Skip to content

Philanthropy as an extension and externality of neoliberalism

With Lynn Murphy

Video 2 of 5

In this video, Lynn unpacks how philanthropy – from a sectoral, institutional and individual perspective – upholds neoliberal logic and the need to alchemize philanthropy and wealth in service to Life.

Philanthropy as an Extension of Neoliberalism

Framing philanthropy as both an extension and a byproduct of neoliberalism, showing how philanthropy benefits from, and contributes to, the dynamics of late-stage capitalism, including the concentration of wealth and the perpetuation of winner-takes-all logic.

Philanthropic Endowments and the 5% Rule

How foundations grow their non-taxable endowments by investing in market activities that drive the meta-crisis (i.e. fossil-fuel companies) but are only legally required to give a minimum of 5% of their endowment out in the form of grants or program-related investments. In practice, this has meant that philanthropy itself ends up making more money off the investments in its endowment than it gives away each year, while being celebrated as a benevolent and selfless actor in society and continuing to drive extractive capitalism. 

Four shadows of philanthropy

How the institutions of philanthropy replicate the logic of neoliberalism through the four shadows of philanthropy:

  1. Privileging neoliberal notions of success so that making money equates to having the wisdom and requisite acumen for how to give money away.
  2. Centering measurement and knowable impacts in order to control, justify, and quantify investments.
  3. Viewing philanthropy as an entitlement and right of being wealthy.
  4. Morally positioning philanthropy as inherently good, leading to perpetual growth of institutions and the sector as the ultimate goal.

Three primary archetypes in philanthropy

Three primary archetypes amongst wealth granters, or individuals operating within philanthropy:

  1. Apparatchiks:  practitioners who rarely question operating procedures within their institutions or organisations. They may feel autonomy in developing strategies, choosing grantees, monitoring progress, yet, this too is bound within the logic of neoliberalism (including colonialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc.). Their primary, underlying motivation is largely self-survival and job protection.
  2. Alchemists: They play a bridging role, considering themselves allies of grantees, partners, and activists. Acting as healers, they shift relational and power dynamics and excel in understanding and catalyzing “state-change”- transforming resources like money, energy, and conversations into materials for life-centric models. Operating with intuition and emotional intelligence, they navigate diverse worldviews and contexts without creating conflict among wealth holders or boards of directors.
  3. AssassinsThey view themselves as organizers and movement builders, willing to disrupt and risk their own livelihoods for social change. They don’t seek external validation and often prefer working behind the scenes without acknowledgment or approval.