Introduction

The central argument of this chapter is that philanthropy is losing whatever transformative potential it possessed as it moves further away from its original meaning as ‘love of humankind’, along the historical trajectory sketched out by Hugh Cunningham in Chapter 1. In its place, the ‘new philanthropy’ is defined in terms of money that is concentrated among elites and handed down through increasingly control-oriented practices from ‘donors’ to ‘recipients’. When this happens, at least in the highly unequal societies that characterise contemporary capitalism, philanthropy becomes a divisive force by separating those who need it but don't have it from those who have it but don't need it and so decide to give some of it away – but only on their own terms. These trends raise a wide array of questions about transparency, accountability and impact in philanthropy and the changing balance between public and private action for the common good.

Three questions are considered in the argument that follows. First, what is happening in the world of philanthropy and why? The answers to that question are located in the rise of what has been called the ‘Silicon Valley Consensus’ – related to the use of technology and markets for solving social problems – which provides the context for the arrival of ‘new philanthropy’. Second, why does this matter? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the ‘new philanthropists’, especially in terms of the ‘distributional effects’ of their giving (that is, who wins and who loses in the short and longer terms?), and their impact on democracy – with regard to issues of public participation in, and public accountability for, social policy choices? And third, what can be done to address these effects through regulation, institutional reform, or influencing the new philanthropists; and/or by building up alternative forms of philanthropy that are more satisfactory – if the goal is to transform society rather than to reform or ameliorate the costs of capitalism in its present form? By way of conclusion, I call for questions of giving and sharing to be reunited with their moral, political and spiritual underpinnings – which are rooted in the search for a world defined by love and social justice, rather than by money and the power it represents.