‘You've Been Framed’: A critical review of academic discourse on philanthrocapitalism

Abstract

Philanthrocapitalism—the strategic application of market methods and motives for philanthropic purposes—plays increasingly prominent roles in policy design and implementation at national and international levels. Notwithstanding philanthrocapitalism's growing significance, relevant scholarly discourse remains limited and fragmented. Drawing together diverse debates, our paper systematically reviews and synthesizes academic literature on philanthrocapitalism. Alongside raising questions about the casting and practice of philanthropy, the 186 relevant publications included in our review indicate a strong emphasis of philanthrocapitalism in the areas of education, international development, healthcare and agriculture. Across these, we identify and discuss the importance of three cultural frames: (1) development challenges being framed as scientific problems; (2) beneficiaries being framed as productive entrepreneurs; and (3) philanthropy being framed as social investment. Outlining and critically examining these issues, this work contributes: a comprehensive analysis of key debates and issues; strengthened conceptual clarity and nuance through an evaluative exploration of the multiple interpretations of philanthrocapitalism; and a future research agenda to address persisting knowledge gaps and refine focus.

“Whose demand?” The co-construction of markets, demand and gender in development-oriented crop breeding

“…However, due to the increasing role they play in international development, donors are likely to have a greater impact on the choice of market segments and product profile design than crop breeders (e.g. Pingali et al 2012Pingali et al , 2016Richey and Ponte 2014;Haydon et al 2021). As a crop breeder put it: "behind the scenes, everything is driven by the donors.…”

“…They argue that such a narrow definition may undermine structural, relational and collective dimensions of agency and gender and strengthen rather than challenge patriarchal and capitalist institutions of power (e.g. Lewis 2001;Wilson 2011Wilson , 2015Chant and Sweetman 2012;Roberts and Soederberg 2012;Cornwall and Rivas 2015;Collins 2016;Esquivel 2017;Haydon et al 2021).…”

Key challenges to the corporate biosphere stewardship research program: inequity, reification, and stakeholder commensurability

“…That is to say, as co-production of knowledge is designed to do, close interaction with these ‘stakeholders’ has significant influence on the types of research questions that get asked and the analytical direction the research project takes. Additionally, there is insufficient deliberation when it comes to the financial support provided by philanthrocapitalist foundations (about SeaBOS, 2020; Haydon, Jung, & Russell, 2021). These foundations are becoming increasingly influential in research and policy on environmental (and other) issues, but their tendency to champion market-based solutions over community control, undermine participation, and leverage public resources for private gain highlights the need for a high degree of reflexivity on account of researchers (Gruby, Enrici, Betsill, Le Cornu, & Basurto, 2021; Haydon et al, 2021; Holmes, 2012; Thompson, 2018).…”

Philanthrocapitalism and the Separation of Powers

“…Perhaps unsurprisingly, this idea gained wide traction at corporations and across the finance sector. As one critical article on the phenomenon noted wryly, given that the concept was created "for and with senior leaders in large corporations, it is little surprise that it has succeeded in gaining a substantial and positive practitioner audience" (Crane et al 2014: 132; see also Haydon et al 2021). The World Economic Forum at Davos has hosted numerous roundtables on the notion.…”