Separate domains, shared assumptions
I've been increasingly frustrated by the discourse around philanthropy reform. Most of what passes for reform are minor tweaks to existing practice. Lowering reporting requirements. Involving representatives of communities in advising on decisions. Shifting tax rules without "accounting" for the "value" of anonymity to wealthy people. Big ideas - for vastly different approaches - are few and far between. Edgar Villenueva's work to decolonize wealth is one example; communities that have built and maintained mutual aid associations or networks are another.
As part of re-imagining the Blueprint series, I'm working with The Impact Trust, the Center for Transformational Change, and a growing list of others to poke, provoke, highlight different knowledge systems, and engage beyond our existing communities to ask some new questions.
While I know very little about trade or foreign aid, this dialogue series on Aid, Trade, and Philanthropy, is one example of how I'm trying to do this - and a space where I invite you to join me. These dialogues are hosted by a slowly growing community bringing together people with different types of expertise. We're always seeking the perspectives of those managing certain systems or organizations, those affected by those systems, and those questioning those systems.
Here's one thing I've learned so far. The debates about aid, trade, and philanthropy that take place within each of those domains have more in common than they probably realize. First among the shared features? Those making the rules for all three sectors do so by centering financial value for the wealthy. Aid decisions center the needs of the donor countries and reform means moving pieces around but not removing any of them. Trade decisions - to the degree they're made beyond the personal whims of a mercurial megalomaniac with a 19th century understanding of global commerce - are about maximizing profit within the partnering bodies. Philanthropy reform (in the U.S. at least) has been held back by our inability to think beyond the tax code as a means of reform. Our repeated default to tax laws as a lever of change means the interests of wealthholders get addressed; the interests of potential users of said resources are at best an afterthought. Our "inability" to think beyond taxes is a direct result of the influence of the wealthy and the U.S. legal regime about property - this framing of the debate ensures that we rarely consider - let alone debate or legislate - other policy domains from which change could come.
Highlighting these commonalities may not be groundbreaking. It is kinda obvious that the modern world is organized around private property. But doing so in ways that enable trade experts to learn from philanthropists, and aid reformers to listen to what has/has not happened with trade discussions allows people to find new allies, consider alternative possibilities, and ask new questions. And doing this now - as the planet defends itself against the virus of capitalist exploitation and the wisdom of pre-capitalist societies is increasingly recognized as key to post-capitalist survival - is critical. I'm excited to be learning with this global community and invite you to join me.
Here's sign up information for the second of our three discussions about Aid, Trade and Philanthropy. The third session is on August 5 and I'll be in one of the discussants chairs for that one.
Fragmentation & Failed Promises: Trade Systems in Crisis
📅 July 15th, 2025⏰ 3.30 PM GMT / 4.30 PM CET / SAST / 10.30 AM ET / 7.30 AM PST🔗
With #TomKruse Rockefeller Brothers Fund #LoriWallach (Rethink Trade) Lebohang Liepollo Pheko (DPhil) (Trade Collective) Jodie Keane ODI Global
Register for the zoom link https://lnkd.in/euk_BAp5
More information is here.