She muses

A really deep discussion is going down at Open Democracy

The idea that the targeted largesse of the super-rich can unlock the problems of global development and progress is a potent influence in the world of philanthropy, business and government. How valid is it?

Michael Edwards opens a new debate with a searching scrutiny of the arguments for extending business principles into the worlds of civil society and social change.

He argues that:

* The hype surrounding philanthrocapitalism runs far ahead of its ability to deliver real results. It’s time for more humility

* The increasing concentration of wealth and power among philanthrocapitalists is unhealthy for democracy. It’s time for more accountability

* The use of business and market thinking can damage civil society, which is the crucible of democratic politics and social transformation. It’s time to differentiate the two and reassert the independence of global citizen action

* Philanthrocapitalism is in part a symptom of a profoundly unequal world. It hasn’t yet demonstrated that it provides the cure

So here’s the 55-trillion-dollar question (the amount of philanthropy that is projected to be created in the United States alone over the next forty years): will we use these vast resources to pursue social transformation, or just fritter them away in spending on the symptoms?

The stakes are extremely high, so let’s have a global public debate to sort out the claims of both philanthrocapitalists and their critics.

There are papers written in response. The two women contributors, Kavita Ramdas with Philanthrocapitalism in Denial and Karen Weisblatt’s Individual giving, collective action are on point.