Advocates of philanthropy often frame its worth through efficacy. Critical voices counter such narratives by exposing the social construction of these ideas by hegemonic forces. But they do not interrogate concepts of efficacy through close attention to the process of doing philanthropy. To address this gap, this article engages with philanthropy through the anthropology of techniques. Based on three months of participant observation among high‐net‐worth donors and organizations that work with them in the City of London, I argue that attention to expedience (here referring to maximizing funding rather than effects) invigorates critical reflection on “effective philanthropy.” Furthermore, I suggest that my ethnographically informed distinction between expedience and efficacy provides me with a new way to engage with philanthropists: demonstrating the relevance of anthropological theory to their practices and concerns rather than simply criticizing them.

The promotion of smallholder dairy farming in Rungwe District, Tanzania has been enormously successful, with the vast majority of households now in possession of productive dairy cows. This article compares supposedly traditional loans with self-help groups directly established by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that both reveal ‘big’ recipients rather than distributors of resources, and that those carrying out development activities often benefit most from them. Rather than advocating a moral judgement, the article suggests the value of thinking with and against the concept of distributive labour to explain the pragmatics of interdependent relations that are key to doing development. Detachment between beneficiary and donor is essential, and mediates salutary claims that distributive labour is a means to advocate for shared values about the distribution of wealth across the globe.