SPEAKER_01 0:12

You're listening to the Flat Business Podcast with Roger James. Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rod Davis, and this week is something a bit different. It's the launch of what I hope is going to be a new occasional series of podcasts that we're doing in partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy, or ERNOP. So we've teamed up with Earn Op because they have a new series of research notes that they're putting out where the idea is that they take academic papers and journal articles that have been published in the field of uh philanthropic studies and kind of civil society studies more broadly and try and turn those into one or two page notes that can explain the contents of the research to practitioners and policymakers and other people who might be interested, but won't necessarily go and dig out these articles or read them in full. So, in order to do that, uh first of all, this podcast is going to be split into a couple of sections. So the first bit you're going to hear in a moment, uh, I'm talking to Barry Holworth from Earn OP itself, uh, and also Sevda Killerchalp, who's from Philea, which is a big uh European infrastructure body for philanthropy, who have uh also been involved in this project on the practitioner side. Uh and I talk to Barry and Sevda about what the thinking was behind the project, what the aims of it are, what they hope to get out of it, how it's going to work, and that kind of thing, just to give a bit of framing. Uh and then there's three mini interviews with academics whose work is actually featured in this first series of research notes. Um so you'll hear me talking to Giedre Lidikita Huber about a paper that she published on the tax treatment of donations in Switzerland and what that kind of tells you about how you might design policies around tax relief on charitable donations. Uh you'll also hear me talk to Elisa Elisa Ricciuti, um, who has done some research on how Italian foundations measure impact and the various sort of different ways in which they do that. And then finally, you'll hear me talk to Malika Watcher about some research that she has done, a paper all about diasporic volunteering um between communities in the Netherlands and in Morocco, uh, and what that tells us about the ways in which people see their identity and that how that informs their approach to philanthropy. So three really different papers, really fascinating stuff in all of them, and I'll put links at the end in the show notes to places where you can read the research notes and find the actual papers themselves. Um, but without further ado, let's go into it. And as I say, first you'll hear from me talking to Barry Holworth and Sevda Killerchalp. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Barry Holworth and Sevda Killachalp. Hi there, both of you. Hello.

SPEAKER_02 3:32

Hi, Rodri.

SPEAKER_01 3:33

Um, and we're here to talk about um a new project that Earnop has got, a research note uh series, which kind of summarizes bits of academic research about philanthropy, and we'll be hearing later in the episode from three of the academics whose work is featured in this most recent um series of releases. But it'd be really good just to find out a bit more about the thinking behind the project as a whole and how it came about. So, Barry, maybe if I could come to you first and you could just tell us a bit about how you know Earnop came up with this idea, what the driver was, and what you hope the the new project will will achieve.

SPEAKER_02 4:09

Yes, thank you, Rodri. Thank you also for uh paying attention to this initiative. Um well, you know, the relationship between academia and uh philanthropy, uh, people working in philanthropy um has been on the table uh for for for quite some time. Um uh one of the criticisms that academia um sometimes receive from people working in philanthropy, it is very sometimes um academic research on philanthropy is hard to read, but sometimes not always easy uh to access, and that publications are not often fully uh relevant to the people working in the field. And to address this, we have been talking to a lot of people in the field. One of those is Philea, and um uh one of the ideas that that came up is that it should be possible to translate academic knowledge to more accessible, digestible pieces that really focus on the relevance of academic publications for practice. So it leaves out the more technical, methodological discussions that are often cover a large piece of academic publications. It also leaves out a large part of the more theoretical discussions that make an academic article relevant to be published in an academic journal, but instead focus on what is new in this um study and what is the practical relevance of this study. And I'm very happy that um uh Philea, but also European Fundraising Association, European Venture Philanthropy Association, and the Center for European Volunteering has committed to this also to endorse this this initiative.

SPEAKER_01 6:28

That's great. And and Sevda, from your point of view at Philea as a membership organization and sort of key part of European philanthropy infrastructure, what what is it that kind of interests you and excites you about this project?

SPEAKER_06 6:41

Yeah, I remember that they uh Barry launched this idea of uh creating research nodes. Uh, we got excited really immediately and got on board um because yeah, it makes uh research on philanthropy more accessible, uh more digestible, closer to the practitioners, because the research notes really uh summarizes the key findings, findings, and then it stresses uh the implications of this uh findings for research. Sometimes it's really difficult for a practitioner to go through an academic article and then to identify relevant parts for them. And uh, usually they don't have much time for this. So it is very practical in the sense that it makes their job easier. And at FILIA, um, we really care about um learning professionalizing sector, and we use peer learning techniques for this. We also do uh practitioner research, uh, but we also believe that um academic research is really important for driving the knowledge uh in sector and about the sector. Uh, for that reason, we really wanted to be a part of this initiative and we really uh value this.

SPEAKER_01 7:59

Yeah, that's great to hear. And and in terms of why the project's necessary, I mean, you've both sort of mentioned or alluded to the fact that there is something of a gap between academia and practice in philanthropy. I don't know if philanthropy is unique in that regard, but it feels as though philanthropy, academia is still relatively young as a field, um, and a field in which it it sort of needs to be closely linked to practice because it's talking about something that is kind of inherently practice-based. Why is it, do you think, Barry, that that we are finding that there is this gap? Is it just practical things like time on the part of practitioners, or are there more sort of structural problems in terms of there not being the places to bring uh academics and practitioners together, or there being kind of different incentives when it comes to what they're aiming to do with their work?

SPEAKER_02 8:48

Well, to be honest, I I think this is uh has partly to do with the way um academia is being funded. Academia and people working in academia, as you might know, um, get their uh funds through important funding streams that come from teaching students and publicizing in academic journals, and these are the criteria that that matter to them. And because uh philanthropy as an academic field has not been established as such, uh it does not have a major or regular stream of students, and it does not have a sizable journal. Um uh there are not many journals that publish articles that are related to philanthropy. There are a number of art journals, but uh their impact factors, and impact factors are very important for people working in academia. Uh, they are not very highly regarded by their peers uh in uh of other uh disciplines, so it's a relatively still very relatively new field. And um uh to develop this field, it is important so it's a more or less a chicken or or egg question. Um uh so you have I'm very happy that that that that we started this, um, and we hope that it will attract uh uh new people to the field also to study it, but also to uh invest in the field, then it might uh become part of the more mainstream uh research agenda that is also funded by uh public fund uh public funding streams, and then it might become more embedded into research within university as a discipline. So we once we coined the the term philanthropology, this this because philanthropy is being studied by by many academic disciplines from different angles, uh it might even make sense to establish a department of philanthropology uh within universities to focus on the questions that are relevant to philanthropy uh from all the different angles.

SPEAKER_01 11:39

And and Sevda, that just linking to that as well, one thing I wanted to ask you is from the point of view of practitioners and those that you kind of work with in your your network, what's your sense of the appetite that they have for engaging with academic research at the moment? And and when they do, what sorts of things are they most interested in in seeing or for that academic research to focus on?

SPEAKER_06 12:05

Yeah, I think that interest is growing. So it's um good news. Uh, we see that there is more openness uh for collaboration. Uh, when they collaborate uh with uh researchers, they are mostly interested in improving their daily practices. So practitioners are more interested in how questions, whereas uh academics are more trying to make relationships between different things, understanding the causes, its implications. Um maybe foundations would like to understand how to create more flexible funding strategies that are aligned with their mission, but also more adaptable to changing conditions, given that now uh there's so much uncertainty going on. Um, so there are so many crises. Um, so uh what I see in foundations, uh, now they would like to come up with these strategies, new strategies. So, this is one place uh academic research uh can play an important role. Um, so they're also curious about, they would like to know about operational structures um that would accommodate and support an emergent strategy given all these uh uncertainties, and also governance and self-regulation mechanisms to become more inclusive, more participatory, more accountable. These are kind of uh issues that they are um becoming more and more interested in. And also another uh important issue is this trust-based philanthropy, like how they can build trust-based, more flexible relationship with their grantees without sacrificing the social impact they would like to generate. So these are, I think, uh kind of questions uh now they're interested in.

SPEAKER_01 13:55

It does feel as though there's a lot more engagement with some slightly sort of deeper questions that maybe would benefit from theoretical input. So actually, maybe it's a really good time for establishing more of those links. Um, and and Barry, I was gonna ask in terms of how that relates to the plans for the research notes series, how much of that is going to be driven by supply and how much by demand? Is there going to be an opportunity for practitioners to specify areas that they're particularly interested in so that you can then sort of look for bits of work that could be turned into research notes in those areas, or will it also be sort of driven by obviously what's available in terms of the research coming out?

SPEAKER_02 14:34

The answer is both. So we very much invite our members that are um academics uh that have published their work in all kinds of journals to submit their work uh for being uh translated in the Earn Up Research Note format. But we also very much invite people working in philanthropy uh to sign up as um experts in which they can contribute their knowledge um and uh to and and as association as Earn Up, we really aim to match the the practitioner expert with the academic to create a research note. So we we we simply uh are a matchmaker, we organize dates between academics and practitioner experts to create this research notes, and uh we believe that um we we we need both sides to really make this stick. So um uh also I would very much invite everyone to uh to be part of this initiative.

SPEAKER_01 15:48

And and Sev to just just coming to you on that, what's your hope for where this you know research note project might go in in future um from Philea's point of view? What's your your kind of ambition for it?

SPEAKER_06 15:59

Uh we would like, of course, academic research to be used more. Uh and for from Philia perspective, we would like to use uh this research to shape our um peer learning sessions. So it's not just about uh talking uh about daily practices, but there's it's also uh informed by research so we can look at the bigger picture and put things into a context rather than just looking at the uh day-to-day um developments, let's say. Uh, and we would like uh to uh kind of fill this gap uh that Barry mentioned between academics and philanthropy practitioners, because there will be always a gap, at least to close that one, so that we get familiar with each other's vocabulary or expectations or rhythms of work, so there will be more collaboration, even though you know some of the dynamics will remain the same. Uh, and from the foundation side, uh, we expect um more openness for research uh so that they open their doors to researchers, they they invite them to do uh research uh about their foundations, about their practices, and also they support uh philanthropy research. As Berry mentioned, um, philanthropy research needs to be uh really supported by financial means uh so that it can be really independent, it can be, it can evolve, um, it can they can publish in different avenues. And also um and also from the academic side, not looking at foundations only as sites for research. Of course, that there are there there are, but also there are important uh resources for shaping the research. So involving uh foundation practitioners, philanthropy practitioners from the beginning uh in the design of their research, asking maybe formulating research questions together, and making sense of where uh research may be most relevant, uh, this kind of the thinking together could be really important to make research more relevant for both sides.

SPEAKER_01 18:18

Great, thanks, Evda. Um and yeah, we're gonna hear from some of the people uh involved on the research side whose work is featured in this um uh this first uh release of research notes. Barry, obviously we're kind of at an early stage in the project. What's your ambition from the Earn-Ops side for how this might develop in in the future?

SPEAKER_02 18:36

I'm a very pragmatic person. Uh so what I would really like to see is that um this idea is um will stick, that uh we will see an incremental development of uh people that commit themselves to this project from all kinds of different areas, people working in different areas of philanthropy, uh, international, local, fundraising, foundation, volunteering, because also the philanthropy research is very broad. Um and um it addresses questions related to why do people volunteer on uh and why um do people donate money to charity, to what's the role of philanthropy in society uh and how to measure impact. So uh we need volunteers, we need uh practitioners from all kinds of backgrounds, because the the output that has been produced by academics is also very broad. So my ambition is to have this initiative stick and to also to have it um top of mind for for people working in philanthropy if they are in need of any information, uh, to see if there is a research note that has been published on this team and that they delve deep into uh the the research that already has been done.

SPEAKER_01 20:31

Great. And yeah, we'll obviously put links in the show notes for this episode to places where people can find out more and get involved, and hopefully this will help to spread the word. Um just remain to say thanks ever so much to both of you for coming on. Um, and uh, as we say, we'll go on to hear from some of the uh academics involved shortly. Okay, well, next up you're gonna hear me talk to Giedre Lidekiti Huba. Um, Ghiedre is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Geneva. Uh, and we're talking about a research note that is based on a paper she wrote or co-authored with Marta Pitovino, uh titled Who Donates and How: New Evidence on the Tax Incentives in the Canton of Geneva, Switzerland. Um without further ado, let's go into the conversation with Guiedre. Great. I'm here now with uh Guiedre Lidikite Huber. And uh Giedre, perhaps you could tell us a little bit about the work that you've got featured in in the most recent Urnap Research Note, which focuses on some really interesting findings about the relationship between tax policy and philanthropic giving um in Switzerland.

SPEAKER_05 21:45

Yes, of course. Uh this is the article which was published at the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies with my co-author Marta Pietavino, which is um uh mathematician and uh lecturer in statistics, senior lecturer. Statistics at the University of Geneva. So this is an interdisciplinary study. I'm a lawyer, and she was doing the statistical part, and it was interesting collaboration. Now, our article studies basically how tax policies work in practice, how tax norms work in practice. We were really interested to know whether to what extent people actually use tax incentives, because we see very quite often actually in the policy discussions regular suggestions, maybe we should increase more, uh, like provide more tax incentives because we want to boost charitable giving. But then when we look into the data, what we have and the research, actually, there was no nothing on the current framework of tax incentives. So at first we wanted to know how the current framework works in order to say something, what should be um what should be done. And this fills the quite a big uh gap in the Swiss research on the efficiency, on the studies on the um how tax norms work in the field of charitable giving in Switzerland.

SPEAKER_01 23:07

And and obviously it's specific to the Swiss context, but the findings um are of relevance more widely because they actually kind of tell us something about the relationship between tax policy and giving more broadly in an area where there is perhaps less research than a lot of people would think. What were some of the kind of key things that you found in that Swiss context that you think might have wider relevance?

SPEAKER_05 23:32

Yes, uh, you are right to say that the relevance is wider because even though we talk about Swiss context, but the tax incentives that Swiss use, the tax deduction basically, is the most popular deduction to encourage charitable giving in the um, I would almost say in the world. Uh three years ago we participated, uh we collaborated with the OECD on the report, which is called Taxation and Philanthropy, where they did the empirical study of legal frameworks in uh in 40 particip uh OECD and participating countries, and they said that like they found the tax deduction is indeed the most common tax incentive. So what we study here really gives a lot of insights uh for other countries. Now, what did we find? We have to put it in the context uh of the discussions about tax incentives. We uh because the donation is usually, it's not usually, but I would say often criticized as being not the most effective tax uh tax incentive, and quite uh, I would say quite inegalitarian because it provides a bigger tax benefit to people with higher revenue in progressive income tax systems. And we wanted to see whether really higher income pairs use more this tax deduction, or perhaps uh people in old income classes use this deduction uh in the same uh in the same way, and basically how these dynamics work. And what we found was indeed that actually the tax incentives for chartable beginning, the deduction, chartable deduction of a donation, is used mainly by the highest income classes uh in the canton of Geneva, uh, which is a big canton, actually, with a the with a big population in a Swiss perspective, not by the territory, but by the population. Uh, and it's a very important canton for philanthropy. So we can really kind of safely guess that's the same pattern could be found in other cantons in Switzerland.

SPEAKER_01 25:34

And that was fascinating to me. I think the the Swiss context, particularly because you have the national level, sort of federal taxation, but also the you know lots of independence to set taxation laws and rates at the canton level. So there is variation. You almost have this big natural experiment about what happens if you set caps at different rates. And also in in the time period that you were looking at, there was a significant change in tax policy. Um one of the things I noticed, I think, looking through the findings that I thought was really interesting, there seemed to be some suggestion, and and correct me if I'm wrong, that um it in the figures that you looked at where there was a cap on deductions, um, that people were limited, I think, to um deducting 20% of their income, only a very small number of people ever got to that cap anyway. But actually there were it seemed as though some stopped at that point rather than giving more because then they wouldn't be getting a tax benefit, which I thought was really interesting in terms of other places where they're thinking about uh capping uh deductions on on charitable giving, if if indeed it does psychologically stop people potentially giving more.

SPEAKER_05 26:45

Yes, so that was an interesting finding because, as you said, we kind of did our research studying the reform, which was made in right in the middle of the data we had on the cantonal level. Uh before the reform, people could deduct up to 5% of their charitable uh donation, uh 5% of their equivalent to the taxable income of a charitable donation, and afterwards at 20%. The thing is that we had a problem with our data because we could not see what's happening after the cap. What we received in our data, we received only capped deductions, and we were had no information about the entire amount of the donation. Uh but what we could see when we studied before and after the reform, that after the ceiling was raised to 20%, a lot of people stayed at five. And that kind of could be an indication that people were kind of targeting 5% deductible amount of donations. And even after reforms, we maintained a habit to stay a bit around this level and did not increase and to up to 20%. Now, concerning 20%, we see that there is a very small amount of people reaching this threshold, only around 300 people of 250,000 in Geneva. So our advice was that we should not really concentrate on that threshold. It's really on the ceiling. It's quite quite high already. Maybe we could have different tax incentives if we really wanted to use them to boost donations. Because the deduction, as I said, is highlighted as being uh not the most effective one to uh to boost charitable giving and in in general to regulate uh taxpayers' behavior.

SPEAKER_01 28:21

Yeah, absolutely. No, it's really interesting. And I and I guess some of that goes to uh existing findings around whether or not giving behavior is elastic or inelastic in response to tax changes. So it was it was fascinating to see. Um, I guess I just wanted to zoom out a bit and ask you what um relevance or kind of insights you think that the findings in this work can potentially offer for practitioners and policymakers. I mean, what what might they be able to do with the information that that you found in the study?

SPEAKER_05 28:49

So the practitioners, I I imagine that they quite understood the relevance of uh tax uh tax incentive, uh tax deduction for charitable giving because we see that wealthier, uh wealthier taxpayers, the ones who have higher uh taxable income, they really deduct a lot. And there a lot and often that means either they get a tax advice or they are professionally informed somehow themselves. Uh, but they do use it. Now, for policymaking, our advice was not no longer concentrate on increasing and increasing and increasing this taxable deduction. Because there are regular suggestions. Shall we increase to 50% of taxable income? Shall we increase to 7%, like, or shall we do not set any limit to uh for the deduction? And what we see is like it's only only a few people now reach it. Well, now it's a relative uh word because um our last um set of data dates back to 2011. We do not have more recent data than that. Uh, but still it's quite telling. So perhaps we could just think about something else. The this concentration about increasing a deduction, this uh focus on the increasing of the deduction is not very, I think it will not very be very efficient in this framework.

SPEAKER_01 30:03

Yeah, really interesting because that's a very tangible finding. And I think in an area where it's often difficult to find policy mechanisms that do drive giving, uh I there's always a temptation just to assume that raising caps on deductions will do it. And if actually you can show that that's inefficient and ineffective, then you need to look elsewhere. Um, I I just wanted to ask, obviously, given that we're talking about this in the context of your work being summarized as part of this new Earn Up um research notes series, um, what's your perception of the current state of links between academia and practice in the field of philanthropy? I mean, do you do you find in your own work you have relatively good links with practitioners and policymakers, or do you do you find it difficult to get the work that you're doing across to them? And do you think uh something like this new Earn Up initiative can help there?

SPEAKER_05 30:53

So I think the new Earn Up uh initiative is very good because obviously for policymakers and even for you know academics working in different fields, attack fields, not in philanthropy, everyone is very busy and reading those kind of 25-30 percent of uh pages papers with data takes time. So it's very, very useful to have something summarized just in a few paragraphs. Uh, we have a lot of contacts with practitioners in the Geneva Center of Philanthropy. We uh regularly organize uh teachings, seminars, um, masterclasses about philanthropy, and we talk a lot about taxes. Uh, people are very interested in that. So I do really have a lot of contact uh with the practitioners, uh, which is very fulfilling because they tell us always tell us something that we can kind of research and uh help with in our research. And the policymaking obviously it takes a lot of time. Uh as you said, in Switzerland, um uh so we have cantonal tax law and federal tax law and also communal tax law, uh, which makes all of these three levels of uh kind of different uh legislative powers. And um obviously some things are are harmonized at the federal level, but still it's a long process and uh it takes time. We'll see whether this research gives some inspiration, we really hope so for the legislator. Uh yeah, and I think the airdoc notes will be really useful in this in this respect.

SPEAKER_01 32:32

Great. And as you say, it in a way it brings all of them together in one place and makes them digestible. So you know that makes things much easier, I think, for policymakers who do want to take action on these things. Um I just wanted to ask before I let you go, um, following on from that work, what what are you working on at the moment? Is it is it work that kind of builds on that or are you working in other areas? And it would be great to hear, if so, what those are.

SPEAKER_05 32:56

I am working on the cross-border philanthropy, tax barriers to cross-border philanthropy. Uh, this is something that we would really like to explore more because there are a lot of unfortunately tax barriers that um prevent um free flow of philanthropic capital between countries, which is a shame. This is one topic, another topic which we which I really like uh started working on, and I would like to study even more is um sustainable taxation and what is the role of the sustainability in the tax systems and different sustainable development goals, especially in relation to climate warming, what tax policies could do in relation to climate warming. So that would include obviously uh all the discussion about carbon taxation, but but there are many more questions as well. So that's what I'm working on now.

SPEAKER_01 33:47

Sounds fascinating, and yeah, I'd certainly love to hear more about that when uh when the work comes out. Um just remains to say thank you uh ever so much, Gedre, for for finding the time to come on the podcast. Um, yeah, all the best with this. I hope people do take the time to read the research notes. Um, and it'd be great to hear more about your work in the field.

SPEAKER_05 34:03

Thank you so much for inviting me.

SPEAKER_01 34:06

Next up is a mini interview with Elisa Ricciuti. Uh now Elisa is now an independent researcher, but at the time she wrote the paper uh in question, she was working at Boccioni University in Milan. Um but this paper was actually published, I think, in about 2018. But just with the way that academic timescales work, we're we're talking about a research note about it now. Um and the paper itself is called Are Foundations Assessing Their Impact: Concepts, Methods, and Barriers to Social Impact Assessment in Italian Foundations? So let's hear what Elisa's got to say. Okay, great. So uh I'm here with Elisa Ricciutti. Hi, Elisa.

SPEAKER_04 34:42

Hi, Rodri.

SPEAKER_01 34:43

Hi there, and and the paper that you've written that's featured in this new series of Earn Art research notes is about um a study that you did looking at foundations in Italy in particular and their approaches to impact measurement. So it'd be great um just to hear a bit about the research, how it came about, and what the key findings were.

SPEAKER_04 35:02

Yeah, sure. So um I wrote this paper with my colleague Francesca Calò, um, and we were actually studying uh third sector uh generally speaking. It was in a in a kind of um turmoil moment in Italy at that time because uh there was the legislative process for a new law coming out, which was then named the Code of Third Sector. It was a very big thing, and third sector, as many other European countries, is very fragmented and very varied. There is a vast panel of organizations with very different nature and scope. And so foundations were one of them. Uh, and we were in that kind of legislative process where um there was a lot of talk, uh a lot of talking about uh sector and foundations indeed, because foundations, as in many other countries, of course, are the subject which uh it's part of the third sector, but at the same time uh it has money. So it's basically the grant maker and not the grant seeker, to say it in one way. And as you uh of course know, uh Italy is the only, well, definitely the first European country which has also foundations of banking origin, which is a very peculiar type of foundations, uh, with a very, very um consistent, let's say, um uh amount of money to invest in third sector. Uh so uh the the attention of foundations was because of that particular uh moment and that particular type of foundations we have in our country, which were at that time starting to really structure some process on impact measurement. Why I'm saying this, because of course, impact measurement, impact evaluation, impact assessment. I mean, let's say that in this, I mean, in this talk, I would use these terms in a let's say in an equal way, okay, as synonyms. Uh, and basically, of course, foundations measure the impact, but it it has never been a practice uh neither to do it regularly and uh not even to show it, so to communicate it, first of all, to beneficiaries. So this is the way that the study started. It was like, okay, we have so many interesting foundations in our country and so powerful in terms of resources. Why don't we know basically anything about how they measure what they do? So that's the ratio. And the main fund is um are basically that the concepts of impact are very uh different and fragmented. And this is a, I mean, uh, this is not a shortcoming to my view. This is actually part of the richness of again, of course, of the organizations involved. There is a shortcoming which is consequent, probably, which is that it's very difficult to study this topic. So it's a methodological shortcoming, of course. If everybody has its own way, uh view or definition of impact, then it can become quite difficult to agree on what it is, and so on what it is that you want to measure. So that was the first difficulty we had. So a lot of richness in this, um, and definitely a lot of approaches. Uh, the methods are different and very typically are mixed, so qualitative and quantitative. Uh, and finally, I would say that the major shortcoming, uh, which is not surprising to be honest, but again, it was kind of a first piece of data on that topic, is that uh there is a lack of resources to do that. When I say resources, I'm not again talking only about economic resources at all. I'm talking about people, I'm talking about capacities, I'm talking about the lack of skills to do that. Uh consider that in our country, the last study on well, at that time, so it's it's almost more than five years ago, but basically to show that uh the average number of people in foundation is 1.5. So it means that you know it's it's literally like one person and uh some other people maybe part-time working on foundations. So it's difficult to imagine a structure again and regular process of impact evaluation.

SPEAKER_01 39:32

Absolutely. And and just one thing I really wanted to ask, having read the paper, because it it feels as though the the conversation around impact measurement has changed over the last few years and probably since the the paper was was originally conceived. And there's more focus now on the question of whether approaches to measuring impact take into account the power differential between the funder and the recipient. And I think there's more focus on questioning whether actually measurement can be problematic if it's imposed on grantees. I wondered if at the time when you did the research, you got any sense that some of the funders were aware of those kinds of challenges or whether they hadn't really even entered their heads at that point.

SPEAKER_04 40:14

Um, yeah, thank you. I totally agree with what you say. And I would say a mix. I mean, of course they were aware, but I would say that uh it was kind of a top-down uh thing at that time, but because again, it was really the beginning of this practice. So you start thinking that you are the funder, and now your objective is to measure what you do. And of course, uh let's say the target or the beneficiary, if you prefer, is the object of the thing, but the idea that the beneficiary can contribute to this, uh, not to the evaluation, because of course the beneficiary needs to give you data, but to the to the design of the evaluation, to the ratio, to the process, to the strategic uh construction. No, that I would say was quite far. Um, you I agree that things have changed quickly, so um this is true because uh again, I remember one thing that we wrote very clearly, which was there is a very limited use of impact evaluation in foundations, which is absolutely true, but it was true at that time, and now I would say things have changed. I would never write something like this because indeed it has really evolved quite quickly, and that's very interesting. Uh so yeah, the beneficiary is well, I would say no, the the the the idea was kind of top-down. So, like, okay, let's explore which methods we have, and let's decide what's what's of course better for us, what suits better for in our situation. And of course, I mean I I give for granted that you can't measure everything because you don't need to, basically. Um, so the choice of what to measure is the choice of how to do that. When I say how, I mean I will do that internally, I would uh you know try to find someone externally to do this, or I would involve the beneficiary in the data collection. And it's quite easy that beneficiary feels there's like just uh overloads of work and data to give, because of course beneficiaries work on this. Uh so um I would say it was rather top-down. And in terms of methods, there was uh there was a practice before. Uh I wouldn't call it impact measurement, but again, it was a practice, and the typical practice was just um uh like sending a follow-up questionnaire after some times after the project three months, six months, one year was the maximum. And see one of the beneficiaries, of course, responded to the questionnaire, and in just in case you need it or you wanted to explore the data, having uh just an in-depth interview. So this is not exactly a method, this is just of course methods for data collection, which is okay. But um, again, they were starting to to uh to to think about counterfactual methods or uh social return on investment, which again then was abandoned because it's something which has a very I think evolution and then uh an involution at that time. So they they just started to explore different methods, but I wouldn't say any of the people we interviewed really involved beneficiaries into the design.

SPEAKER_01 43:41

Interesting. And I just wanted to zoom out a bit because obviously we're talking about this in the context of the work being featured as one of the research notes um in in this Earn op series. And the purpose behind that is to try and address, I guess, the the gap there sometimes is between academia and practice when it comes to philanthropy. And I know just when we were talking before, you mentioned that you yourself have actually made the move from academia into practice. So it'd be really interesting to get your sense of whether you think there is a challenge in bridging that gap and whether you think this Earn-Op series of research notes can go some way towards helping to get some of the thinking from academia into practice more effectively.

SPEAKER_04 44:22

Yeah, thank you. Well, uh yes, definitely it fills a gap. The gap is quite clear, I think. Indeed, it was uh I participated to many meetings and conferences, even of course at Ebno, but not only. And it's the typical uh complaint, if you want, is that oh come on, we are all among researchers, and there is no practice here. Uh and to be honest, I participated also in many meetings of practitioners where uh the big complaint was okay, there is no uh there is no connection to academia, so you know it's it's a kind of reciprocal thing. Well, yes, there is a gap, but to be honest, I don't think it's so challenging because maybe it was more challenging some years ago, but you know, now that uh I mean we see that more and more the connections between academia and practice are just obvious and evident also in a methodological thing. So, for example, also qualitative research on its nature, by its nature, is is more and more full of inputs from practitioners. I would say more than say decades ago. So it's it's quite a gap which is which must be filled. I don't see it very challenging in the sense that it's just to sit on a table and and discuss and and decide how to do. And Ernov does a uh does a great job in this, to be honest, I think. But the point is how to put this into the academic level. So if I see a challenge, is really to be as a practitioner considered in a way that is uh let's say suitable to the academic level, but not because academia uh doesn't want to have feedback from practitioners, but just because it's how the academic incentives work. So it's a different again, it's a different problem. So no, it's not so challenging. I think that academia and practitioners work quite a lot together. I I mean in this field, in the social innovation, social impact, at least probably many others it's it's different. Uh so it's not challenging, but it's something that needs to be again done maybe a bit of more.

SPEAKER_01 46:47

And I think you're right, there are the will is often there, but there are practical challenges around incentives and just things like time scales. I know as I have moved from practice into partly being an academia, the difference in terms of how fast things happen in academia versus practice makes it sometimes quite difficult to make the two work well together. Um I just I I just wanted to ask finally, um, what it is that you know you're working on at the moment and how your work uh kind of around philanthropy has has evolved.

SPEAKER_04 47:17

Yeah, well, I think, well, yeah, philanthropy has evolved a lot. I still first work in this. I just uh as I said left uh uh academia first to to work in a startup, which was dedicated to education as a bridge between academia and the third sector, the practitioners are if you want. Uh and now I see evolving the role of foundations is evolving, of course. And I think this is not of course my opinion, it's quite clear. Uh, but also in our country, there is a lot more in terms of the role of foundations, really as a policy uh as uh drive uh much with much more uh much more strategically and with much more intentionality than before. They drive some of the processes to be experimented uh and to be delivered uh to the policymaker, and this is extremely interesting. And now I work exactly in at the intersection between the sector. So I work much more with the companies, with the public sector, with the third sector, and uh I work on let's say fostering partnerships with the objective of being more impactful, very easy, but at the same time challenging, it seems.

SPEAKER_01 48:40

Great. Well that sounds really interesting, and and certainly wish you all the the best with that. Um just remains to say thanks ever so much, Lisa, for for finding this time to come on and talk about your work.

SPEAKER_04 48:49

Thank you, Robert. Thank you to Arnold. I think it's uh it's uh it was very very nice to chat with you and good luck.

SPEAKER_01 48:58

And last but very much not least, uh we have a mini interview with Malika Watcher. Uh now Malika is a PhD candidate actually at the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University, but also uh a part-time lecturer at the School of Social Work uh the Windersheim uh University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands as well. And the paper that I was talking to Malika about is entitled Diasporic Volunteering in Cross-National Perspective. Is faith-based more effective than secular philanthropy? A case of the Netherlands and Morocco. So let's hear what Malika's got to say. Great. So I'm here with Malika Uwasha. Hi, Malika. Hi. Great uh to have you on the podcast. And yeah, you're here to talk about the the piece of research um that you have that's been featured as one of these new Earn-Op research notes, which is all about diasporic uh volunteering, particularly focused on the Netherlands and on Morocco. And it's a really fascinating paper. Um, maybe you could tell us a bit about what the focus of the paper is and what the key findings are.

SPEAKER_03 49:59

Yeah, of course. So my research is on cross-border diasporic and bicultural philanthropy. So, what I do is that I investigate the philanthropy done by diasporic groups from one country to another, and then um often from a country of residence to the country of origin. And what I've done in specifically this paper is that I've been looking at two groups. Uh, one is the Diasporic uh International Moroccan um philanthropy philanthropists group in the Netherlands and the uh diasporic uh national uh philanthropists in Morocco. So, what I mean with that is that I've specifically look at I've specifically looked at philanthropists with an Indigenous background, meaning that they are part of the Indigenous Moroccan Amazir uh society. And then you have like two parts. One one of them moved from the rural area of Morocco to the urban area of Morocco, meaning, you know, like the periphery to the to the cities, the big cities. And I've been looking at uh Rabat and Casablanca specifically. And what I've also been looking at is looking at the Moroccan Amazir uh philanthropists who who really left Morocco and live in the Netherlands. And what I did was I kind of compared their philanthropy more in the sense of how do they uh how are they um approached by the receiving end, which the which is the same uh receiving end, and that is the Amazir societies who are isolated, still marginalized, uh living in rural areas with little facilities, basically. And what I've been uh looking at specifically in this paper is how is the like does the receiving end have a voice in cross-border philanthropy? And yes, they do. And what I've been doing is basically talking with them, like who do you prefer as a giver? And what they do or what they said to me is, you know, we are kind of thankful to be a receiver, but if we if we have to choose, then we will choose the international diasporic Amazer uh philanthropists, for example, from the Netherlands. And one of the reasons that they mentioned is that the Islamic motives that diasporic international philanthropists have plays an important role in them because they say, like, you know, we're that just as just as we do, they too are very proud to be Muslims. And then the diasporic national uh philanthropists tend to be a bit more secular and less outspoken about their religious identity. And I thought it was super fascinating to, you know, it's it's really something that I came across during my own, you know, previous research uh when I was still a student in in cultural anthropology. So I had to do my own research for my master thesis and then still keep an eye on this phenomenon that was going on. So for this paper specifically, which is part of a special issue that uh Lucas and I, Lucas Meiss and I of the Rotterdam School of Management have um have developed. So yeah, that's that's that's my paper.

SPEAKER_01 52:58

Yeah, yeah, no, it's really fascinating. And as you say, the the finding that actually there was a preference for the international diasporic donors, and and I think as it says in the paper, that actually they are probably just more effective at reaching some of those groups, particularly the the rural, the rural ones, both, I think my understanding was because of that religious identity, but also actually to do with language barriers and things like that, they were often more effective.

SPEAKER_03 53:24

Yeah, I I I was really surprised by that because if you look at it, for example, from a kind of a Western perspective, you would say that from a geographical point of view, the people who are living in Rabat are, you know, geographically and physically more close or closer to the ruler uh periphery of Morocco uh compared with the diasporic uh philanthropist living in Amsterdam or in Utrecht or uh whatever. And uh that was really not the case. And one of the other things besides uh religion was also something that they pointed out in myself, meaning, you know, your own parents were the ones who lived amongst us uh and amongst our parents for decades. And you know, when they uh when they moved to Europe and decided to, you know, raise you over there, it doesn't really have to change because every summer they remained loyal to this part of Morocco. So you know, all the gifts and all the remissons that you know, there's a bunch of literature on on the latter one, uh, but um it was always spent on us and on our children. So, you know, we were also able to send our children to to school because of the you know, the money that your father or your mother sent, or I was able to dress well on that wedding because of the dress that your mother gifted me during the summer of 1996 or 97 or whatever. So that kind of a loyalty and solidarity that was built up from the first generation is has been really given, uh has been has been really taken upon by the second generation and the third generation, saying, you know, besides what the receiving end is saying towards our parents and grandparents, we too have kind of a responsibility to continue this cross-border philanthropy. And sometimes they would, you know, phrase it as a zakat or sadaqah, as mean it meaning as a as a religious, um, uh um as a religious mandatory giving. But many times they didn't, they didn't, and they just said, you know, this is just heritage in a way of of a certain behavior towards a certain group. And yeah, and then I think what is also interesting is that the moment I spoke with Moroccan uh diasporic nationalists, so the people who are uh who lived in Morocco and performed their philanthropy from the urban areas to the rural parts, uh, they often didn't really understand the way the rural parts were were living. And they sometimes were also surprised compared to international diasporic philanthropists who say, Yeah, but this is my summer vacation when I went to my grandmother, you know, for six weeks. This is exactly what I what I lived through and what I had to deal with, and then come back to the Netherlands and then hear my classmates speak about all these fancy holidays. And then it was my turn to talk and say, Yeah, well, I kind of had to work on, you know, the the land of my grandmother and hold all these olives. And so there's a lot of recognition, and based on that recognition, and based on the loyalty and the solidarity that you know has been given from generation to generation, of course, the receiving end is gonna say, you know, I know that you are the daughter of your mother and I know your mother. So of course I would raise my hand if you if you are giving instead of of a stranger.

SPEAKER_01 56:39

And I mean, it one thing that really struck me was that that that whole narrative about the the preference and actually there being closer ties with people who are who are you know geographically further away go goes against the grain of a lot of the discussion in sort of international development and cross-border philanthropy about localization and and it being ideal to try and get in-country philanthropy. And I wondered what your your sort of sense of of how it plays into that narrative is and what you think it might add in terms of informing policy making and practice around cross-border giving.

SPEAKER_03 57:13

So, what I think is that it works two rounds, right? I think that one of the things I came across when I started talking about my own research from the perspective of being an academic, what the practitioners often said is, you're okay, sure, you're wearing the head of an academic and then scholar working on a paper, but you're always going to be one of us. Besides, if, you know, compared to if my colleague would say the same thing and then they would actually take that serious and say, Yeah, indeed, you are an academic, instead of, you know, so I think that's one thing. But I think if you phrase it in a way that, you know, policymakers would would actually have uh a certain advantage from it. I think it's really important to tell the practitioners that they are very important. And like how how I phrase it is that I'm not an expert in cross-border philanthropy. I'm just an expert in analyzing because that's what I've been trained in doing and writing it down. But the ones who are performing cross-border philanthropy, you know, the actual diasporic philanthropists, they are the experts and they have the actual social capital that needs to become this fundament in academia, but also in in international policy and and you know, the way we can finally really localize knowledge uh in a way that benefits all parties. So I think that's that's that I'm maybe that's a huge change that that is required for us to get there, but I don't think it's impossible. I just do believe that uh we need to change the hierarchy as it is in society. Because if you would say, you know, as what I've often see also in my research is that people say, yeah, you know, I don't really do that much of important work like you do, who is in uni and all that kind of stuff. And I'm like, what is in uni, man? We're all nerds being isolated, but you know, and then they start talking about what they are doing in their spare time, and they're leading these incredible, huge volunteering organizations with so many different volunteers, but somehow they they are so successful in getting everyone on the same mission, on you know, leading towards a certain receiving end that is really in need of their help. So this whole management style based on religion and intuition and just you know a certain personal emotional feeling of giving and wanting to give, I think there's there's a lot of there's a whole world to be gained on just that um that way of working and that way of leading uh certain things in in a civil society as it is, maybe you know, internationally, but also nationally. And I think what yeah, one of the things I I think is really important to get here is to um kind of see how this gap is still being held between practitioners and academics, because you know, academics we write for academics, and we don't really write for practitioners, and practitioners write for practitioners and now for academics. So uh yeah, there's this whole language shift that needs to take place in order for us to combine these two worlds.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:13

Yeah, and and hopefully initiatives like this Urnop research notes series will help with that. But as you say, it's kind of it's one part of a much bigger puzzle, it's not going to solve the problem by itself. And it's kind of the thing is to make use of of the things like the research notes.

SPEAKER_03 1:00:27

Yeah, but I think it's also dependent on who makes these research notes. Because I mean, like you, as you said, the fact that you you the you start the you start the conversation with saying, I think your paper is so interesting. I don't know what your personal background is, but what I've often hear is what do you mean with diaspora? I have never come across the term of diaspora. So it is also you need also you also need practitioners who have this you know environment and who are used to certain conceptual terms and and you know the way we used it on in a paper, but then also in in in forms of speech. So I think you know, these are kind of all these uh these variables that need to be present in order for you to actually have this conversation. But I know that if I would give this specific same paper to you know this incredible uh woman who is a very known philanthropist in the Moroccan community, she would really tap me on my shoulders and be like, yo, this is a paper of 40 pages. I think you did a great job, but I actually don't really know what you're talking about. Yeah, is that a is that a problem? And I'm like, no, but that's a very important thing to take into consideration. So, like I said, this is again the language thing and the the bubble, because not everyone in my environment really knows what philanthropy in the first place is.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:46

No, of course. And I I guess there are multiple steps between the version that is done for an academic audience and the practitioner. And so the focus is not on making them read that paper, it's on how do you get the knowledge contained within that paper through the steps needed to get it there. And before I let you go, I just wanted to ask what it is that you're working on now, whether it's kind of more development of the same uh work or whether you've kind of expanded that out a bit more.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:12

Um, it's kind of the development on the same work. Of course, I added a lot more data, but at the moment I'm uh working on fine-tuning my dissertation. And I am specifically uh fine-tuning the last chapter in which I in which I compare diasporic and non-diasporic philanthropists, and then specifically the international diasporic uh philanthropists, also again in the case between Morocco and the Netherlands. And then I raised the question on are diasporic international philanthropists? So, are Moroccan Dutch philanthropists who still perform their philanthropy in Morocco really different from you know a monocultural Dutch philanthropist who has um whatever organization and is also doing philanthropy in Morocco? Is is really is there really a difference between diasporic and non-diasporic philanthropists if they are both raised and come coming from the West? And what this paper is saying is that that is actually not the case. So I'm kind of really diving also into this diversity post-colonial conversation, uh, in both, again, practical sense, but also in academic sense, in which we kind of tell the the one man you are a white man and then the other man we're you're a black man. I think we are both. Um, also as a white person, you know, you can also still have a colored identity. And maybe this is a bit of an utopia uh kind of approach, saying we're all cosmopolitan. But I think I think diasporic is a lot often a lot more Western than they they want to admit. And I think this is also uh, you know, if you've if you've read the paper that you just discussed, is that of course, if if this receiving end is so incredibly open in in you know, literally receiving and welcoming you in the tribe, and you don't feel the same type of inclusion in Western societies, whatever reason it may have or or it may cause, is that of course you you will, you know, you will choose the side that welcomes you and includes you. So that's what I'm working on right now.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:17

Sounds fascinating. Lots of really interesting questions about identity and how that relates to to philanthropy. Um, just remain to say thanks ever so much, Malika, for finding the time to come on the podcast. Um and I certainly look forward to seeing the end result of uh of the research when it's all all finished.

SPEAKER_03 1:04:31

Yeah, thank you so much for having me.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:42

Okay, well, my thanks again to all of the guests on this episode of the podcast, to Barry Holworth and Sevda Kilichalp from Urnop and Philea, uh, to Gerdre Lidicati Huber, to Elisa Ricciutti and Malika Uacha for talking about their research and the research notes based on the papers they put out. Uh I'll put links in all of the show notes to places where you can find more detail on the Earnot project. Um, you can find the research notes themselves, and you can actually find the papers if you want to dig into the detail. Um, if you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. Uh, you can follow me on Twitter at Rodri underscore H underscore Davis or at philiteracy. You can find me on LinkedIn or on Mastodon and various other places as well. If you've got ideas for people that we could talk to on the podcast or topics we could cover in future, do drop us a line at Rodri at why philanthropymatters.com. Other than that, just like, subscribe, tell anybody that you think might like the podcast about it, and I'll see you next time. Bye, but it's a good idea.