master / diploma of philanthropy and nonprofit leadership ... · starting point the assumption that...

Master / Diploma of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership

PANL 5001 Foundations of Philanthropy

Summer 2015

Logistics

Instructor: Professor Calum Carmichael Office: Room 5217 River Building Email: [email protected] Phone: (613) 520-2600 ext 2631

Class Times: Online Orientations available on cuLearn Summer Institute

Days 1-5 (6-10 July), 8:30 to 12:00 Days 6-10 (13-17 July), 13:00 to 16:30

Learning Outcomes

The course provides a descriptive and analytical overview of the nature and conduct of philanthropy – defining philanthropy as “the use of private resources – treasure, time and talent – for public purposes.” It does so, recognizing that an understanding of philanthropy is not only foundational for other courses of the program, but also important in its own right for persons working in or with the individuals and organizations that give or receive private resources that are to be used for public purposes. By the end of the course, students will have:

An understanding of the nature of philanthropy as a personal, societal, ethical and historical phenomenon;

An understanding of the conduct of philanthropy as situated within the power relationships between governments, donors, and donees;

Experience in applying this understanding to analyze the current and future prospects for the amounts, allocations, and importance of philanthropy; and

Experience in the drawing inferences from this analysis for professional practice.

Course Overview

The first and second weeks of the course focus respectively on the nature and conduct of philanthropy. In Week 1, we describe and analyze the nature of philanthropy by conceiving of it as a personal, societal, ethical and historical phenomenon. The first Online Orientation (available from the course website on the cuLearn) opens this section by expanding upon this definition of philanthropy as “the use of private resources – treasure, time and talent – for public purposes”.

Day 1 considers philanthropy as a personal phenomenon – subject to the priorities and resources of donors. We review the motivations and factors that appear to encourage philanthropy and volunteerism, and ask whether or not these influences be different for the next generation of donors.

Day 2 considers philanthropy as a societal phenomenon, whereby the separate decisions of donors result in a level and allocation of donations across different organizations and areas composing the charitable and

mailto:[email protected]

PANL 5001 Foundations of Philanthropy | Summer 2015 2

nonprofit sector. We examine how dependent the sector is on philanthropy relative to other sources of income, and how this dependency differs internationally and by area.

Days 3 and 4 consider philanthropy as an ethical phenomenon. We examine the three basic approaches found in ethical theory, and apply those approaches to assess and debate the worth of philanthropy as viewed from the alternative perspectives of generating good outcomes, involving right actions, or promoting better lives.

Day 5 considers philanthropy as a historical phenomenon. We examine a selection of periods, noting how in the past – as in the present – the forms and functions of philanthropy have been shaped by wider political, societal and intellectual developments.

In Week 2, we shift from examining the nature of philanthropy to describing and analyzing its conduct, using as our starting point the assumption that philanthropy affects and is affected by the power relationships that exist between donors (whether individuals, foundations, or corporations), donees (whether charitable or nonprofit), and government. The second Online Orientation (available from the course website on cuLearn) opens this section by providing an overview of the alternative ways in which power relations are typically conceived by political theorists – whether as domination (‘power over’), as empowerment (‘power with’), or as existing norms and institutions constraining our abilities to think of, let alone act on, different ways of doing things (‘power everywhere’).

Because any power relationships involving philanthropy necessarily involve the organizations that are engaged in the use of private resources for public purposes – Day 6A (morning of Monday July 13) examines the types of organizations that compose civil society, and the different theories as to why civil society exists in the first place.

Day 6B (afternoon of Monday July 13) considers how government might not only empower but also dominate some organizations that receive donations (specifically, those with charitable status) – by providing them with fiscal privileges, on condition that they forgo certain business and political activities.

Day 7 considers how corporations – or the priorities and practices of for-profit businesses – might empower or dominate charitable or non-profit organizations, might serve or skew public purposes.

The power relationships involving philanthropy exist not only with governments and corporations, but also between organizations within civil society. Day 8 considers how foundations might empower or dominate their grantee organizations.

Day 10 considers how philanthropy performed by individuals who are linked by location, issue or identity might empower those individuals collectively as a community. We ask whether philanthropy – by supporting the formation of communities – might reduce, maintain or increase existing social hierarchies.

Note that Day 6A and 6B refer to classes that take place in the morning and afternoon of Monday July 13. Day 6B does double duty: it contributes to the curriculum of both PANL 5001 and PANL 5002. Note as well that Day 9 of PANL 5001 is omitted from the course overview above and course outline below. The afternoon of Thursday July 16 will be a workshop for all students in the Summer Institute.

Course Expectations

Please think about your engagement in the course as having three parts:

Preparation: before coming to the Summer Institute, students should go over the readings and reflect upon them, and be in a position to discuss and apply them in class; a pre-assignment based on the readings will be due before the Summer Institute begins.

Summer Institute: a mix of lectures, guest lecturers, class and group discussions, debates, case studies and peer-peer learning in which we critically assess, integrate and apply the material to contemporary issues.

Capture: following the Summer Institute, students have approximately one month to complete assignments that critically assess and apply the course material.

There is no text book for PANL 5001. All readings are available through cuLearn. You can access cuLearn from the main Carleton University webpage: https://carleton.ca/culearn/ .

https://carleton.ca/culearn/


The literature on philanthropy is extensive. The readings have been selected to introduce the theories, concepts and evidence that pertain to many of the contemporary issues being faced by decision makers now working in or with the charitable or nonprofit sector. Some of the readings are descriptive, presenting measurements or observations of various behaviours or results. Some are analytical, interpreting or explaining certain phenomena or outcomes. Some are prescriptive, establishing goals and making recommendations. While all of the readings are important and will be covered in class and by your assignments – those that are marked with an asterisk * are central to each session. You may wish to start and focus on these. As mentioned, we ask you not simply to go over the readings, but to reflect upon them. What information or perspective or conclusions do they present that can be used to understand or assess contemporary practices and issues? Can one reconcile divergent assumptions or arguments or goals? If not, which ones deserve our attentions? The possible connections between data, theory and application will be central to the class discussions. In making these connections, we encourage you to draw upon your individual interests, backgrounds and experience. Throughout the course, it is hoped that there will be active discussion and debate on the topics and themes and viewpoints raised . You are strongly encouraged to participate in this exchange, both in class and through the cuLearn discussion board. The composition of your cohort has been selected in part to include diversity in terms of your stated interests, disciplinary backgrounds and practical experience. You have much to learn from each other: please take full advantage of this – in a good way!

Course Requirements

The course grade will be determined by the following components. Component % of Grade Due Date Pre-assignment 10 % Sunday, 5 July Class participation 20 % Take-away assignment 50 % Monday, 17 August Post-reflection assignment 20 % Monday, 24 August

Deadlines: Please note that due dates are treated as deadlines: you are expected to meet them. Late assignments will be deducted 5 % for each late day. Consider a take-away assignment that receives a mark of 80%. If submitted by 17 August, then that assignment would contribute 40 points out of 50 toward the course total of 100. If submitted six days late, then the mark of 80% would contribute 28 points out of 50 toward the course total (six days would reduce the maximum points by 30% from 50 to 35; 80% of 35 is 28). If submitted twenty days late, then the mark of 80% would contribute 0 points out of 50.

Pre-Assignment: The readings introduce issues, provide information or make arguments from which one could draw

different conclusions for professional practice. The purpose of this assignment is to consider those conclusions.

Go to the pre-assignment link on the CuLearn web site for the course. There you will find short descriptions of four work situations in the charitable or nonprofit sector. You are to choose one of those situations. And for that situation, you are asked to select a set readings from one day in Week 1 (i.e., either Day 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5), and a set from one day in Week 2 (i.e., either Day 6A, 6B, 7, 8 or 10). For each set of readings, you are asked to identify issues, information or arguments that apply to the work situation, and explain how they apply. You are then asked to draw upon both sets of readings, and make recommendations on how the work situation could be or should be handled. The assignment should not exceed 1000 words: a maximum of roughly 350 words for each set of readings, and roughly 300 words to make your recommendations. Please use the answer template provided.


The pre-assignment is to be submitted through the cuLearn web-site (either in Word or in pdf format) by midnight on Sunday July 5.

Class Participation: The format of the Summer Institute provides opportunities for student engagement, and you

encouraged to be a thoughtful, active participant. The participation evaluation will be based on an aggregate of each student’s engagement throughout the Institute, taking into account not simply how much a student says, but how thoughtful and constructive the comments and observations are for the class as a whole, and how well the observations reflect a familiarity with and application of the readings.

Take-away assignment: The purpose of this assignment is to integrate and apply the material covered by the course.

The assignment will consist of five questions that draw upon the readings. You are asked to answer three – demonstrating your understanding of the issues, information and arguments from the readings, and your abilities to apply that material.

The take-away will be posted by Friday July 24. Your answers are to be submitted through the cuLearn web-site (either in Word or in pdf format) by midnight on Monday August 17.

Post-reflection: The purpose of this assignment is to revisit the work situation that you chose for the pre-assignment. Go

to the post-reflection link on the cuLearn web site for the course. As explained there, you are asked to select two additional days other than the ones that you selected for the pre-assignment. These additional days could come from either Week 1 or Week 2 – without the requirement that one come from each. For both days, you are asked to reflect upon all of the material covered – whether from the readings, the lecture, the class discussion, or the guest speaker. For each of those two days, explain how the information, issues or arguments raised in this material have a bearing on the same work situation you chose for the pre-assignment. Outline the ways in which this material confirms your recommendations from the pre-assignment as to how the work situation could or should be handled. Then outline the ways in which this material would lead you to reconsider or change those recommendations. The assignment should not exceed 1200 words: a maximum of roughly 400 words to apply the material for each of the two additional days, and roughly 400 words to outline ways in which the combined material confirms your earlier recommendations and ways in which it would lead you to revise them. Please use the template provided.

The post-reflection is to be submitted through the cuLearn web-site (either in Word or in pdf format) by midnight on Monday August 24.

Grading Guidelines for the School of Public Policy and Administration

Carleton University uses a 12 point grading scale from A+ (12) to D- (1). For graduate programs, B- is the minimum passing grade; although for the Masters in Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership, a grade of C+ may be permitted in one course. Please consult the Graduate Calendar for details: http://calendar.carleton.ca/grad/gradprograms/philanthropyandnonprofitleadership/ The School of Public Policy and Administration has developed guidelines for linking a particular letter grade to a level of performance. These guidelines are outlined in the chart below.

Letter grade

CU grade points

Indicates that work is:

% Range

SPPA Explanation

A+ 12 Outstanding 90-100 For written work, virtually publishable. Demonstrates exceptional evaluative judgment, outstanding critical thinking, and mastery of technical as well as literary aspects of writing.

http://calendar.carleton.ca/grad/gradprograms/philanthropyandnonprofitleadership/


A 11 Excellent 85-89 Demonstrates superior grasp of material, very strong critical thinking, and capacity to understand and extend underlying patterns.

A- 10 Very Good 80-84 Demonstrates strong grasp of material, its component parts, and capacity to analyze their relationships to each other.

B+ 9 Good 77-79 Demonstrates clear understanding of material and ability to apply concepts. Written work is competent.

B 8 Satisfactory 73-76 Satisfactory, but below average. Demonstrates comprehension of material, reasonable but not strong analytical capacity, with limitations in the ability to apply concepts.

B- 7 Barely Adequate

70-72 Clearly below average. Demonstrates comprehension and understanding, with limited capacity for application. Communication skills problematic.

C+ 6 Less Than Adequate

67-69 Did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the material or the ability to apply the concepts. Writing and/or presentations show serious problems.

C to D- 50-66 Grades in this range indicate work that is passable in some respects but does not meet the standards of graduate work.

F Failure Did not meet minimal requirements.

University Policies

Academic Integrity Please be aware that all work submitted as a requirements of PANL 5001 must be both your own work and original to this course. Academic offences are serious infractions and will not be tolerated. Students should consult Section 14 of the Faculty of Graduate Studies Calendar, General Regulations concerning academic integrity and instructional offences. Academic Accommodation You may need special arrangements to meet your academic obligations during the course. For making an accommodation request, the processes are as follows. Pregnancy obligation: write to the instructor with any requests for academic accommodation during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist. For more details visit the Equity Services website: http://www2.carleton.ca/equity/ Religious obligation: write to the instructor with any requests for academic accommodation during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist. For more details visit the Equity Services website: http://www2.carleton.ca/equity/ Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: The Paul Menton Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) provides services to students with Learning Disabilities (LD), psychiatric/mental health disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), chronic medical conditions, and impairments in mobility, hearing, and vision. If you have a disability requiring academic accommodations in this course, please contact PMC at 613-520-6608 or [email protected] for a formal evaluation. If you are already registered with the PMC, contact your PMC coordinator to send the instructor your Letter of Accommodation at the beginning of the term, and no later than two weeks before the first in-class scheduled test or exam requiring accommodation. After requesting accommodation from PMC, meet with the instructor to ensure accommodation arrangements are made.

http://calendar.carleton.ca/undergrad/regulations/academicregulationsoftheuniversity/acadregsuniv14/

http://www2.carleton.ca/equity/


mailto:


You can visit the Equity Services website to view the policies and to obtain more detailed information on academic accommodation at http://www2.carleton.ca/equity/

Course Outline and Readings

All readings can be accessed through the cuLearn web-site for the course. There, they are arranged by Day. Although all readings are required, asterisks * identify those that are most central.

Week 1 – Framing philanthropy as a personal, societal, ethical and historical phenomenon Online Orientation Conceptual framework for defining philanthropy as the use of private resources for

public purposes

Understand the meaning of philanthropy as used in the course

Appreciate the reasons that account for it having multiple interpretations

Recognize how the meaning of philanthropy differs from that of charity * Daly, S., 2012. Philanthropy as an essentially contested concept, Voluntas, 23, pp. 535-57.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

Day 1 Philanthropy as a personal phenomenon: underlying motives and factors

Understand the range of possible personal motivations for giving and volunteering: is all philanthropy altruistic?

Assess other factors that correlate with giving and volunteering – including perceived impact

Consider whether the influences on giving and volunteering are stable across generations, or changing with each cohort

Philanthropy is a personal phenomenon. What things do people value? And how, and to what extent, can philanthropy enable them to achieve those things? The readings provide different perspectives on these questions. The case studies refer to four extraordinarily wealthy individuals. Harvey and others (2011) and Sorkin (2011) attribute certain objectives to Carnegie and Jobs, in order to account for their philanthropy or lack thereof. Gates (2007) and Bronfman and Solomon (2010) describe the objectives with which they would like to be associated. Think about these different objectives and how they are framed. Are they framed in terms of the outcomes for those who receive; and if so, what type? Or is it in terms of the principles or actions that guide those who give; and if so, what principles? Or is it in terms of the personal qualities or fulfillment of those who give; and if so, what qualities? Note that this three-fold categorization of outcomes vs. actions vs. fulfillment corresponds to the three approaches to ethics considered in Days 3 and 4. The evidence draws from empirical studies that try to determine the types of circumstances associated with individuals being either inclined toward philanthropy or away from it. Bekkers and Weipking (2011) and Wilson (2012) co-ordinate and summarize a large number of studies that test for the types of situations that correlate with individuals giving their money or their time. Lasby (2013) categorizes the considerations reported by a sample of Canadians in 2010 as having influenced their decisions to donate more or less. Twenge and others (2012) try to measure the shifts in goals, concern for others, and civic orientation across three successive cohorts of young Americans: specifically, Baby Boomers born 1946-61, Generation X born 1962-81 and Millennials born 1982-2002. What lessons do these studies offer future fund raisers or organizations that rely on philanthropy?



Case studies and testimonials of prominent donors: * Bronfman, C. and Solomon, J., 2010. Chapters 3 and 5, The Art of Giving: Where the Soul Meets a Business Plan. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 23-28, 39-56. * Gates, B., Thursday 7 June 2007. Bill Gates’ Harvard commencement speech, The Wall Street Journal. Harvey, H. and others, 2011. Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy, Business History, 53, pp. 425-50. Sorkin, A.R., Monday 29 August 2011. The mystery of Steve Jobs’s public giving, The New York Times, Dealbook Column. The Evidence: * Bekkers, R. and Wiepking, P., 2011. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, pp. 924-73. Lasby, D., 2013. Changes in motivations and barriers around giving: the increasing concerns about charity efficiency, The Philanthropist, 25, pp. 79-84. * Twenge, J.M. and others, 2012. Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation 1966-2009, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, pp. 1045-62. (focus on conclusions and their implications) Wilson, J., 2012. Volunteerism research: a review essay, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, pp. 176–212. Day 2 Philanthropy as a societal phenomenon: patterns of giving and receiving

Understand the patterns of giving, and consider what accounts for major differences

Understand the extent to which civil society depends on philanthropy

Practice being a good social scientist in questioning and working with data limitations

Consider the challenges and opportunities posed by the Millennials Philanthropy is a societal phenomenon. What groups tend to give more? And what sectors tend to receive more? The readings provide different perspectives on these questions, drawing from diverse sources of data. Turcotte (2012) and Vézina and Crompton (2012) report the patterns of giving and volunteering suggested by the most recent Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (now cancelled). Lammam (2014) compares the charitable donations of Canadians and Americans, as reported in tax returns. Hall and others (2005) from Imagine Canada and Johns Hopkins University describe the importance of philanthropy as one of the sources of income received by different subdivisions of the nonprofit sectors in Canada and in other countries, circa 2002. Salamon (2013) provides a more recent international comparison. Feldman and others (2013) and Rovner (2013) serve as counterpoints to the study by Twenge and others (2012) from Day 1. They describe the current priorities and practices for giving by Millennials in the United States and Canada, as suggested by two surveys. Again, what lessons do these studies offer future fund raisers or organizations that rely on philanthropy? Patterns in giving: Feldman, D. and others, 2013. The 2013 Millennial Impact Report: Connect, Involve, Give. Washington, DC: The Case Foundation.


Lammam, C. and others, 2014. Generosity in Canada and the United States: the 2014 Generosity Index. Calgary: Fraser Institute. * Rovner, M., 2013. The Next Generation of Canadian Giving: the Charitable Habits of Generations Y, X, Baby Boomers and Civics. Charleston: Blackbaud. * Turcotte, M., 2012. Charitable Giving By Canadians. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Vézina, M. and Crompton, S., 2012. Volunteering in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Patterns in receiving: Hall, M.H. and others, 2005. The Canadian Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies. * Salamon, L.M. and others, 2013. The State of Global Civil Society and Volunteering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies. Day 3 Philanthropy as a normative phenomenon: does it involve good outcomes or right actions?

Recognize and apply consequentialist and deontological approaches to ethics

Connect the ethical questions to practical issues: how are the consequences philanthropy to be measured, and by whom; which human rights hold trump – those of the potential givers or receivers?

Do the ethical imperatives framed around poverty transfer to other areas of philanthropic giving: say, the arts or education or health?

Philanthropy is a normative phenomenon. And as such, its moral significance can be interpreted with reference to the three basic approaches of ethical theory. Solomon (1998) summarizes and compares those three approaches that assess the worth of human conduct – including philanthropy – in terms of either the outcomes that result from it (consequentialism), the rules or principles that guide it (deontology), or the personal qualities or attributes that underlie it (value ethics). The other readings provide examples of how the first two of these approaches have been applied to analyze the morality of a particular category of philanthropy: that which is directed to the relief poverty. Singer (2009) and Wenar (2011) apply the consequentialist approach, assessing human conduct on the basis of outcomes: Singer summarizes his now-famous ‘pond metaphor’ that weighs the large benefits to those who receive philanthropy against the small costs to those who give it; Wenar underlines the importance of evaluation if one is to judge the ethical worth of philanthropy on the basis of its outcomes. Pogge (2005, 2011) applies a deontological approach, assessing conduct on the basis of it being guided by human rights – in this instance, the (negative) duty not to violate the rights of others (or, as here, the duty to compensate for past violations). Gewirth (1987) assesses conduct using a slightly different guiding principle – specifically, the (positive) duty to uphold the rights of others. Which of these two approaches do you find most compelling, and why? Do their claims equally apply to philanthropy that is directed not to the relief of poverty but to, say, the advancement of religion, education, culture, sport? Think back to the case studies from Day 1. Do their authors use any of the three approaches to justify the moral basis of the objectives they describe?


Overview: * Solomon, W.D., 1998. Normative ethical theories, in C.K. Wilber (ed.), Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 119-38.

Applying a consequentialist approach – viewing philanthropy in term of ‘good outcomes’: * Singer, P., 2009. Chapters 1 and 2, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. New York: Random House, pp. 3-22. Wenar, L., 2011. Poverty is no pond: challenges for the affluent, in P. Illingworth, T. Pogge, and L. Wenar (eds.), Giving Well: the Ethics of Philanthropy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104-32. Applying a deontological approach – viewing philanthropy in terms of ‘right actions’: Gewirth, A., 1987. Private philanthropy and positive rights, in E.F. Paul and others (eds.), Beneficence, Philanthropy, and the Public Good. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp.55-78. * Pogge, T., 2005. Symposium on World Poverty and Human Rights, Ethics and International Affairs, 19, pp. 1-7. Pogge, T., 2011. Are we violating the human rights of the world’s poor?, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 14, pp. 1-33. (* pp. 30-33, treating these as a post script to Pogge 2005) Day 4 Philanthropy as a normative phenomenon: does it involve better lives for its practitioners?

Recognize and apply virtue and religious approaches to ethics

Connect the ethical questions to practical issues: whose lives can or should be improved by philanthropy, those of the potential givers or receivers; do religious motives serve public ends, or private ones?

We continue our consideration of philanthropy as a normative phenomenon by turning to the third approach of ethical theory, and then to religious influences – influences that were acknowledged in Days 1 and 2. Martin (1994) applies the virtue ethics approach, assessing human conduct on the basis of the personal qualities that underlie it. Religious traditions provide a range of moral considerations that fall under all three ethical approaches. Here, we focus on those that relate to the virtue ethics approach – how philanthropy corresponds to the giver being or becoming a better person. Constantelos (2005) surveys the status of philanthropy in a variety of traditions. Kochuyt (2009) discusses its role in the lives of Muslims. McCleary (2007) interprets philanthropy as a means by which people can buy insurance against damnation. You might find her interpretation crass or demeaning of spirituality; however, it raises the questions of whether philanthropic behaviour is self-referential, and whether it can or should be assessed in terms of how it improves the lives (afterlives?) of the givers. What lessons do these studies offer future fund raisers or organizations that draw upon religiously-motivated philanthropy? Applying a virtue approach – viewing philanthropy in terms of ‘better lives’: Martin, M.W., 1994. Chapter 2, Virtuous Giving. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 29-61 (* pp. 29-31). The religious dimension: Constantelos, D.J., 2005. Charity, in L. Jones (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd Edition. Detroit: Macmillan, pp.


1553-56. * Kochuyt, T., 2009. God, gifts and poor people: on charity in Islam, Social Compass, 56, 98-116. McCleary, R.M., 2007. Salvation, damnation, and economic incentives, Journal of Contemporary Religion, 22, pp. 49-74. (focus on pp. 62-69). Day 5 Philanthropy as an historical phenomenon: what has made private giving public?

Recognize how the institutions that formalize philanthropy have been shaped by broader political and economic developments – e.g., the introduction of democracy, the management of empire, the emergence of parallel secular and sacred authorities, the confidence of the Enlightenment, the effects of capitalism

Recognize precedents for alternative concepts of public purposes – e.g., that serve the citizenry, or serve the poor, or transform society, or address the ‘causes’ of societal problems rather than the ‘symptoms’

Identify the origins of certain types of ‘philanthropic organizations’

Understand the evolving role of governments as mediators and regulators that determine which private gifts are deemed to serve public purposes

Philanthropy is a historical phenomenon. And as such, it both adapts to its current setting, and embodies attributes from past settings. The readings provide examples of this adaptation and continuity. Focus your attentions on several periods: antiquity (specifically, democratic Athens and the Roman Empire); the institutionalization of the Christian church; the definition of charity during the Tudor period; and the role of scientific societies in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Cunningham (forthcoming) and Robbins (2012) provide overlapping and complementary historical surveys. Carmichael (2011) argues that our legal definition of charity emerged out of a partial list of municipal government responsibilities of the late 16th century, and acquired from its original application an all-or-nothing, black-or-white quality – anachronistic attributes that may limit its modern-day suitability. In several of the historical settings, the persons or organizations that were the major sources of philanthropy held enormous social, economic, and political power. Is this inevitable? Is this desirable? Does this play out today? Carmichael, C.M., 2011. Charity misplaced: the formation in common law of a deficient fiscal concept, Charity Law and Practice Review, 13, pp. 27-49. * Cunningham, H., forthcoming. A history of western philanthropy, in T. Jung, S. Phillips and J. Harrow (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. London: Routledge. Robbins, K. C., 2012. The nonprofit sector in historical perspective: traditions of philanthropy in the west, in J.S. Ott and L.A. Dicke (eds.), The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector, 2nd edition. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 88-107.

Week 2 – Situating philanthropy in relation to government, businesses, foundations and communities Online Orientation Conceptual framework for defining power as it may exist in relations involving

philanthropy

Understand alternative conceptions of power as domination (‘power over’), as empowerment (‘power with’), or as ‘subjectification’ (‘power everywhere’)

Consider relations in which philanthropy might dominate or be dominated by


others, might empower or be empowered by others, or might comply with or defy existing norms

* Ledyaev, V.G., 1998. Basic views on power, in Power: a Conceptual Analysis. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers,

pp. 3-21. Partzsch, L. and Fuchs, D., 2012. Philanthropy: ‘power with’ in international relations, Journal of Political Power, 5, pp.

359-76. Skloot, E., 2011. The Gated community, Alliance Magazine, 16, pp. 32-35. Various authors, 2013. Focus on Philanthropy and Power. Alliance Magazine, 18, pp. 25-58.

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

Day 6A Philanthropy and power: relations between the third sector, the state and the market

Understand the different organizational forms that compose the nonprofit sector

Critically assess theories that account for the existence and roles of civil society, and consider the implications for contemporary philanthropy and public policy

Philanthropy operates in an organization context, in which certain norms – made explicit by law and enforced by regulation – define the structures, purposes, and activities of the organizations that conduct the work it supports. The power that we attribute to those organizations – or the third sector more broadly – depends on the assumptions that we make about why the sector exists, and how we see its role in relation to the state and the market. The readings introduce the theories and ideas that underpin how we think about civil society and this sector. Muukkonen (2009) provides an organizational taxonomy of civil society. The now classic piece by Salamon (1987) provides an overview of the “failure” theories of the third sector, which were among the earliest but are still important. Do they adequately explain the nature of the third sector and how it operates? What implications do the failure theories have for how governments or philanthropy should relate to the sector? Most of this literature has been developed for application to the US: think about how it applies to Canada or other countries. Smith and Grønberg (2006) briefly review the failure theories but extend the discussion to remind us that civil society has an important role in democracy and in building social capital. As supplemental reading, Warren (2011) makes a strong case for civil society as fundamental to democracy. The article by Carman and Nesbit (2012) puts these theories to the test by asking founders of nonprofits why they started their organizations: were they primarily meeting needs that governments or markets failed to meet?] * Muukkonen, M., 2009. Framing the field: civil society and related concepts, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,

38, pp. 684-700. * Salamon, L.M., 1987. Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of

government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16 (1), pp. 29-49.

* Rathgeb Smith, S. and Grønberg, K., 2006. Scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations, in W.W. Powell and R.

Steinberg (eds.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 221-42.


Carman, J.G. and Nesbit., R., 2012. Founding nonprofit organizations: Syndrome or symptom? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 (3), pp. 603-621.

Warren, M. E., 2011. Civil society and democracy, in M. Edwards (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, pp. 377-90. Day 6B Philanthropy and power: relations with governments – ‘power over’ or ‘power with’?

Understand the fiscal privileges received by charities, on condition of their forgoing business and political activities

Critically assess the consequences of providing such privileges and proscribing those activities

Governments establish by law and enforce by regulation the norms under which nonprofit and charitable organizations exist and operate. These norms include the criteria by which certain organizations officially receive ‘charitable’ status – criteria that in Canada originate in common law, as noted in Day 5. Holding charitable status entitles the organization to certain fiscal privileges – reducing the taxes paid by it and by its individual and corporate donors. Such privileges may be interpreted as the government empowering charitable organizations, enabling them to attract or retain greater financial resources. However, they may also be interpreted as the government dominating those organizations, in that they come with conditions that the organizations forgo certain business or political activities. Carmichael (forthcoming) provides a framework to describe and compare the fiscal privileges that governments award the organizations they recognize as charitable or ‘publicly beneficial’. The Department of Finance (2015) outlines and evaluates one of these privileges: the tax credit received by individual donors. As noted – such privileges come with restrictions on business and political activities. Are these restrictions warranted? Do they preserve or inhibit the abilities of charities to promote social welfare? Are the fiscal privileges worth operating under the restrictions? You will explore these questions in PANL 5002; here we provide an introduction. Nicholls (2011) defines and describes ‘social entrepreneurship’ that occupies the blurry boundary between civil society and business. Doyle (2014) argues that the boundary presently set by Canadian tax law is too restrictive – denying the nonprofit and charitable sector access to business activities that could advance public purposes. Carmichael (2014) summarizes the arguments for and against prohibiting charities from political activities – arguing that for political as opposed to charitable reasons, those prohibitions should be maintained. Carmichael, C.M., 2014. Who gives? A political finance rationale for separating charitable and political activities. Paper

presented at 11th International Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research, 22-25 July 2014, Münster, Germany.

* Carmichael, C.M., forthcoming. The fiscal treatment of philanthropy from a comparative perspective, in T. Jung, S.

Phillips and J. Harrow (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. London: Routledge. Department of Finance, 2015. Evaluation of the federal charitable donation tax credit, in Tax Expenditures and

Evaluations 2014. Ottawa: Government of Canada, pp., 30-70. Doyle, S., 2014. Rethinking the nonprofit / for-profit divide: Income Tax Act barriers to social entrepreneurship and

impact investment in the nonprofit and charitable sector, in Mobilizing Private Capital for Public Good: Priorities for Canada. Toronto: MaRS Centre for Impact Investing, pp. 10-22.

Nicholls, A., 2011. Social enterprise and social entrepreneurs, in M. Edwards (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80-92.


Day 7 Philanthropy and power: relations with corporations – ‘power over’ or ‘power with’?

Review and consider the implications of nonprofit organizations adopting priorities and practices associated with the private sector

Evaluate the different forms of corporate philanthropy and CSR

Assess the potential for cross-sector partnerships In this section, we explore the wide range of views on the consequences either of nonprofit organizations adopting business practices and priorities, or of for-profit corporations pursuing public purposes. Some claim that business practices and priorities are inherently compatible with the pursuit of public benefit (Schramm 2010), whereas others claim they are contrary to it (Nickel and Eikenberry 2009). Some argue that profit-making incentives would empower the charitable sector (Pallotta 2012), while others believe they could diminish or distort it (Gainer 2010). Some foresee trade-offs between creating financial value and creating social value (Edwards 2008), but others do not (Porter and Kramer 2011). In light of these uncertainties, should nonprofits collaborate with corporations; and if so, how (AL-Tabbaa 2014)? AL-Tabbaa, O., Leach D., and March, J., 2014. Collaboration between nonprofit and business sectors: a framework to

guide strategy development for nonprofit organizations, Voluntas, 25, pp. 657-78. * Edwards, M., 2008. ‘Philanthrocapitalism: after the goldrush’ and ‘Philanthrocapitalism: old myths, new realities’,

openDemocracy.net. * Gainer, B., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility, in R. Taylor (ed.), Third Sector Research. New York: Springer-Verlag,

pp. 190-203. Nickel, P.M. and Eikenberry, A.M., 2009. A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy, American Behavioral

Scientist, 52, pp. 974-89. Pallotta, D. 14 September 2012. Why can’t we sell charity like we sell perfume? The Wall Street Journal. * Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism and unleash a new period of

innovation and growth, Harvard Business Review, 89, pp. 62-77. Schramm, C., 2010. All entrepreneurship is social, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, pp. 21-22. Day 8 Philanthropy and power: relations with foundations – ‘power over’ or ‘power with’?

Appreciate the different types and roles of foundations

Consider whether the practice of so-called ‘strategic’ philanthropy might lead foundations to exercise ‘power over’ grantees, rather than foster ‘power with’ them.

Consider whether governments should or can exercise power over foundations to ensure that they indeed use private resources to pursue public purposes as opposed to private ones, societal priorities as opposed to personal ones.

As important grant-making organizations, foundations are under enormous scrutiny both in terms of their very existence – whether they serve public purposes or private ones – and in terms of operational issues about how they select and relate to their grantees. Philanthropic Foundations Canada (2008) surveys the considerations that might lead a philanthropist to set up a foundation in the first place. Reich (2013) leads off a discussion that includes larger issues about whether or not foundations are inherently plutocratic and conservative. Anheier and Leat (2006) outline some of the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches taken by foundations. Kania, Kramer and Russell (2014) examine one of those recent approaches – ‘strategic philanthropy’ – and propose ways in which it can be made more adaptive so as


to address ‘complex’ problems. Schambra (2013) leads off a debate as to whether ‘strategic philanthropy’ encourages foundations to exercise power over grantees, dismissing their first-hand knowledge of the problems being addressed, and thereby undercutting the effectiveness of grantmaking. * Anheier, H. K. and Leat, D., 2006. Chapters 1 and 2, in Creative Philanthropy: Toward a New Philanthropy for the 21st

Century. London: Routledge, pp. 3-38. Kania, J., M. Kramer and P. Russell (with responses), 2014. Strategic philanthropy for a complex world, Stanford Social

Innovation Review, Summer, pp. 26-39. Philanthropic Foundations Canada, 2008. Starting a Foundation. Montreal, PFC, pp. 1-26. * Reich, R. 2013. What are foundations for? Boston Review, March/April, pp. 10-28. * Schambra, W. (with responses by Paul Brest and Pablo Eisenberg), 2013. The problem with strategic philanthropy,

Nonprofit Quarterly, August. Day 10 Philanthropy and power: relations with communities – ‘power over’ or ‘power with’?

Examine different ways in which we can define a ‘community’, depending on the types of links between individuals

Critically reflect on the relationship between philanthropy and the formation or characteristics of communities

As outlined in the first Online Orientation, the original meaning of the word philanthropy referred to a fellow-feeling or regard for others. Here, we considered how such a regard for others can result in philanthropy – if practiced by individuals who are otherwise linked by location, issue or identity – can empower those individuals collectively, providing them with not only greater resources but also a sense of common purpose or confidence. In other words, can philanthropy create community? And if it can, how enduring are those communities, and how do they affect the existing social hierarchies based on status or resources? Does philanthropy overcome, moderate, leave intact, or deepen those hierarchies? We consider such questions in several contexts: community foundations that involve persons who are linked by location (Layton forthcoming, Monitor Institute 2014); giving circles or technologies that involve persons linked by issue (Arrillaga-Andreessen 2012 and 2015); grassroots philanthropy that involves persons linked by need (Ruesga 2011); and LGBTQ philanthropy that involves persons linked by identity (Bowen 2012). * Layton, M.D., forthcoming. Philanthropy at the community level: supporting community empowerment, in T. Jung, S.

Phillips and J. Harrow (eds), The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. London: Routledge. * Arrillaga-Andreessen, L., 2012. Giving 2.0: getting together to give, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, pp. 31-

35. Arrillaga-Andreessen, L., 2015. Disruption for good, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, pp. 34-39. Bowen, A. 2012. Forty Years of LGBTQ Philanthropy. New York: Funders for LGBTQ Issues. Monitor Institute, 2014. Shift Happens: Understanding How the World is Changing. San Francisco: Deloitte. * Ruesga, G.A., 2011. Civil society and grassroots philanthropy, in M. Edwards (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 455-67.

master / diploma of philanthropy and nonprofit leadership ... · starting point the assumption that...

Documents