The poster boy for criticising philanthropy has changed his mind. What should we make of Rutger Bregman’s declaration that he was wrong to castigate philanthropy and now agrees that there is a role for private donations to make the world a better place?

The charismatic Dutch historian has a large following and a global platform to help encourage more generosity, so of course I’m glad that he is now aware of philanthropy’s storied history in financing the progressive movements that ended slavery, enfranchised women, secured civil rights and ended apartheid.

We need to forgive and forget Bregman’s headline-grabbing comments in January 2019 when he told those gathered at the World Economic Forum in Davos to “Stop talking about stupid philanthropy schemes”, a clip that was viewed online millions of times and won the hearts, ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ of idealistic keyboard warriors, making dislike of donors – especially those giving large amounts – a normative position, especially amongst younger generations.

Let’s assume that during the intervening five years, as hostility to philanthropy heightened and as more and more voices joined the chorus of criticism, he never encountered anyone pointing out that most critiques of philanthropy were reductive and misleading. Nor became aware that plenty of philanthropists agree with the diagnosis of some problems, but have taken more productive paths than giving up on giving, or shouting from the sidelines. I couldn’t put it better than Bregman himself who now admits: “It’s easy to go viral by shouting at billionaires – look at me – but does it accomplish anything?”. This is a crucial recognition that simply pointing out the structural causes of poverty and inequality, and scapegoating those who are trying to do something about it, is an awful lot easier than being the kind of ‘brave activist’ he now applauds, especially one whose funding has dried up because donors did not want to be associated with “stupid philanthropy schemes”.

As the brother of the Prodigal Son learnt, the world is often kinder to those who repent than those who were right all along. So let’s embrace Bregman’s new-found enthusiasm for philanthropy, and hope he brings his followers along with him, not least because there are so many ongoing urgent issues and causes that need funding from racial and social justice work to the climate emergency to modern slavery.

And yet… digital footprints are not easy to erase, words have consequences, and that incisive intervention at Davos fanned anti-philanthropy flames that burn ever brighter.

So there are three things that need to happen before we let bygones be bygones:

First, to keep reading and learning to avoid saying more things that might be regretted later. For example, Bregman’s change of heart on philanthropy has come during promotion of his new book, Moral Ambition, which urges young people to focus on making the world a better place rather than seeking money and status. That sounds like a great idea. Oh wait, there are around 1.4 million nonprofits in the US, 60,000 nonprofits in his Dutch homeland and an estimated 10 million worldwide, all of them founded and run by morally ambitious staff and volunteers who are already prioritising the public good over private profit. Ten percent of global billionaires have signed the Giving Pledge committing to give away at least half of their wealth, and 72% of the global population already give their money, time or help to strangers. It would be wonderful if both those figures were 100% but they are not zero. There is always scope for more and more effective giving, but not everyone is in need of a Road to Damascus moment. This is good news! Bregman can elevate those who are already morally ambitious, and encourage non-givers (and, crucially, those who have been dissuaded from giving by relentless criticism of donors) to recognise the positive potential of philanthropy to improve the lives of communities and individuals:

Secondly, other critics can be encouraged to revisit and revise their anti-philanthropy pronouncements. Bregman rode a wave that has deep roots – dislike and mockery of big donors can be found throughout history – but contemporary concerns about philanthropic motivations and impacts have been normalised and amplified by mutually reinforcing critiques as well as by grandstanding on 24/7 social media. Whilst Bregman will undoubtedly sell a lot of copies of his new book, he could send a free copy – or better, a private reading and book group discussion – to fellow influencers like the scholarly abstractions of Stanford’s Rob Reich and the populist denunciations of Anand Giridharadas. Their respective arguments, that philanthropy is an “unaccountable, non-transparent, donor-directed, and perpetual exercise of power”, and an “elite charade” in which rich donors fund “fake change” were published in 2018, in prime position for Bregman’s boost to their philanthro-sceptic positions when he first spoke up in January 2019. My point is not that philanthropy should escape critical attention, but rather that critiques should be evidence-based and nuanced, avoiding blanket generalisations and sweeping conclusions that all philanthropy is illegitimate rather than – as is obviously the case for any activity by fallible humans – improvable.

Thirdly, Bregman could acknowledge the scholarship of those whose company he now joins. We are a small group: the only books offering an affirmative view of philanthropy that I can assign to my students or recommend to practitioners are by Phil Buchanan from the Center for Effective Philanthropy, and the Ford Foundation’s CEO Darren Walker, plus my own In Defence of Philanthropy. Our combined 600 pages or so are up against many bookshelves’ worth of critical literature that – as Bregman now acknowledges – overstate the nature of the threat and understate the positive benefits of philanthropy for creating a better world.

Of course I welcome Bregman’s announcement. It takes guts to admit you are wrong, and I hope that his compelling communication skills will help repair philanthropy’s battered reputation, avoid demoralising and deterring donors, and prevent harm to beneficiaries who rely on philanthropically-funded nonprofit action. Is it too much to ask that he clears up his mess first?

Beth Breeeze worked as a fundraiser and charity manager for a decade before co-founding the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent in 2008 where she now leads a team conducting research and teaching courses on philanthropy and fundraising, including an innovative MA Philanthropic Studies taught by distance learning.

Featured image from Philea – Philanthropy Europe Association.