Jeff Cain, President of American Philanthropic, has an interesting review of a book called, Do More Than Give: The Six Practices of Donors Who Change the World. He doesn’t like it. He is deeply suspicious of what the authors breathlessly call, “catalytic philanthropists.”
Having conquered the world of business, come into a great inheritance, or stumbled upon a sweet foundation gig, catalytic philanthropists, the authors report, enter the nonprofit fray bulging with business acumen, insider government contacts, and high-level social and political connections. Sure, they could simply make grants. But they don’t.
They leverage their assets by breaking down traditional distinctions between the private and public sectors. …
This is the apparent genius of catalytic philanthropy: each sector of society uses other sectors of society for its own ends. “The role of government has shifted as well, creating new opportunities for philanthropists to make common cause with the state.” And, one presumes, for the state to make “common cause” with (i.e., regulate) philanthropy….
The authors never tackle the thorny business of what precisely would make the world a better place or who should get to decide what better means. They seem to assume that, provided change embodies the authentic passions of the donor, all change is change for the good. Presumably, then, the Koch brothers’ program for changing the world is equivalent to George Soros’s program, provided that both are true to themselves. But if two philanthropies advocate for opposite outcomes on a specific policy issue, can both be correct? Can both be good?
That nonprofits and philanthropists are as likely to do ill as they are to do good never burdens the authors’ upbeat, jargon-ridden narrative. It is often observed, but seldom discussed (especially in front of donors), that in philanthropy the best intentions often lead to failed outcomes. Moreover, few donors—and especially catalytic donors—must live with the real-world results of their philanthropic choices: the programs that go awry or others that go unfunded. There is an argument to be made that donors should pursue a more prudential, less ambitious kind of philanthropy that observes the dictum to first do no harm.
As philanthropic resources become more concentrated, and as so-called catalytic philanthropists seek to break down the barriers between private enterprise, private philanthropy, and government action, the scale on which harm can be done becomes much larger. That catalytic donors acknowledge and, according to our authors, learn from their mistakes, is little comfort for those on the receiving end of their philanthropic blunders. It offers precious little reason to encourage the dissolution of the distinction between private and public goods.
This review came at an opportune time for me. I am just now reading “Unnatural Selections” a book about the world-wide practice of sex selection abortion. This practice has its origins in the population control movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, which in turn was funded by large American foundations. These foundations have never been held accountable for any of the harms they have done around the world and at home.