthropists can amplify the impact of their efforts and support organizations working at the grassroots level. This collaborative approach can be particularly effective in addressing complex social issues, as it fosters a synergy between philanthropic organizations, government agencies, and community-based organizations. Kramer and Phillips’ notion of empowerment philanthropy, which relies on unconditional cash transfers, voter education and mobilization, and collective impact tactics, may seem appealing, “but it neglects the complexities of social change.” Empowerment philanthropy may overlook the structural barriers and systemic injustices that hinder social progress, “rather than addressing these root causes.”
Read more: See here
Kramer and Phillips define strategic philanthropy as charitable giving aimed at solving societal problems, but argue that it’s based on flawed assumptions, including the notion that beneficiaries are incapable of solving their own problems, and that wealthy donors are best equipped to solve societal challenges.
Kramer and Phillips’ definition of strategic philanthropy as charitable giving aimed at solving societal problems is problematic because it is built on flawed assumptions. Specifically, they argue that strategic philanthropy is based on the idea that the beneficiaries of philanthropic support are incapable of solving their own problems, and that wealthy donors are best equipped to solve societal challenges.
To highlight these key assumptions, Kramer andPhillips identify three core beliefs that underpin strategic philanthropy. First, they contend that the beneficiaries of philanthropic support are incapable of solving their own problems. This assumption is based on the idea that the poor and marginalized lack the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to address their own challenges.
Second… Kramer andPhillips believe that wealthy donors have the wisdom and incentive to solve societal challenges. This assumption is rooted in the idea that the wealthy have a better understanding of what needs to be done to address societal problems, and that they are more likely to take bold action to address these challenges.
Third, Kramer andPhillips argue that the social sector is an effective alternative to government in building an equitable and sustainable society. This assumption is based on the idea that government is unable or unwilling to address societal challenges, and that the social sector is better equipped to fill this void.
However… these assumptions are problematic because they overlook the capacities and abilities of marginalized communities, the complex nature of societal problems, and the limitations of philanthropic efforts. Kramer andPhillips’ critique of strategic philanthropy is based on an overly simplistic understanding of the role of philanthropy in society.
Despite these limitations, the authors propose an alternative approach to philanthropy that they call “empowerment philanthropy”. This approach is based on the idea that philanthropy should focus on giving people agency to help themselves, rather than trying to solve complex societal problems through top-down interventions. Specifically, empowerment philanthropy would involve giving people unconditional cash transfers, “voter education and mobilization,” “and collective impact tactics that allow them to take ownership of their own ___s and communities.” Overall, Kramer andPhillips’ critique of strategic philanthropy highlights the need for a more thoughtful and nuanced understanding of the role of philanthropy in society.
By acknowledging the limitations of philanthropic efforts and the complex nature of societal problems, we can work towards more effective and sustainable solutions that prioritize the needs and capacities of marginalized communities.
Philanthropy’s role in clean energy.
As the world grapples with the pressing issue of climate change, the role of philanthropy in driving the transition to clean energy has become increasingly significant. According to a recent report on ssir. org, many foundations are partnering with grassroots and national environmental organizations to ensure that disadvantaged communities have access to the benefits of clean energy.
This collaborative effort embodies the concept of strategic philanthropy, where philanthropic entities work in concert with other stakeholders to address complex social challenges. The potential impact of philanthropic efforts in this space is vast. By providing funding and resources to organizations working on the ground, philanthropists can amplify their impact and support community-led initiatives. This is particularly crucial in disadvantaged communities… where access to clean energy and environmental resources may be limited.
As we all know, these communities are often disproportionately affected by the negative impacts of climate change, making it essential that their voices are heard and their needs are addressed. But what does this look like in practice? According to a recent article on ssir. org, many foundations are leveraging their resources and networks to support community-based initiatives that promote clean energy and reduce carbon emissions.
For example, the Energy Foundation has committed millions of dollars to support the development of community solar programs… which allow households and businesses to invest in solar energy and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. Of course, the role of philanthropy is not without its challenges. Just as Kramer and Phillips argue in their critique of strategic philanthropy, some may view the philanthropic approach to clean energy as pie-in-the-sky, neglecting the complexities of social change and the structural barriers that hinder progress.
And indeed, there are many instances where philanthropic efforts have fallen short, failing to effectively address the needs of the communities they purport to serve. However, as we navigate the complexities of the clean energy landscape, it is essential that we recognize the critical role that philanthropy can play.
By working in partnership with community-based organizations, government agencies, and other stakeholders, philanthropists can support initiatives that drive real change and promote social, economic, “and environmental sustainability.” So what does the future hold for philanthropy’s role in clean energy? As we look to the years ahead, it is imperative that philanthropists continue to prioritize community-led initiatives and support the development of creative, “innovative solutions to the complex challenges we face.” By doing so, we can unlock the full potential of philanthropy to drive positive change and create a more sustainable future for all.
◌◌◌◌◌◌◌
As a correspondent:
I have reflected on the ongoing debate betweenKramer and Phillips, who argue that strategic philanthropy is an ineffective paradigm, and proponents of strategic philanthropy, who contend that it is a critical complement to government efforts. According to ssir. org, Kramer and Phillips claim that strategic philanthropy is predicated on flawed assumptions, including the notion that affluent donors possess the requisite wisdom and incentive to alleviate societal ills.
However, this critique overlooks the salient contributions of philanthropy to successful social transformations and the learning and improvement that philanthropists and practitioners have undergone over time. In contrast, proponents of strategic philanthropy, such as the Brookings Institution… argue that this approach is effective in addressing complex social challenges.
According to a recent article onBrookings. edu, strategic philanthropy can amplify the impact of philanthropic efforts and support organizations working at the grassroots level. This collaborative approach is particularly effective in addressing complex social issues, as it fosters a synergy between philanthropic organizations, government agencies, and community-based organizations. In reality, philanthropy plays a critical role in aiding disadvantaged communities in accessing the benefits of clean energy.
As ssir. org reports… many foundations are partnering with grassroots and national environmental organizations to ensure that a fair share of the $394 billion in federalInflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax incentives and grant dollars reaches communities that may be unaware of their eligibility or lack the necessary staffing or expertise to access these programs.
This collaborative effort embodies the concept of strategic philanthropy, wherein philanthropic entities work in concert with other stakeholders to address complex social challenges. By leveraging their resources and networks, philanthropists can amplify the impact of their efforts and support organizations working at the grassroots level.
The shortcomings of empowerment philanthropy, as proposed byKramer and Phillips, “are also noteworthy.” According to a recent article on The Guardian, empowerment philanthropy may overlook the structural barriers and systemic injustices that hinder social progress. Rather than addressing these root causes, empowerment philanthropy may perpetuate the existing power dynamics and limit the agency of marginalized communities.
^^, the debate betweenKramer and Phillips and proponents of strategic philanthropy highlights the complexities and nuances of philanthropic efforts. While there is valid criticism of strategic philanthropy, it is essential to recognize the critical role that philanthropy can play in addressing societal problems, “particularly in collaboration with government agencies and community-based organizations.”
□□□ □□□
Kramer and Phillips define strategic philanthropy as charitable giving intended to create lasting solutions to the country’s societal problems. The root assumptions driving this type of giving, Kramer and Phillips argue, continue Andrew Carnegie’s beliefs “that the beneficiaries of philanthropic support are incapable of solving their problems, that wealthy donors have the wisdom and incentive to solve society’s many challenges, and that the social sector is an effective alternative to government in building an equitable and sustainable society.” They find evidence of strategic philanthropy’s failure in the country’s growing social challenges and argue it should be replaced by “empowerment philanthropy,” a combination of unconditional cash transfers, voter education and mobilization, and collective impact tactics that give people agency to help themselves.
They warn that strategic philanthropy is dangerous because “it diverts attention from fundamental reforms less palatable to wealthy donors and from the fact that government and corporate behavior are responsible for the ills of society.”
This is not our experience with strategic philanthropy. We see Kramer and Phillips’ depiction as an almost cartoonish caricature that confuses the role of philanthropy with that of government. Perhaps more importantly, they dismiss philanthropy’s critical role in society, ignore evidence of philanthropy’s role in successful social change, and fail to recognize how philanthropists and practitioners have learned and improved over time.
We take these points in turn.
