In the early years of the Christian era, Pliny the Younger, then administrator of the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus, wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking for permission to establish a ‘society of 150 firemen’ in the city of Nicomedia, which had recently suffered a damaging fire. Trajan refused because, ‘corporations, whatever they are called, are sure to become political associations’. Insofar as what we have come to know as institutional philanthropy is concerned, he was wrong. More often than not, foundations have been either ambivalent about political involvement or have eschewed it altogether. However, Trajan’s remarks hint at one of the reasons for philanthropy’s shyness when it comes to political affairs. Governments have often discouraged such involvement by means ranging from careful restriction to outright prohibition and have been disposed to define what they consider to be ‘political’ fairly freely. Regulation, which is often complicated and contains many vagaries, can also act as a deterrent. To take the example of the UK, individuals – under certain conditions – can donate to political parties or politicians without limit. Foundations, governed by charity law, cannot although they ‘can take part in political activity that supports their purpose and is in their best interests’.

Nor are governments alone in looking askance at political activity by institutional philanthropy. Voices both inside and outside the sector have contributed to lively debate over ‘undue influence’ and accountability. Foundations seem to have internalised this disapproval, feeling that political neutrality is somehow part of the philanthropic bargain. For all these reasons and more, the political and philanthropic spheres have been seen as separate and their overlap is still apt to be a source of discomfort on both sides.

In spite of this, and as the following articles show, there is an equally lively trend for philanthropy to support political action and the practice of politics. With the polarisation of the political arena, the demand for greater civic involvement in decisions and the mistrust of institutions, this has increased. The key distinction contributors to this feature make is between politics and partisan politics – when does an action serve the public interest and when does it serve a sectional interest? Politics is – or should be – about the public benefit, so it seems logical that philanthropy, which aspires – or should aspire – to the public good, should act in the political sphere. But, beyond politics, the question seems to go to root of philanthropic activity. Formulated another way, it turns on the distinction between public and private benefit: what is it, who gets to draw it and how can philanthropy conscientiously apply it?

One more observation. There is a darker side to philanthropy’s involvement in politics, which one of the contributors draws attention to: the extent of funding for illiberal or frankly anti-democratic initiatives. One thing to bear in mind when considering the relationship between philanthropy and politics and where the limits should lie is that, while those who want to support or revive a system