Critiquing the Critics: A Theoretical Exploration of Philanthropy Criticism

This chapter describes the dominant critiques of philanthropy and offers a theoretically informed analysis of their assumptions and impact. It begins by noting that critiques of philanthropy are long-standing but that debates about the purpose, motivation, and impact of private action for the public good - especially substantial monetary gifts - have recently developed into more prominent, polarised debates that question its legitimacy within modern welfare democracies. Three strands of critique are identified: the academic critique, which states that philanthropy entrenches unequal power structures, exacerbates inequality, and undermines democratic principles; the insider critique, which questions the bases on which philanthropic spending is allocated and claims that the causes prioritized by donors are largely incorrectly chosen; and the populist critiques which offers a negative interpretation of donor motivation and claims that private benefits secured by donors eclipse any public benefit. A counter-critique is then provided, which explains the provenance of dominant criticisms by drawing on theories such as gift-giving theory (notably, Mauss, 2022, 1950), the concept of misrecognition (Bourdieu, 1997), social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), and Do-Gooder derogation theory (Minson & Monin, 2012). The chapter concludes by affirming the usefulness of critical scholarship when it advances knowledge and makes philanthropy more effective, whilst highlighting the dangers of hyper-criticism and generalizsed cynicism, which risk eroding cultural norms about helping others and creating a perverse incentive to hoard rather than share wealth.