Over the past couple of years there has been much talk about a new philanthropy http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2129588,00.html . As this article from the Guardian describes, we are beginning to see the detail of this trend and I think how it presents us with opportunities. I particularly like the Action aid idea of having a structured and I guess, focused, ‘ambassador network’ to target potential donors. We certainly cannot rely on the recommendation of New Philanthropy Capital whose reports and analysis should, in my opinion, be regarded as being of uneven quality.
As for the rise in the new wealthy: if you are interested take a look at this new book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richistan-Journey-Through-Century-Wealth/dp/0749928239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-6725407-0987623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184857996&sr=8-1 Why the title, Richistan - because with their relatively large numbers, separation from the rest of society and their tendency to gather together, the author sees the western European new rich as a country – Richistan. Like all other countries, there are social differences and the author develops an interesting categorisation or typology of the rich. For example, he discusses how the lower rich in the USA, the single digit millionaires, tend to be Republican and conservative, while the billionaires, the seriously rich, tend towards liberal and Democrat. This is a fun easy read and it might even be useful when trying to understand what we are doing at The Brightside Trust, especially chapter 8, Performance Philanthropy. I am placing my own copy of Richistan in The Brightside Trust library; I may not have the billions but I can adopt the lifestyle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
John Twineham's comment about the reports produced by New Philanthropy Capital is interesting. I think it perhaps misunderstands the nature of research.
Research reports produced by any organisation are uneven. This is a function of a number of things, including the availability of information, the development of a field of inquiry (in the case of NPC, this might be child abuse, mentoring or violence against women, for example), and, frankly, the ability of the analysts doing the research.
To expect all reports to be of the same quality is absurd. To expect all reports to have a minimum standard of quality is realistic and that is what we seek to do at NPC. All reports must reach a certain standard. This applies both to our larger reports on themes such as mentoring, asylum seekers and refugees or child abuse, and to our individual charity recommendations. All our larger reports are assessed by internal peers and by outside experts. All our charity recommendations must pass through a committee for approval.
If someone wishes to comment on our reports and point out where we fall short of our aspirations, I would be very interested to hear from them. We are open to hear from those like John Twineham who seem to have reservations or concerns.
Martin Brookes
Director of Research, New Philanthropy Capital
Post a Comment