Bridges, platforms and satellites: Theorizing the power of global philanthropy in international development

Abstract

Bridges, platforms, and satellites: theorizing the power of global philanthropy in international developmentGlobal philanthropy, especially large US philanthropic foundations, has played an active but not unproblematic role in international development. In this article, we theorize the institutional strategies by which global philanthropy exercises disproportionate influence. In particular, we offer bridges, interdigitates, platforms, and satellites as metaphors for theorizing the connections and disconnections that philanthropic foundations engineer. We draw on the interdisciplinary scholarship on philanthropy and development to identify three epochs: scientific development (1940s -1970s), partnerships (1970s -2000s), and philanthrocapitalism (2000spresent). In each of these, we outline how philanthropic foundations have used the above metaphorical institutional mechanisms-separately and increasingly in combination and more sophisticated ways-in making connections and disconnections across developmental geographies, histories, imaginaries, and institutions. Potentially generative, metaphors, we conclude, both offer ways to interpret the disproportionate power of philanthropy as well as challenge it by identifying philanthropy's underlying assumptions, telos, and exclusions of development.

Blended finance, transparent data, and the complications of waters' multiple ontologies

“…The concept has been normalized by US philanthrocapitalist organizations and has its beginnings in impact investing, which was initially not concerned with financial returns but rather with "what works" (Bishop and Green, 2015) in the sense of social or cultural impact. Having increasingly turned towards profit orientation, philanthrocapitalists currently use their funds to connect previously nonmarket spheres to the market (Kumar and Brooks, 2021). Blended finance utilizes donor/philanthrocapitalist grants in order to de-risk repayable financing, such as microfinance, output-based aid, or raising equity.…”

Why the Super-Rich Will Not Be Saving the World: Philanthropy and “Privatization Creep” in Global Development

“…Among others, private philanthropy has extended its influence by steering the evolution of global governance institutions and norms (Kumar & Brooks, 2021). Today, philanthrocapitalism is poised to eclipse the post-war institutional architecture on which global development was designed and delivered and replace multilateralism with "multistakeholderism."…”

“…Starting from an earlier PPP format, then, private foundations have consistently fostered development "partnerships" that have intensified the marketization, and latterly the financialization, of all aspects of global development. In these and several other initiatives, philanthropic foundations shape how development is understood and organized to a degree that far outweighs their financial contribution (see Kumar & Brooks, 2021 for a detailed discussion of institutional mechanisms through which such influence is secured). The result, we argue next, has been a steady "privatization creep" in the trajectory of the field of development.…”

“…Among others, private philanthropy has extended its influence by steering the evolution of global governance institutions and norms (Kumar & Brooks, 2021). Today, philanthrocapitalism is poised to eclipse the post-war institutional architecture on which global development was designed and delivered and replace multilateralism with “multistakeholderism.” Instead of elected governments making decisions on global issues and directing multilateral institutions to implement them, decision making power is shifting to a more fluid and less accountable system of governance that invites stakeholders of various kinds to identify and deliver collaborative solutions to global problems (Gleckman, 2018).…”

The management and organization of philanthropy: New directions and contested undercurrents

“…The burgeoning study of philanthropic institutions offers a maturing field of research. No longer relegated as a supplementary subset of non‐profit or third‐sector scholarship, scrutiny extends in breadth and depth to examination of areas such as organization legitimation, transnational and globalizing presence, and public policy and governmental relations (Boodoo et al., 2021; Hammack & Heydemann 2009; Kumar & Brooks, 2021; Rey‐Garcia, 2020; Toepler & Abramson, 2021; Youde, 2019). Notwithstanding the third sector's own potential for being ‘unruly’ (Corry, 2010, p. 11), philanthropy's institutional expressions are now central to considerations of whether its contemporary forms and extent represent a ‘new golden age’ of philanthropic endeavour (Ferris, 2016; Hay & Muller, 2014) or, more ambiguously, ‘a new gilded age’ (Callahan, 2017); even whether, through that gold or gilding, philanthropy ‘will save us all’ (Fuentenebro, 2020).…”