Neo‐colonial philanthropy in the UK

Abstract

UK philanthropic foundations are being subjected to greater scrutiny in how they address racial inequality with their funding distribution, yet the deeper critical question of whether these foundations perpetuate racial inequality in their very ethos, practices and existence remains unanswered. These foundations provide over £6.5billion of grants annually to the charitable sector, hold substantial power and influence over social movements and justify their charitable status by stating that they are addressing issues such as poverty and inequality. Yet many private foundations were built on a Victorian paternalistic model of gracious benefactor and grateful beneficiary and against the historical context of empire‐building, slavery and colonialism which embedded ideas about ‘race’ within philanthropy. Furthermore, delineation between the deserving and undeserving poor connected with these formulations of race, to position subjects of colonies inequitably within this charitable paradigm and reinforce stereotypes. At the time, this formed the justification for the expansion of missionary or colonial philanthropy overseas which was the biggest philanthropic cause of the pre first world war era and which can be traced back as the basis for the ‘white saviour complex’ exhibited today within UK foundations, as they continue to operate a colonial social architecture. This inherent and unchallenged colonial social architecture used for grantmaking and funding distribution imbues processes and practices with the same ethos and principles exhibited by colonialism, resulting in a ‘neo‐colonial philanthropy’, the tenets of which are identified and explored. In addition, as racial inequality remains one of the most critical issues of our time, it is asserted that foundations will need to understand the historical context of the UK’s colonialist history in order to recognise the link with racial disparities exhibited in communities today. This direct connection together with their own inbuilt colonial architecture necessitates an urgent conversation for Foundations about whether reparative or restorative justice is a more effective operational paradigm and the long term solution needed to address neo‐colonial philanthropy or the ‘Empires new clothes’.

Searching for the North Star or how to navigate a boat with a fixed rudder through turbulent times

“…What are the skills that philanthropic leaders need to develop a foundation? Philanthropic leaders operate at the nexus between the private, public and charitable sectors, as philanthropic institutions tend to rely on corporate practices and government-based policies on matters like taxation for their grantmaking income, which is then invested in charitable work that responds to systemic and structural barriers and inequalities caused by private, public and charitable sector practices and decision-making (Buchanan, 2019;Bull & Steinberg, 2021;Irfan, 2021). Various leadership concepts therefore apply to them.…”

“…This can also lead to the criticism that philanthropy is a plaything of the privileged, wealthy and elite, derived from ill-gotten gains, misused as a way of sanitising public profiles, and often misdirected to unworthy causes like excellence in the arts rather than basic human needs, or used in ways that accept and rarely challenge the systemic and underlying root causes of the activities being supported (Breeze, 2021;Buchanan, 2019;Bull & Steinberg, 2021;Hall, 2013;Irfan, 2021;Jung & Harrow, 2015;Sulek, 2010). Furthermore, unless grantmaking institutions consider with rigour the origins of their wealth and what was originally ingrained into their operating ethos and culture, they are not able to determine fully how their history feeds into their present ways of working and whether their founding principles limit their legitimacy to do good now (Irfan, 2021). However, the critiques presented are familiar, especially when one considers them in the context of falling public trust in philanthropy, and ongoing debates, both in the philanthropic and wider non-profit sector, about the ways in which philanthropy, including institutional philanthropy, is perceived as operating in opaque and unaccountable ways, particularly in relation to how decisions are made and who makes them, how the wealth has been created, and how onerous the grant reporting processes and demands are and the reasons for this, and the overall effectiveness of the grantmaker's work (Breeze, 2021;Irfan, 2021;Jung & Harrow, 2015).…”

“…This can also lead to the criticism that philanthropy is a plaything of the privileged, wealthy and elite, derived from ill‐gotten gains, misused as a way of sanitising public profiles, and often misdirected to unworthy causes like excellence in the arts rather than basic human needs, or used in ways that accept and rarely challenge the systemic and underlying root causes of the activities being supported (Breeze, 2021; Buchanan, 2019; Bull & Steinberg, 2021; Hall, 2013; Irfan, 2021; Jung & Harrow, 2015; Sulek, 2010). Furthermore, unless grantmaking institutions consider with rigour the origins of their wealth and what was originally ingrained into their operating ethos and culture, they are not able to determine fully how their history feeds into their present ways of working and whether their founding principles limit their legitimacy to do good now (Irfan, 2021).…”

“…Such philanthropic ambitions can lead to the critical reflection that philanthropic institutions and their benefactors are not democratically elected and can have an outsized influence on shaping and reforming the systems and policies that impact people, society, and the natural world, in ways that they believe are necessary but often without sufficient evidence or understanding to elicit meaningful and impactful change (Hall, 2013;Reich, 2014). This can also lead to the criticism that philanthropy is a plaything of the privileged, wealthy and elite, derived from ill-gotten gains, misused as a way of sanitising public profiles, and often misdirected to unworthy causes like excellence in the arts rather than basic human needs, or used in ways that accept and rarely challenge the systemic and underlying root causes of the activities being supported (Breeze, 2021;Buchanan, 2019;Bull & Steinberg, 2021;Hall, 2013;Irfan, 2021;Jung & Harrow, 2015;Sulek, 2010). Furthermore, unless grantmaking institutions consider with rigour the origins of their wealth and what was originally ingrained into their operating ethos and culture, they are not able to determine fully how their history feeds into their present ways of working and whether their founding principles limit their legitimacy to do good now (Irfan, 2021).…”

What is the relationship between philanthropy, materiality and public space?

“…During the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests of 2020, Buteau and Orensten (2020, p.1) argue that foundations were compelled to confront ‘in a deeper way than perhaps they had before, with anti‐Black racism and what it means for their work now and in the future’ (Irfan, 2021; Jung et al, 2022). Edgar Villanueva (2018) discusses how attention to (de)colonisation compels the philanthropic realm to confront racial exploitation and divisions embedded in white supremacy, saviour complexes and internalised oppression in the (institutional) world of philanthropy, which contributes to social division and instability.…”