PHILANTHROPY AS SOLIDARITY NIALL CROWLEY

PAPER IN RESPONSE TO JOHN R. HEALY PRESENTED AT CENTRE FOR NONPROFIT MANAGEMENTS 4th ANNUAL SUMMER SCHOOL

RESOURCING AND ENABLING IRISH CIVIL SOCIETY CONSIDERING THE ROLE OF PHILANTHROPY 16th JUNE 2009

Contact details: niallcrowley1@gmail.com Tel: 0876848549

INTRODUCTION My starting point in responding to John R Healys paper is to agree with two of his concluding points. We need to expand philanthropic giving and we need to ensure that philanthropic giving is a force for progressive social change. Ireland has a low level of philanthropic giving for such a wealthy country. There is also the unfortunate reality that the major sources of philanthropic giving have set a time limit to their existence and work. The limited extent of philanthropic giving is however not the only reason why we need to expand it. The scale and diversity of need in a society beset by significant and persistent inequalities is the key reason we need to expand philanthropic giving. There are also the needs of a civil society subject to the limitations resultant from a dependence on statutory funding. Statutory funding is inadequate in scale and increasingly limited to service provision. Advocacy is increasingly stifled by the requirements of statutory funders. Philanthropic funding is valuable in reducing the dependence of community and voluntary sector organizations on this statutory funding. We need philanthropic funding to be a force for progressive social change in a context where our society is characterized by these significant and persistent inequalities. John R Healy usefully suggests that philanthropy should be focused on our greatest problems. Inequality is one of our greatest problems. EQUALITY Equality should be a particular focus for philanthropy because: Inequality is bad for people. Human worth is diminished by disadvantage. Human dignity is set at nought by discrimination. Inequality is bad for society. Greater inequality means lower life expectancy, lower levels of educational attainment, lower social mobility and higher levels of mental health problems. A more equal society is better for most people. We live in a very unequal society. In 2008 some 28% of all income earned was earned by just over six per cent of the population. Five per cent of the population currently holds 40% of the wealth in Ireland. In 2005 a special CSO survey found that 12.5% of the population aged 18 years and over said they had experienced discrimination in the preceding two years. The Irish state holds a low level of ambition in relation to equality. The dominant approach to equality emphasizes equality of opportunity and seeks to ensure that all have access to some minimum entitlement and that the competition for advantage is regulated by fairness. This approach can and does co-exist with significant and persistent inequality and can even serve to justify this unacceptable situation.

We need philanthropic resources dedicated to solving this problem. As such we need to expand a particular type of philanthropic giving. RECESSION We do need to acknowledge that we are having these discussions at a moment of economic recession John R Healys paper sets out that in this context philanthropy should prioritise sustainability of those currently being funded and the continuity of services for those who depend on these organizations. He states that philanthropy is not good as an emergency funder. I agree with this position yet find that it does not go far enough in responding to the changed circumstances we find ourselves in. A time of recession is a time when old certainties crumble, when old behaviours become unacceptable. A time of recession is a time when new opportunities for progressive social change emerge, when a new model of social and economic development with a capacity to create a more equal Ireland becomes possible. As such it is a time when we need philanthropy to stand with and support those seeking to identify and seize such opportunities and to imagine and promote such a new model of development. ORIGINS AND CHALLENGES Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller are identified by John R Healy as being at the origins of modern philanthropy. They provide examples that hold but fail to resolve some of the challenges facing the philanthropist. The first challenge lies in the fact that their wealth and business success was achieved at much cost of suffering and distress for many people. There is a troubling incoherence where the philanthropist is for equality in philanthropic giving but is creating inequality in business practice. This incoherence calls into question the value base of this philanthropic giving and its potential to make any real contribution to solving the problem of inequality. This incoherence needs to be addressed, where it exists, if philanthropy is to be a force for progressive social change. Society needs an equality based business practice just as much as it needs philanthropic resources to promote equality. The second challenge lies in that Carnegie and Rockefeller sought to use their money to search for underlying causes to poverty in society but limited their giving to helping poor people help themselves and failed to call into question the social, political and economic systems that generated this poverty in the first place. John R Healy usefully distinguishes philanthropy from charity for the commitment in philanthropy to addressing root causes. However this capacity to address root causes depends on the capacity of the philanthropist or philanthropic organization to adequately analyse the problem being addressed. Helping poor people to help themselves or supporting civil society service provision to meet the most pressing needs does not address root causes. If philanthropy is to address the root causes of inequality and poverty in society it would need to challenge and change the systems, structures and institutions in

our society that end up concentrating wealth in the hands of a small minority, reserving status and standing for a small number of groups in society and confining influence to the few. LEGITIMACY Legitimacy for philanthropy emerges as a concern in John R Healys paper. This legitimacy will come from coherence and quality of analysis. Coherence involves a commitment to equality being manifest in the philanthropic giving, the operations of the philanthropic organization, and the business practice of the philanthropist. Quality of analysis is manifest in a commitment to addressing the root causes of inequality, a commitment that is evident in: An ambition for equality that goes beyond issues of opportunity and fairness to focus on outcomes and real change for groups experiencing inequality. A concern for equality in terms of economic redistribution, institutional recognition of diversity and access to influence. Support to an effective challenge to the economic, political, social and cultural structures, systems and institutions that generate inequality in our society.

SOLIDARITY Philanthropy is and will continue to be a diverse field. However if there is to be legitimacy and a focus on root causes of inequality in our society we need a particular strand of philanthropy within this diverse field a strand of philanthropy that is a form of solidarity with those experiencing inequality, discrimination, poverty and disadvantage. SOLIDARITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY Philanthropy as solidarity needs the input of those experiencing inequality and poverty. The knowledge, perspectives and understanding held by those experiencing inequality and poverty are important to the quality of analysis of the philanthropic organization. Philanthropy as solidarity needs to be accountable to those who experience inequality and poverty and to allow influence to them and to the organizations that represent their interests. It is not enough, as John R Healy suggests, for the philanthropist to exercise power with humility and restraint and to respect the independence of grantees. The philanthropist is involved in a power relationship and is challenged to share power with organizations representing the interests of those experiencing inequality and poverty. Some of these organizations will be grantees. However it is possible to structure this accountability in a manner that avoids conflicts of interest.

SOLIDARITY AND EFFECTIVENESS Philanthropy as solidarity needs a clear statement of values. This statement of values will have a particular focus on equality and on solidarity. It will serve as a standard against which effectiveness can be measured and monitored. It will also communicate the commitment of the philanthropist to equality. This public commitment will have the added value of assisting to embed equality as a core societal value, the standard against which we agree to assess social progress as a society. The pursuit of effectiveness needs to go beyond learning from doing and peer review which are put forward by John R Healy. It needs to involve an assessment of work done against agreed standards and indicators of effectiveness. The statement of values should enable the development of these indicators. These indicators should enable us to assess two key questions. Is the mission of the philanthropic organization sufficiently focused on the systemic, structural and organizational change required for a more equal society? Are the programmes of the philanthropic organization focused on and supportive off achieving a new redistribution of resources, a new recognition of diversity and a wider exercise of effective influence? SOLIDARITY AND GRANTEES Philanthropy as solidarity will be selective in its engagement with the not-for-profit sector. To reflect its commitment to addressing root causes of inequality it will prioritise particular organizations organizations that: Empower groups that are experiencing inequality and assist them to organize and secure influence. Identify and articulate the shared interests of groups experiencing inequality and enable negotiation and agitation in support of these shared interests. Imagine and invent new ways of organizing society so that there is greater equality for all.

This prioritization will be at the expenses of groups involved in service provision to people experiencing inequality and poverty. SOLIDARITY AND REDISTRIBUTION Philanthropy as solidarity does not seek justification in that public sector service provision is flawed or, as John R Healy suggests, in that public sector service provision fails society on a regular basis. This philanthropy is not needed to enable the not-for-profit sector to fill the gaps left by poor public sector service provision a justification that would appear to carry the flawed assumption that not-for-profit provision would be to a higher standard and quality. Philanthropy as solidarity seeks justification in that redistribution in our society is flawed. Redistribution as currently organized allows huge concentration of wealth, prevents the contribution of public sector service provision to effective redistribution by limiting the resources available to it and underpins significant and persistent inequalities in our society. It is necessary in such a context for philanthropy to

support organizations to challenge our approaches to redistribution and to seek a public sector that is more effective at achieving equality. This suggests a new type of time limit that philanthropy could set itself. Philanthropy could work to a time limit where it phases itself out as redistribution becomes more effective, as concentration of wealth decreases and as the public sector becomes a more effective tool for redistribution and makes its full contribution to a more equal society. CONCLUSION This is a big ask to expand philanthropic giving, to secure the role of philanthropy as a force for progressive social change, to enhance the focus of philanthropy on challenging the root causes of inequality and to further develop that strand of philanthropy that could be deemed solidarity. However it is also an urgent ask given the context of recession and significant and persistent inequalities in our society. We need, in this context, a philanthropy that: Seeks equality of outcome for groups experiencing inequality. Affirms equality as a core societal value. Achieves an accountability to those who experience inequality. Is assessed for the quality of the analysis of inequality that informs its mission and for the ability of its programmes to support resource redistribution, recognition of diversity and the sharing of power and influence. Is engaged with those organisations that empower, and that articulate the interests of, groups experiencing inequality. Seeks justification on the basis of the flaws in our current approaches to redistribution.