Foundations of Radical Philanthropy

Abstract

As an institution seeking to redress global inequality and poverty, philanthropy has often been dismissed as either masking structural causes, an insufficient response, or a contribution to the problem itself. Either way, philanthropy is increasingly labelled as philanthrocapitalism because it serves the interest of capital. But what about philanthropy that engages, seeks to transcend, and tries to provide alternatives to the status quo? Such philanthropies have been highlighted in the literature, but their radical foundations could be further clarified. In seeking to do so, this article (a) engages a radical theory of poverty, (b) teases out key principles of radical philanthropyone important foundation, Habitat for Humanity Australia, which self-identifies as radical, and (c) critically highlights the need to consider radical philanthropy as a collectively dialectical alternative to philantro-capitalismevaluates the principles of 'b' against 'a'. While accepting the limitations of philanthro-capitalism, this paper argues that rRadical philanthropy is quite distinct and, even if individually limiting, as a collective, it can could potentially be considered as one an important concrete step towards realising contribution to the aphorism, popularised by the World Social Forum, that 'another world is possible'. fight against global inequality and poverty.

Mapping the environmental field: Networks of foundations, ENGOs and think tanks

“…Philanthropists, however, maintain that they have a duty to help improve society; thus, foundations fund movement organizations proposing solutions to environmental problems. While critics suggest that philanthropic gifts shape the environmental movement along moderate lines (Gutstein, 2018; Klein, 2014), not all foundations follow this script, and some fund organizations with more transformative agendas (Herro & Obeng‐Odoom, 2019; Jensen, 2019; Suarez, 2012).…”

“…Jensen's research showed that the 50 largest social‐justice oriented foundations framed their work within ‘a collaborative, community approach that emphasizes the voice and role of the marginalized and oppressed’ (2019, p. 13; cf. Herro & Obeng‐Odoom, 2019). However, even those foundations with social justice agendas tend to avoid addressing the root causes of these issues (Jensen, 2013, 2019).…”

Critical approaches to private education in the Global South

“…Some, in fact, including Moeller (2021), press scholars to develop more precise analyses that acknowledge the different actors and logics that motivate how corporations pursue profit and market share as against the non‐profit wings of corporations that function with different goals in mind—too often, Moeller contends, scholars confuse the two, which can yield inexact and possibly misleading views on the way private actors bear on the public sphere. Herro and Obeng‐Odoom (2019), likewise, find that too many scholars “restrict their engagement to critiquing the ‘business‐model’ of philanthro‐capitalism” (881), without taking seriously those philanthropies that express sincere interest in combatting structural inequalities and transforming society for the better, and thus miss an opportunity to direct policy debates in a more meaningful way. New research on scholarship programs managed by the Ford Foundation, MasterCard Foundation, and other groups that help low‐income students from poor countries attend university, typically in wealthier countries of the Global North, would appear to heed this call (Dassin et al., 2018).…”

Religious Land as Commons: Buddhist Temples, Monastic Landlordism, and the Urban Poor in Thailand

“…The last thing that we as scholars would want to endorse would be a “fetishization” of religious land and faith‐based organizations as a panacea for the injustices of the present urban condition. Whether or not based on any denomination, a multitude of newer and older urban social movements and nongovernmental organizations are fighting for justice and a better life (Herro and Obeng‐Odoom 2019). What this article suggests is that the inherited commons—in particular, land and property relations systems that continue to show benevolence towards the poor, and provide believable alternatives to the behemoth of commodified and financialized land—should not be sidelined by critical urban scholars, social scientists, and land economists.…”