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.
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.
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.
Rather than being goal-agnostic, strategic philanthropy can and should embrace goal-setting as an integral part of the process.
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.
To attract more adherents strategic philanthropy should embrace the ‘love of humanity’ that underlies the reasons that most people give.
Last Word: Paul Brest responds to the 13 people who commented on his article.