Rob Reich on Making Philanthropy Work for Democracy

On April 3, 2019, the Center for Critical Democracy Studies hosted the second and final event in its miniseries entitled Philanthropy, Power and Democracy, inviting Stanford professor Rob Reich to AUP to speak about his book Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better. Reich’s talk was followed by a Q&A session, moderated by AUP assistant professors Jessica Feldman and Peter Hägel.

“There’s a common view about philanthropy and charity, that it is always praiseworthy,” Reich began, explaining his intention to deconstruct the idea that it was always better to give money away than to keep it. Reich, a philosopher by discipline, then presented his framework for how philanthropy can be made more “democratically permissible.”

He began his argument with three clarifications. Firstly, he emphasized that, despite being a diffuse topic lacking a singular academic focus, the study of philanthropy merited serious scholarly attention. Secondly, he noted that smaller donations from individuals needed to be viewed as distinct from those of big-donor foundations, specifying that his argument centered on the latter. Thirdly, he criticized the view that focusing on a philanthropic foundation’s efficiency is a rigorous enough evaluation approach; he argued that critical attention needed to be given to the worthiness of any stated mission. “We referee the question from within democracy,” he said, noting that individuals’ political allegiances should not form part of any evaluation. Foundations should instead be judged on how their goals fit in with the democratic ideals of society.

He highlighted several ways in which philanthropy was failing democracy, believing that, in certain cases, charitable contributions were being used to mask any harm that had resulted from that money being made in the first place. He showed how philanthropists have access to power in a way most voters do not, which in effect makes them able to purchase political influence. “It’s not within citizens’ power to influence the police department with their wallet,” he explained. Nor can they influence a donor’s attitude; foundations are managed by core stakeholders, unanswerable to the wider populace.

Foundations, therefore, are unaccountable, lack transparency and are driven by donor preference. These factors introduce plutocratic elements into democracies. Reich was clear, however, that philanthropy could reflect democratic principles by focusing attention on projects with longevity that are scalable within government processes. “A successful philanthropic idea is that philanthropists take long time horizon bets, which are then handed off to the state and incorporated into social programs.” He gave the example of the 911 emergency services number, which originated as a philanthropic endeavor before being adopted nationwide. He singled out the effects of artificial intelligence and the concept of a universal basic income as areas in which philanthropic investment could spearhead lasting democratic change.

He ended his talk with a thought experiment: if you were walking along a beach and saw a stream of people falling from a cliff, would you first try and help those suffering on the ground or attempt to stop more people from falling? The former option represented charity, while the latter represented structural change. Reich argued that charity, while sometimes a more realistic solution, was always the “second-best” option. Responding to a student’s question, he conceded that exceptions may be made in emergency circumstances, but questioned whether it was possible to arrive at a moral definition of an emergency.