On March 6, 2015, approximately 40 people from Europe and the United States gathered at Stanford University to discuss why strategic philanthropy has not been more widely adopted in the United States and Europe. The symposium, Strategic Philanthropy: Comparative Perspectives on the Way Forward, was sponsored by the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University and the Centre for Social Investment at Heidelberg University, and co-hosted by Paul Brest (Stanford), Helmut Anheier (Heidelberg), and Bernhard Lorentz (Stanford).
To set the stage for the discussion, Paul Brest, a long-time advocate of strategic philanthropy, wrote the essay, “Strategic Philanthropy and Its Discontents.” In it, he examines different modes of grantmaking, inquiring whether the barriers to the practice of strategic philanthropy arise from its underlying concepts or from its implementation and, if the latter, whether those barriers can be overcome.
The essay and the discussion that followed at the symposium were so interesting that we decided to share it with you, SSIR's readers. We are reprinting the essay as well as written responses to the essay from a number of people at the symposium and some who weren’t.
Responses
Strategic philanthropy requires one to suspend rationality and passionately pursue a goal that might seem unattainable.
The “discontent” with strategic philanthropy is actually a rejection of a particular conception of strategy that draws too much on business thinking.
Proponents of strategic philanthropy should provide practical help for donors.
Peter Frumkin
Professor & Faculty Director of the Center for Social Impact Strategy
University of Pennsylvania
The debate over strategic philanthropy is part of a larger debate about how society operates—and the answer is similarly unknowable.
Strategic philanthropy no longer needs defense from critics; it needs nuanced understanding of social change by its advocates.
Bernhard Lorentz
Visiting Scholar
Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society
German foundations continue to lag their American counterparts in the debate over and practice of strategic philanthropy.
The experience of the European Climate Foundation provides lessons for strategic philanthropy advocates.
Strategic philanthropy will always have limited appeal because many, if not most, donors give for deeply personal reasons.
Rob Reich
Professor & Faculty Co-Director of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society
Stanford University
Rather than being goal-agnostic, strategic philanthropy can and should embrace goal-setting as an integral part of the process.
Bruce Sievers
Visiting Scholar & Lecturer at the Hass Center for Public Service
Stanford University
Strategic philanthropy provides grantmakers with a false sense of certainty about the impact of their giving.
Strategic philanthropy may be unattractive to donors precisely because it is similar to the “strategic” approach donors used to accumulate their wealth.
Fay Twersky
Director of the Effective Philanthropy Group
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
To attract more adherents strategic philanthropy should embrace the ‘love of humanity’ that underlies the reasons that most people give.
Paul Brest
Professor Emeritus and Faculty Co-Director, of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society
Stanford University
Last Word: Paul Brest responds to the 13 people who commented on his article.
Support SSIR’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.
Help us further the reach of innovative ideas. Donate today.
Read more stories by Paul Brest.
