Show description

In that sense there has never been philanthropy that was not new. Hence, spikes in giving have always accompanied inflection points in the trajectory of capitalism, including financial recessions and the rapid growth of inequality – which threaten the stability of the system. Philanthropy is part of the historical response to these trends, acting as a safety valve or a barrier against more fundamental change or an essential element in recovery and reconstruction, depending on the viewpoint of the commentator (Callahan, 2010; Freeland, 2012; Dalzell, 2013).

She alone comes through with a clean bill of health. Philanthropy and the state By the late 19th century, philanthropy was facing a new challenge from those who argued that it was simply incapable of coping with the problems of an urban and industrial society. In Toiling Liverpool (1886), Hugh Farrie doubted ‘whether charity is doing any good at all to society’ (Simey, 1992, p107). From York, Joseph Rowntree concluded in 1904 that ‘much of our present philanthropic effort is directed to remedying the more superficial manifestations of weakness or evil’ (Vernon, 1958, p154).

Except life is never so simple, especially when the tax advantages of philanthropy impose an obligation on the giver to satisfy a public benefit requirement and to be accountable for doing so in some way, shape or form. As philanthropy becomes more important and more directive in key areas of public policy, these accountability questions are going to grow – yet we have no answers to them at present. Hence, while it is worthy that Bill Gates and other billionaire philanthropists want to strengthen health and education, that does 38 From love to money not give them the right to decide which drugs should be subsidised in developing countries or how schools should be reformed in the US – yet that is exactly what is happening.