SPEAKER_01 0:37

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, Rodri Davis, and we finally got there to this special end of the year 2024 predictions edition of the podcast. So this has become something of an annual tradition. It's something I've done every year since doing this podcast, and is something I did in the previous guys when I used to host the Calf Giving Thought podcast. And essentially it's an opportunity to try and draw on all of the conversations that I've been having throughout the year on the podcast and elsewhere, and all the things that I've been reading and thinking about myself, and try and pull that together into some semblance of what I think the key themes and trends are and some ideas of what 2024 might have in store. It usually proves to be quite a popular episode, so you know I thought it was worth doing, and it's always fun for me, because certainly I found once again doing the research for this and trying to sort of think through what's been going on this year and what might come up next year is always a good mental exercise. I have to say I haven't done one of these sitting down and monologuing episodes of the podcast for a while, because I've had the very pleasant problem of having a surfeit of guests have either said yes to requests that I've made or who've kind of unprompted fallen in my lap. So we've had some great guests on the podcast over the autumn and have already got a couple recorded and a few more lined up, ready to come in the new year. So definitely stay tuned for those. But it does mean that I'm a little bit rusty at the uh the technique involved in doing these sorts of episodes, and particularly this predictions episode, which is quite a content heavy episode often. The usual arc of what happens is that I sit around worrying that I won't have anything to say about anything, sit down, draw together a load of bullet points over the course of a week from work I've done and things I've read, then print it out and realize that actually it's a vast quantity of stuff and that the chances of me getting through it in even an hour are pretty limited. So I'm going to do my best to keep this one pretty pacey. I'll try not to go down too many rabbit holes and digressions so that we kind of cover as many things as possible. It is hard to get into the mental state required for this. It sort of requires almost a weird fugue state where I kind of just monologue into my laptop whilst at home on my own, looking out of the window at a rainy December day. And I don't know about you, but I'm particularly tired this year, and I feel like my concentration has totally kind of got shot to nothing. So actually getting into that, that mental space takes more effort, I think, than than ever before. And before we get properly going, I should say, as I usually do at the start of these episodes, the little caveat that, you know, my aim here is not really to give firm predictions about what exactly is going to happen. It's to do a mixture of kind of drawing on existing themes and trends that I think are the most relevant ones within philanthropy and civil society or kind of externally that have relevance for philanthropy and civil society, and then kind of float some possibilities about where those trends might go and what some of the kind of initial weak signals we're seeing more at the margins might mean in terms of what we should expect next. I should also say slight content warning in that it might well end up being a bit depressing. You know, I'm reasonably kind of optimistic person in terms of you know the way that I kind of work through these things, but I have to say, you know, at the moment it feels as though when you sit down to say what's likely to happen over the next year or coming years, the answer is usually not sunshine and lollipops. Maybe that's because it's kind of easier to take that slightly critical or pessimistic stance and to identify the things that are going wrong or could go wrong, or it might just be a reflection of the fact that the world is actually quite depressing right now. So, you know, see what you think about that. Okay, well, let's get started. What I want to do, I want to sort of focus the main body of the podcast on some specific thoughts about philanthropy and charitable giving and foundations and the work of nonprofits. And then I want to talk as well in some depth about some themes and trends within emerging technology and how those relate to philanthropy in civil society. But before I get into that, I just want to cover off some of the kind of bigger macro trends out there in terms of the economy and politics and the environment and climate, just to flag some of those up and also kind of to why they are really relevant in understanding the wider context for what is likely to happen within the world of philanthropy over the coming year. I should say, you know, these are the sorts of trends and predictions that you can go off and listen to podcasts by, you know, The Economist or Chat Chatham House or the New York Times. So if you if you want somebody's take on what's going to happen in politics and and economics over the next year, you know, this is not the place just to get that information. So I'm going to kind of go through it relatively quickly and just sort of focus on where it is of relevance for philanthropy and civil society. So I guess the first thing to say about the kind of macroeconomic context is it isn't very good. I mean, that that is not the most incisive commentary that you're going to hear about economics, I would imagine, you know, uh looking ahead to 2024. But essentially, I mean, most experts seem to believe that we are heading towards a general kind of economic slowdown in most countries worldwide and certainly at a global scale, that might turn into a full-blown recession, either at a global level or certainly in some places, in the US potentially and in the UK. But you know, generally, there are very few people out there that I've seen that whose prognosis is that the economic situation is going to improve over the short term. So I think in terms of the situation that non-profits and donors have found themselves in over the last year or 18 months, in terms of there being cost of living crisis and an economic squeeze that has put real pressure on charity finances and also potentially might have a sort of depressing effect on donations. Those conditions are going to continue, if not to get slightly more acute. And so that is something that we need to be sort of factoring into all of our decision making as we look ahead. In terms of the political climate, I think a lot of what you'll see if you look around at political predictions for 2024 is that it is going to be a huge year for democracy, without sort of getting too grand. I think there is a sense that it could be relatively decisive in terms of where democracy around the world goes over the next few decades. And that's partly because there are so many elections and so many sort of substantive elections happening. So we probably will have our own election here in the UK, a general election for a new government and prime minister. Potentially that could happen at any point up until January 2025. So it's possible it will creep into there, but most experts seem to think it will most likely be in autumn 2024. You know, the current betting based on polling is that that will see a change of party and that the Conservative governments and coalition governments that we've had since 2010 will be replaced by a Labour government. You know, it's difficult at the moment for anybody to say with certainty what that will mean in policy terms, because Labour are, you know, understandably as the opposition party playing their cards relatively close to their chest, and they will also be in a pretty thankless situation of inheriting a very difficult economic and political climate. So it will be interesting to see what they do. If, you know, as that those polls suggest, we do get a change of government and you know a party uh that a Labour government under Keir Starmer is installed, it will be really interesting to see what that means for civil society and governmental attitudes towards charity and philanthropy as well, because we've had a few indications, and you know, I don't work in this world directly anymore, but my understanding is there's been some relatively good kind of contact and engagement with the current sort of uh shadow labour teams around philanthropy and civil society, but no clear indication yet, certainly, of what their kind of big vision is for civil society and and philanthropy. So, you know, plenty of space there to kind of fill in that that narrative if if they do come into power. Um, the other big well, not the only other big election, but obviously the one very big election that will capture lots of attention around the world is the US election, which will take place definitely next year. Obviously, that at the moment is pitched as a question about whether Joe Biden can win a second term for the Democrats or whether Donald Trump will rather, you know, miraculously and somewhat terrifyingly win re-election as the Republican candidate. You know, that is of a huge concern for lots of people, obviously, because of what happened during uh the previous term that he was there, but also the you know the fact that he has subsequently been subject to criminal charges and indictments, and has essentially said that if he gets into power he's going to rule as a dictator. And so, in terms of that question about what's going to happen to democracy, I think there's some really kind of substantive points there. But there are also lots of other elections as well. There's some big EU elections which will see pretty major changes in terms of the makeup of the European Union. There's also big individual country elections in places like India, South Africa, and South Korea, which are you know huge players on the global stage, and so what happens in those countries will obviously have a determinate effect, you know, in other places as well. And I think you know, that's just in terms of the trends that we're seeing and and causes for for concern for some people. I think one of them is the ongoing surge in kind of right wing populism and and nationalist populism. And we've seen relatively recently election wins in Argentina for right-wing populists and in the Netherlands, and we're getting wilders and sort of came in from the the wilderness, if you'll excuse that terrible pun that just occurred to me, and has has sort of become more of a mainstream politician despite his previous extremely extreme views on immigration and and other issues. And I guess that mention of immigration is important as well, because you know, even if you don't take the same view as right-wing populists about immigration issues, one of the sort of key political trends is that is that immigration is an unavoidably huge issue. And one of the challenges for centrist parties or for left-wing parties around the world is to find a way of having a position on increasing immigration and migration that sort of answers the concerns of the populace, but without just playing into the hands of right-wing nationalists. Another important political trend that I wanted to flag up that I think is really important for civil society in particular, is that one of the things that we are worryingly seeing in quite a few places is a sort of pushback, a rollback, or a reversal of very hard-won human rights and kind of aspects of social progress that you know up until now we might have sort of championed as having moved, or you know, those of us with a progressive mindset might have championed as having moved society forwards, but which are now not only under attack but have actively been dismantled. So I'm thinking here of the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling in the US, which has led to attacks on reproductive rights more broadly in the US and elsewhere. And we're also seeing a backlash against rights for LGBTQ people across Africa, particularly earlier this year in Uganda, there was a really quite draconian anti-homosexuality act introduced, which I think has raised lots of concerns about that as a direction of travel. And I guess that sense for civil society in philanthropy that you can't be complacent that once you fought hard for some kind of change in society and and you know public attitudes and the law, that that will, you know, that that represents an inexorable forward movement and that actually the you know these things can go backwards. And so there probably is a lot of work for philanthropy to do in defending the rights that we've already won, not just seeking to extend those to new rights. At a smaller scale, I guess the other couple of things I wanted to flag up in terms of political themes, one that is very much the case here in the UK, but I'm sure also is felt in other places, is that at a local government level, there are huge challenges in terms of public funding and budgets. There's lots of stories of local councils in the UK going bankrupt, essentially, or they're legally not allowed to go bankrupt, I don't think, but having to kind of declare themselves insolvent. And for many charities that rely on government contracts and local government contracts, this is a huge challenge. I mean, firstly, that if that does happen, those contracts might just be cut and those charities will suddenly find their income sources massively reduced. There's also the challenge that we're increasingly, it's been reported relatively recently, seeing a situation where even where charities do have contracts, they're often priced well below the actual cost of delivering services. So, you know, they are being seen as a cheap option because they can subsidize the cost of delivering services through donations or volunteer hours, and that obviously sets a relatively dangerous precedent. Or, you know, the even more extreme end, there's the the cases in which those in local government who are facing incredibly difficult funding and budgetary decisions decide that actually philanthropy and charities are something of you know an emergency measure that can be invoked to fill gaps in in public funding and public provision. And that raises, you know, I mean, firstly, I think it practical questions, does that actually work in practice? And in most cases, no, it doesn't because there's a mismatch of scale. But also it raises really kind of you know quite fundamental um democratic points about what we have expectations of in terms of government provision and where our rights are in terms of demanding that the state provides for us and what it is acceptable for charities to provision uh to deliver. So I think you know we're going to see a lot more focus on that over the coming year as well. I think as well as at a geographic level, we'll see cutbacks in certain cause areas, which will raise similar questions. I'm thinking particularly of the arts here. We've already seen quite significant cutbacks to arts funding in the UK and an increasing emphasis among arts organisations on needing to raise philanthropic funding. And we're seeing that in other cause areas as well, which, you know, to some extent is a pragmatic reality, but then also raises a challenge because you can't magically go from not really, you know, engaging with high net worth fundraising or philanthropic funders to doing it really, really successfully. And there still is only a you know a relatively limited pool of that funding out there. I mean, hopefully we can find ways of increasing it. But assuming that we can just kind of tell organisations to go and raise money from philanthropy, I think is, you know, is a kind of a utopian pipe dream, or or if it's not utopian, it's a slightly dystopian pipe dream of politicians and uh commentators who want to find ways of of justifying uh cuts to public expenditure. And I guess the final thing to say on the the ta on the politics side of things is I think you know we've seen some indications that there's gonna be a battle around tax and sort of tax cuts as we move into kind of electoral cycles in the UK and elsewhere. You know, opening salvo, and this was kind of cast relatively recently here in the autumn statement when it was suggested there were going to be cuts to to inheritance tax, which is seems to most people like a very overtly political move, because it doesn't really make any sense economically, because you know it's only a very small number of wealthy people who currently really pay inheritance tax, and it won't raise an enormous amount of money, and or none, you know, certainly not enough to do anything meaningful. So it's clearly designed to try and draw you know a political or cultural dividing line between parties in the run-up to an election. And I think this will throw more focus, as if more focus was needed, on issues of wealth inequality and how that's reflected in the political system. And then just to touch on issues around environment and climate, I think it's just a few things to say here. I mean, obviously, you know, an increasing, an ongoing awareness that these are huge issues. And I think a sense of frustration amongst many people, myself included, and lots of NGOs and philanthropic funders, that just not enough is being done by governments and by um the private sector in terms of facing up to the scale of the challenges and the and the urgency. I think linking it to the the points about politics, one of the dangers is that climate is becomes a political issue because it there are signs that it's sort of being used as a dividing line and a you know culture war effort to distinguish between the populist right and and kind of other parties, and that actually there's a reframing of climate is not something that does affect all of us and that we all kind of have a collective agreement and responsibility to address, but as something that is, you know, only on the preserve of the kind of you know liberal metropolitan elite or or as part of the the woke agenda. And that that's hugely dangerous, I think, that reframing. And again, it's sort of slightly at one lower level than that, not quite as extreme. I think it's even a concern that sometimes it's framed as if, you know, yes, green issues matter, but in the context where we're facing a cost of living crisis, they are essentially a kind of a luxury issue that we don't have the luxury of concerning ourselves with now, and we can return to them later. But obviously that ignores the fact that we don't necessarily have the luxury of time, and also that in many places around the world i issues of poverty and inequality and climate are inextricably linked because it is you know the communities and people who are often you know the poorest and most marginalized who are being affected now by the impacts of climate change. So for them, this this is very much an immediate and real challenge. Um and then I guess the the one other thing um to say there in terms of climate that's relevant for philanthropy and civil society, particularly, is I think we're gonna see more and more scrutiny of what role philanthropy is playing and what role it could be playing in future around funding climate issues. I think at the moment the sense is there isn't enough climate-focused philanthropy, and also that where there is climate-focused philanthropy, it often restricts itself to relatively sort of traditional approaches that might focus on sort of conservation and preservation and and and even things like rewilding. And that these this raises some questions in the context of increasing concerns about environmental justice and sort of balancing the need to address climate issues and biodiversity issues with respecting the the needs and rights of you know the communities in in many of the parts of the world where those issues are being felt. And there have been a few articles this year looking at sort of uh uh examples of philanthropy funding rewilding in a big way, you know, many of which are sort of positive in many senses. And I, you know, I have to admit that I I generally find that I kind of automatically approve of these things, but then it raises awkward questions about whether, you know, funders from the global north are sometimes using their resources to buy up large tracts of land in in the global south and then you know, kind of preserving those as wilderness areas, but not recognizing, you know, the the priorities and rights of people and you know communities that were already existing in those areas. And that and that can be quite a challenge. So I think you know there are some there's definitely some grit in the oyster there, and I think we will see more and more focus on that in the coming years. Okay, well, I think we've got through that relatively quickly, 20 minutes I have it at. So I'm gonna move on now in the next section to start focusing on specifically on some points around giving and philanthropy. So stay tuned for that.

SPEAKER_00 20:25

Back where I come from, there are men who do nothing all day but good deeds. They are called Philip uh Philip uh good deed doers.

SPEAKER_01 21:14

In particular, and what's kind of going on, what trends we've seen, and what to look out for over the coming year. Again, I will try and you know go through these at a reasonably high level and and kind of draw some threads between them, but not go into any of them in too much detail, because they are things many of which I've kind of covered in detail on the podcast before, or which I've covered in articles on why philanthropy matters. So I'll try and put lots of links in the show notes to where you can dive into them in more detail if you want to. So the first thing I want to to do is just look at kind of everyday giving. So, you know, what might be called mass market giving, or the the kind of giving that, you know, you or I, unless you happen to be extremely wealthy philanthropists listening, in in which case, hello. There's a section for you in a moment. But for the rest of us, you know, the kind of giving that we are able to do. I guess the first thing to say there is a lot of the narrative this year has been focusing on whether there is a decline in giving overall, and particularly in that sort of everyday giving. We've seen this in the US around the Giving USA figures released earlier this year, also around the initial figures from this year's Giving Tuesday. We've seen in the UK, um, the CAF UK giving report this year suggests that the kind of long-term trend was towards an overall decline in giving. And recently I've seen similar figures from Canada and there are figures from elsewhere. So this does seem to be a kind of it's felt in different ways in different places, but it's an overall trend. And in most of those places, the trend is slightly more complicated than just, oh, giving is down overall. It tends to be that actually what's been identified is that levels of giving have gone down slowly but remained relatively static. But what's clear is that levels of participation, particularly amongst those giving at slightly lower levels, that's where the hollowing out has occurred, and that and that the overall top line figures have been slightly balanced out by people on higher incomes giving slightly more. And what this sort of creates is an unbalanced in financing environment for charities and for civil society where increasingly they are reliant on a smaller number of donors giving higher amounts. And those donors might be individuals, but they might also be corporates or foundations. And I guess the the concern about this is that, well, one, there's a practical concern that raises real challenges for fundraising in an environment where it's already incredibly competitive, and if you know organizations are increasingly having to compete for a smaller pool of donors and funders, that's going to make things even more difficult. There's also, I guess, a sort of demo demographic element to this. If those donors, as one suspects, are that are giving higher amounts of money, are those who are in sort of older age brackets, which would be unsurprising given the way that sort of demographics and the general distribution of wealth looks in the world at the moment, then maybe it's sustainable for a while, but you know, the unfortunate reality is those donors won't be around forever. And if they're not being replaced by younger donors as they as they shuffle off this mortal coil, then that overall pool of resources for the sector will actually eventually kind of decline and dry up. And then there's the more sort of theoretical point that if the charitable sector and civil society is reliant on a smaller number of sources of funding, that creates a kind of democratic concern because the legitimacy of civil society in terms of taking action and campaigning and speaking out is to some extent based on being able to point to a broad base of concern. Whereas if its funding profile suggests that actually it is increasingly kind of being dictated by the interests of a relatively small minority of people, and certainly, you know, if they're those with more resources, that might kind of exacerbate concerns about the anti-democratic influence of philanthropy. So I think we will see you know more and more discussion of this over the coming year. And I think what we might see as well is a move from kind of noticing this decline and sort of wondering about whether it's a real phenomenon or not, to more of a kind of emphasis on kind of what we're going to do about it practically. Because I think, in a way, you know, the evidence seems to be sufficient now that actually we need to shift to taking action. And what that action looks like, I think, is a really interesting question, and which just brings me to the last point on this, which is one of the kind of hypotheses about what might be going on here is that actually what we're looking at is not a decline in generosity or a kind of crisis in giving, but a change in the nature of how people choose to give and to do good in the world. And that what's actually happening is that people, increasingly younger people, I guess, are giving in different ways. So maybe they're giving, you know, via online platforms to their friends or to other individuals, or, you know, they're using their consumer behavior to do good by kind of shopping with companies that that also profess to do social good, or they're getting involved with online campaigns that are not run by charities, you know, kind of Black Lives Matter or Me Too or that kind of thing. And if that is the case, and the ways in which we measure generosity or in which we sort of draw boundaries around philanthropy and and giving are not also changing to take account of that, then obviously it looks like there's a decline in giving. But maybe it's just that giving is evolving, and the way in which we think about philanthropy and the charity sector needs to evolve too. And whether that, you know, requires fairly radical rethink of the way in which kind of organizations think about their fundraising, or whether it even starts to raise questions about whether you know the way in which we kind of impose legal structures on charity and on non-profits is still fit for purpose. I don't know, I mean, whether we'll get to that point this year, I doubt, but but I suspect that you know, if this overall decline continues in coming years, we will start to see more people proposing more sort of radical ideas around that. I guess one of the other things that we've seen around the sort of everyday giving space that's been really interesting, I think, is an increased willingness, I think, to learn from other cultures. I think I've seen this in the US, and I think, you know, we've seen it to some extent in the UK and elsewhere. There's a sort of globalization of our understanding of generosity that I find really encouraging and really healthy. I think increasingly, you know, you see this in Giving Tuesday. So I I think Giving Tuesday is a fascinating movement now. And and, you know, when it started, I thought it was a neat idea, but not something that particularly kind of excited or inspired me. The whole sort of, oh, it's a, you know, it's a kind of let's do some giving to traditional non-profits as an antidote to Black Friday and Cyber Monday, and it's relatively US focused. Yeah, fine, interesting. But it's evolved over the last 10 years into a sort of genuinely fascinating, decentralized movement that is putting a lot of time and effort into trying to kind of reframe what we mean when we talk about giving and talking about ideas of sort of radical generosity. And a lot of that, because it is so global in nature, is about understanding what cultures of giving and generosity look like in other countries and actually how many different traditions there are of giving and solidarity and generosity and mutual support, and actually sort of expanding our understanding of what we're talking about when we talk about philanthropy and giving accordingly. And I think that's really great because you know, often certainly, you know, in the UK and the US, I don't think we've had the humility to think that we might be able to learn from other cultures when it comes to philanthropy or to charity. I think there's been a sort of exceptionalism, you know, we've thought, well, we've been doing this stuff for for ages very successfully. And so if we're going to engage with other countries, it's going to be on the basis of them wanting to learn from us. And actually, maybe there's there's an acknowledgement now that there is, you know, plenty that can be learned from other countries that is relevant for you know for those of us in the UK and and the US and elsewhere as well. And then another thing I think that is kind of has come out of that and is is linked to it is I see an increasing focus on the idea that giving is not necessarily sort of an individual act. And I think we've had a very individualist, sort of atomized conception of giving and and philanthropy for quite a while. Or certainly within you know some of the traditions that we've had within the UK and the US, I think it's important to say because that isn't true of many of the other traditions of giving that we see around the world. But what those traditions of giving have that we're now starting to wake up to more, you know, in in global north, you know, philanthropy world, is the importance of collectivism and sort of collective approaches. And so we're seeing a huge rise in things like giving circles and sort of you know identity-based networks of donors and and sort of funders coming together in acknowledgement that you know they they can't and don't want to do all of this stuff by themselves, and that actually we should sort of see giving as an expression of our collective values, and that you know, therefore we need to kind of collaborate and and work together. And I think that is, you know, really positive and encouraging. I guess the other point here about mass market giving, well, one, there's a few actually, and say the other one I keep I keep saying, oh, and here's just the final thing, but there's there's loads more on these sheets. In fact, I'm barely on page two. But one of them is about the sort of platformization of giving. So I mentioned already the idea that maybe increasingly a lot of giving is happening in the form of people, you know, giving to individuals or unregistered groups on crowdfunding platforms. And I think you know that is true. But what we're also seeing is people increasingly using totally non-charitable platforms, so sort of social media platforms and commercial payment platforms and things like Cash App and Venmo to give. And when they do, it is true. Some of it goes to nonprofits, but a lot of it goes to unregistered groups and sort of short-term campaigns and to individuals. And I think you know that this raises all sorts of fascinating questions to me, this kind of slight disintermediation of giving, or perhaps not disintermediation, because you know, it is still highly intermediated by the platform, but who gets to intermediate is changing. It's no longer the charities or the non-profits that sort of have the intershrine social mission, but it is potentially a kind of commercial tech provider. And that that is one of the things that raises lots of questions. You know, what is the motivation of that tech provider? Well, they might have a social motive of some sort, if we're lucky, but they also primarily have an interest in engaging users and in keeping their attention and in keeping them using the platform. And the drivers for that are not necessarily going to be well aligned with the interests of civil society, in my opinion. So I think there are lots of questions to raise about, you know, some of the concerns that we might want to have about increasing dependence on commercial platforms. And I think there are questions then about practical ones, like who gets to decide what you can give to through a particular platform, because it might not necessarily be a full picture of what you could potentially give to within civil society or more broadly if the platform is taking decisions of its own based on criteria that may be extremely lacking in transparency about not allowing certain things on the platform. And there's already been some sort of controversies about that. I think also there's a question that we'll come back to a bit when we talk about technology, about what role algorithmic processes are playing in determining the information that we see that might guide our decisions about where to give. But who is designing those algorithms and what are the goals of them that they've been designed with, if you know, if they're designed by commercial platforms? And then I think there are some really interesting questions about, you know, as people are able to give through platforms and maybe move away from giving to traditional nonprofits and to you know give instead to groups and individuals, in what ways is this testing the boundaries of what we mean by philanthropy? And I'm thinking here particularly of lots of the examples we've seen recently, unfortunately, in sort of conflict situations like we had in Ukraine and also now we have in Israel-Palestine, where, you know, in this age of disintermediated giving, people are able to give to individuals or to groups on the ground, but they're able to do so, I mean, yes, to fund medical care and humanitarian relief of the sort that we might, you know, sort of see as unquestioningly charitable. But also, you know, they're able to buy weaponry and and you know, armaments and ammunition. And, you know, to what point, you know, at what point do we stop thinking that that is philanthropic, even if it's sort of well motivated because it's actually, you know, the overall harm that is that is done by those things, even if the the person giving the resources to support it very firmly believes that one side or the other is right. You know, does that stop being philanthropy and start being something else? And what does that mean for our kind of understanding of generosity and altruism in the f in the future? The other couple of things I wanted to say about mass market giving. I mean, one is that I think one of the most interesting things I've seen over the last couple of years is a real sort of re-emphasis of the importance of heart and humanity. So there's always been this question about you know whether giving is primarily about the head or the heart, and whether it's, you know, is it coldly rational and objective and driven by evidence and data, or is it something that's sort of emotive and you know subjective and responsive to human need? And and usually neither has been the case. There's always been both elements of it, although there have been people who've sort of pushed for one or the other. I think after a relatively long period over the last few decades in which efficiency and rationality have been seen as the kind of primary goals of of philanthropy, I think we're seeing maybe something of a sort of counter-revolution. So there's more emphasis on the importance of heart and humanity and and that kind of you know connection between people, not as a sort of you know squishy, fluffy, soft option, but actually as something that's kind of vital to maintaining the integrity of philanthropy and its and its kind of basic nature. And you know, you see this reflected in the way that people like Mackenzie Scott are going about doing their giving, where they're sort of unafraid to talk about the emotional element of it and the importance of heart. And I sort of wonder if this might speak to people or to some people as well. I mean, yes, there are there are lots of people who like the rationality and effectiveness and efficiency narrative, and you know, the success of the effective altruism movement's testament to that. But I think also, you know, we're increasingly living in an atomized and quite anxiety-ridden world. And, you know, as I've been reading reports, you know, about trends in society, a few of them have touched on things like the rise of spirituality and also the kind of desire for you know pleasurable distractions. And and all of that is predicated on the idea that, you know, the world as we live in it now is quite stressful and people are finding it too much. And you know, people are looking for things to make them feel better, and you know, the huge growth in the sort of wellness industry again is testament to that. But actually, the idea that we could allow the, you know, the idea that that giving is at least in part about, you know, human connection and you know, warmth and kindness and feeling good, you know, that becomes quite a sort of pragmatic idea if part of the goal is, yes, to ensure that people give in a way that does meet the requirements of those who are in need, but also actually recognizing that the act of giving is good for the giver as well and that that actually benefits us all as a as a society. So I think, you know, finding that that balance between what it does for the donor and what it does for the recipient is is always a challenge. But I do think there is a legitimacy to focusing on that question of what it does for the donor, but in a way that is not just about sort of putting the donor's needs above those of the recipient or or kind of falling back into entirely sort of donor-directed models of fundraising or giving or sort of top-down models of philanthropy, but is just about acknowledging that actually that that relationship between giver and receiver has benefits for both, and understanding that is quite important. Um, here endeth the lesson on that one. And then the final one um that I had jotted down on this question of mass market giving is about moods and moments. Um so I was struck by a little phrase that I saw in a one of the reports that I that I read by soon, a future forecast. They said, you know, boxing people into clear-cut segments is becoming a quickly outdated process. In the future, understanding moods and moments will be the differentiator that keeps your company resonating with young people. So they're obviously talking about branding and marketing here, but it struck me that this is actually quite important and relevant for charities and nonprofits as well. And the question it raised in my mind was, you know, are charities increasingly going to need to learn to adapt to a world in which people's identities and affiliations are are more fluid and temporary than than they are, you know, maybe traditionally have been when people would, you know, affiliate with a particular cause or organization over the longer term. But that actually when, even though people's affiliations and identities might be more fluid and temporary, when they do attach to something, the attachment is potentially much stronger. So people, you know, want to participate and might be more minded to give and be more active, but that you can't assume that they all want to do that forever. And you know, what does this mean for how you go about kind of engaging donors? Because you might have to shift from an expectation that once you onboard a donor, they're there for the long haul through to a kind of more continuous process of having to adapt and kind of reach out to new groups whose enthusiasm for your cause or for the work you're doing might be white hot for a short period of time, but then they'll move on to something else. So I think there's something really interesting there as well. Right, I just wanted to shift from mass market giving to philanthropy at this point and just think through a few things that we might see there. So I guess the headline for me is that I think we'll see uh ongoing kind of criticism and critique about philanthropy. It's been very much the kind of backdrop of the last few years. And one thing I think's been interesting this year is I think there's been more considered and widespread critique, not just of wealth inequality, but a sort of focus in on the idea of billionaire wealth as a particular problem. I think an idea that it's kind of qualitatively different, perhaps, from sort of mass market wealth, and that maybe that is where there needs to be a particular policy focus. So I think, you know, we might see, you know, in terms of calls for for wealth taxes and, you know, sort of critical focus on philanthropy, maybe that will be accompanied by more of a specific critical focus on the philanthropy of the elites. And certainly, again, there's, you know, I think going to be a renewed wave of that in the the new year, certainly, because there's a new book by Timothy Schwab out about Bill Gates, which is, I think, a relatively kind of harsh view of him. And I think there are other books coming out that are quite critical of philanthropy. But whether there will be sort of more of a sense that those criticisms are aimed at those within that that very, very top wealth bracket, but actually in that kind of longer tale of people who still, you know, have large amounts of money, you know, and want to engage in philanthropy. Maybe some of these criticisms don't apply in quite the same way to them. I don't know. It'll be interesting to see. I think the other thing that'll be interesting to see is, you know, we've been talking for it feels like a decade or more now about the the great wealth transfer and the importance of sort of next generation philanthropists. And I think we will start to see that come through more and more. And I wonder whether what we'll see is kind of at the time where we have some of these more critical narratives about the the role that philanthropy plays in relation to inequality and its role within a democracy. One thing I've noticed when I've talked to sort of next gen philanthropists is that they they're kind of their starting point is to have is to be relatively aware of those those kinds of concerns and critiques and to have internalized. And for some of them, maybe that is almost a sort of paralyzing thing. It's almost they're, you know, they're so self-critical they don't quite know what to do. But for those who move past that point, I think what's really interesting is often they will, you know, they will have quite a holistic view where they might, you know, be interested in calls for for wealth taxes, or at least in general, sort of acknowledging the necessity for taxation that addresses inequality. But they also, you know, will think about where the money is coming from and what their business practices are and where their investments go as well. But fundamentally, if they're doing philanthropy, they will have sort of made a decision that, well, you know, I have all of these critiques and concerns, but I'm not going to let that stop me just getting on with doing something and doing it in the best way that I can and not letting the best be the enemy of the good. And I think that that is a kind of interesting form of sort of you know pragmatism about philanthropy. I guess a couple of other things to say about philanthropy at a global level are that, you know, I think we're going to be increasingly aware of the rise of both China and India. I mean, obviously, demographically, those two countries sort of dwarf all others. And I think we're, you know, India certainly has a long history of philanthropy, and there's some sort of major philanthropists coming out of there. But increasingly, I think, you know, we'll see more awareness of mass market philanthropy in India as well. And again, perhaps that sense that, you know, I think there has been, hesitate to say, a sort of colonial mindset, but uh quite an arrogant mindset from those of us in the global north that actually, you know, when philanthropy does emerge in places like India and China, what they will naturally want to do is look to the models that we have sort of established in the UK and the US and just to kind of copy those wholesale. And I just don't think that will be the case. I think they might take elements from them that they like and that they want to replicate, but they will also develop their own models and a culture of giving that reflects their particular. Cultural and historical and social context. So I think it will look quite different, certainly in India, and even more so potentially in China. So I think you know that will that might have quite a determinate effect on sort of shifting the center of gravity in terms of philanthropy at a global level. So I think that'll be really interesting. The other thing that I wanted to just flag up, which um I think will uh be quite a big issue, is increasing cases in which there's a real tension between recipient organizations and a donor that results in sort of the donor exerting power through deciding to withdraw their donations or to recoup them. I think we'll see this around extremely contentious issues. So it's certainly something the thing that made me think it is that around the whole situation in Israel and Palestine, there have been a few examples in the US, I think, where higher education institutions, mostly, I think, and maybe some nonprofits have taken a position on those issues that is at odds with, you know, one that a donor feels very strongly. And that donor has then decided that they want, you know, to trust almost to punish the organization, the recipient, by clawing back that money or demanding that they they return it or sort of severing that funding relationship. And I guess, you know, the situation, unfortunately, in Israel and Palestine is almost certainly going to continue for a while. And it feels as though there will be other similarly polarizing and polarized events that we will have to deal with. And I think it's difficult in you know all walks of life on some of these issues to find common ground or or to find you know an acceptance of you know points of view of others on on different sides of issues. And in philanthropy, I think where that plays out most problematically is in these kind of mismatches between donors and organizations they fund that find themselves on on different sides of an issue. So I think we'll see more cases of that. Linked to that, actually, just one thing I wanted to talk about specifically was the question of tainted donations. So this is you know the idea that there are some sources of money that are so problematic and raise kind of ethical concerns that we need to, you know, essentially question whether it's okay to take the money at all and try and put it to good uses, or whether actually it's better to just keep your hands clean as a as a charity or a recipient organization. As we've talked about on the podcast before, and we've done a whole episode on this, there's a very long history of these concerns, been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and there will definitely be more cases over the coming year. I guess that's the first thing to say. Um, the couple of other things just to throw in that I think we'll see that that might you know add new dimensions to this. One are that in the UK, an interesting curveball is thrown by recent comments from the chair of the charity commission for England and Wales, the regulator for charities in England and Wales. And he gave a speech recently, which I was actually in the audience for. And in the course of that, he was talking about tainted donations and the refusal or returning of donations, and uh made a point about these decisions to return or refuse donations couldn't be made on the basis of personal squeamishness on the part of trustees in order to kind of bolster their own sense of righteousness, which in a strictly legal sense was, you know, it's kind of objectively true that you can't make the decision on that basis. And actually the the legal bar in terms of returning on refusing donations has always been high. But I think what was interesting about this was it suggested a new narrative approach from the regulator, which kind of said, Well, actually, you know, the the default is that we will assume that you need to take the money and that you really will have to justify that quite you know strongly if you decide not to. And the, you know, even if the the legal situation hasn't changed, the the shift in emphasis and tone there, I think, might, you know, influence the thinking of organizations that find themselves in the situation of having to make these decisions about certain donations. And I guess as well as that that narrative from the regulator, just the financial context as well makes these decisions harder. So the more that funding is difficult to come by, you know, the the more that um an organization has to really think pretty hard when faced with a donation, the offer of a donation or an actual donation they've already received, which represents real, actual, tangible money that they can put towards their work and their mission, and what they're balancing that against in terms of probably some you know potential reputational risk or damage to their relationship with supporters or the public, which might well be a totally justifiable and real risk and concern, but is more difficult to quantify. And as that that financial and economic situation gets worse, that that balance sort of tips, I think, more it towards, you know, well, take take the money. And one of the interesting things I've heard there is I've heard some people that I've spoken to who represent organisations in the global south say that, you know, that the resource scarcity that they face is such that they don't really think about these issues that often because the the pragmatics just dictate that they need to take the money from where it is available. And I'm not saying that is the right approach, and I think, you know, I personally think there are really genuinely quite deep and important ethical questions about whether or not you accept money from tainted sources, but it's just a reminder that, you know, in some ways this might be a sort of luxury for organizations that have the, you know, the ability to say no to donations, and some organizations just don't find themselves in that position because it's a choice between not existing at all or taking money from sources that they're somewhat uncomfortable with. So I think this this whole question around tainted donations is going to get more complex over the coming year, particularly as I think pressure on charities and non-profits is increasingly coming from multiple directions. So it's yes, it's from the donors themselves who want to give them the money, but it's also, you know, it's from other supporters. And increasingly, you know, as we said, the regulator there in the UK is is kind of chipping in, but also from the wider public who are who are now you know more aware of where sources of funding might be coming from or able to find that information and to express a view about it. And so actually, in terms of you know, weighing up the pros and cons of accepting money from certain sources and the risks of doing so, actually, those calculations become much more complex. On the sort of broader question around foundations and grant making, I think again, what we'll see here is more critique and criticism. I think we've seen quite a lot of that over the last few years from within the foundation sector. I think I'm I've been struck a lot of the time by how many people who work in foundations and grant makers are kind of have taken on board some of the criticisms and critiques, even the more polemic ones that have been around over the last few years, about, you know, both about the sort of fundamental nature of foundations and the role they play, and about their their practices and the way that they go about making their grants. And I think for some people, again, that self-criticism has almost got to the point where they're not quite sure why they do what they do, and they they find themselves almost having a sort of existential crisis. I think what we've seen over the past year, and I think we'll see more of, is more mainstream external criticism of foundations as well. I think certain issues seem to have just about crept into public consciousness. I think around power dynamics to some extent, I think around specific structures like donor-advised funds and some of the issues they raise about sort of lack of transparency and and money getting sort of stuck in bottlenecks. And then also I think, you know, recently in the UK, the the debate about whether or not we need a mandatory payout rate has once again raised its head and and is, you know, is a debate that tends to not really result in a lot of agreement amongst people in the foundation world. So I think that will be something that will kind of rumble on over the the coming year, certainly in the UK. You know, and I think at the the same time as we're seeing criticism around certainly things like don't advise funds, their their use will continue to grow because I mean that that trend has been sort of inexorably upwards, certainly in in the US over the last decade or so. And I wonder if we'll also see you know continued use of non-standard foundation-like structures. So, you know, there's been a noted tendency for people from the tech world when it comes to philanthropy to think about setting up limited liability companies instead of traditional foundations. And I think maybe we'll see more and more of that. Um, I think on the side of you know the the practices that that foundations do, on the positive side, I wonder if we will hopefully see more experimentation with things like participatory methods, which might may potentially kind of address some of the issues around power imbalances and the sort of you know democratic um accountability within uh within foundations and grant making. Just a couple of thoughts here about corporates and companies in philanthropy as well. I guess the one of the really interesting questions to me is as we're increasingly talking, it seems, about companies trying to balance profit and purpose and to find ways of sort of combining their needs to make money with their sort of desire to have a social purpose. How does you know, does that sometimes maintaining that balance present real challenges? And I'm thinking particularly when there are issues where there are kind of potentially contentious causes and companies decide that you know they want to take a stand on those, how does that play out in reality? Because you know, they need pragmatically in terms of returning you know profits for themselves and for investors to work with governments around the world and make sure that they are meeting the needs of customers. But if those customers have different views and values, you know, what do they do? Do they say, well, we won't work in those jurisdictions or or kind of you know, we're happy to lose those customers? Or do they decide that they will sort of go with the grain? And you know, do they do that on a sort of case-by-case basis in different places around the world? But then I guess the the flip side of that is that sort of pragmatism can be met with a lot of you know skepticism or even cynicism if they're seen to be taking a sort of inconsistent approach. So if a company says, for instance, oh yeah, yeah, you know, we're really, really behind LGBTQ rights and issues, you know, or power the pride movement, but then goes and works in countries in the Middle East or in Africa that have very repressive attitudes towards that and you know, dial down any mention of that side of their work when they're there, people, you know, these days are not stupid, they're able to see that and they will naturally just therefore assume that everything that company says about that is you know entirely just a sort of PR exercise. So I think there is a real question there about you know the competing demands of profit and purpose in that that context. I think the other way in which you know profit and purpose might potentially sort of be in tension has been demonstrated by the recent case of OpenAI and the firing and then rehiring of Sam Altman. And this to me was fascinating because one of the angles on it was that this sort of hybrid structure of OpenAI, where it is essentially started life as a non-profit, developed a commercial subsidiary, but that is still overseen by the non-profit, was seen to be at the core of the chaos that ensued because there was a eventually a sort of incommensurable mismatch between the non-profit was trying to do in its values and its mission and what they wanted to do on the commercial side. And actually, this I think this is really interesting and how this will play out over the coming year, because up till now, a lot of the discussion around you know hybrid structures that combine profit and purpose has been pretty positive and glowing. So obviously, um a year or so ago, Yvonne Schuinard decided to hand Patagonia over into non-profit ownership, and you know, this was met with mostly kind of extremely positive reviews, and we haven't seen loads more big examples yet, although Michael Bloomberg announced this year that he was planning to do something similar, certainly when he dies. But actually, if the narrative starts to shift within the tech world towards the view that you can't successfully combine profit and purpose in a hybrid structure because it always just gets in the way of the you know the commercial demands of of growth and and success and developing the technology, I wonder if that will start to cool enthusiasm elsewhere. And I would you know be concerned about that. I guess the other side of this again is where companies have uh combined profits and purpose, there's a concern that if that is made too easy or if the structures that that are put in place to allow that to happen aren't sufficiently robust or don't have sufficiently robust accountability mechanisms with them, there's a danger of sort of purpose washing happening. And there have been a few examples of B corporations, for instance, that have come in for criticism because people have said, look, you know, this company, the way in which it does its business and the way in which it treats employees, for instance, it shouldn't be allowed to go around trumpeting its social purpose credentials. And then if it's allowed to sort of use that kite mark to kind of win the trust of customers and the public, that potentially devalues the whole idea of the sort of B Corporation movement. So I think that idea of purpose washing as well is one that we will see, you know, more kind of concern about over the coming year. And then just finally on the sort of specifics of um philanthropy and civil society, I just want to talk a little bit about a couple of extra issues to do with non-profits and charities themselves. I guess the first we've touched on already, which is that, you know, increasingly I think organizations find themselves caught in the middle of highly polarized issues, so issues like the situation in Israel and Palestine, but also things like immigration as well. And to some extent there's a sense that, you know, you're kind of, do you need, you know, if it's obviously part of your cause and you need to take a position on this, then yes, you know, clearly you need to do that and and you know the consequences that come with it. But for lots of organizations where some of these causes are tangential to them, there's a real question about you know whether they should speak out or say anything about it. And when asked or when supporters or the public demand that they take a position, what do they do? Because they're they're sort of damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. If they don't say anything, it's seen as you know, implicit condoning of of you know the other side or of something that the person asking the question thinks is is reprehensible. But if they do come out, there will almost certainly be somebody who disagrees with their view on that. You know, and the further that that particular issue is from their core mission, the more that the the cost of doing so doesn't you know really seem worth it in in terms of uh in terms of the upside. But but you know, people increasingly sort of do demand that everybody has an opinion and a position on on all issues. So I think that is a challenge, I think. And linked to that, I I guess is the wider question about sort of charity campaigning and advocacy. Um so you know, certainly one of the things we've been saying over the last few years and almost a decade is that the the narrative about political campaigning by charities in the UK has been pretty sort of negative and and kind of positioned against it. I think that is one thing that has got better. I think the current charity commission with Orlando Fraser as the chair, I think it's one thing he's been very clear on about restating the legal position and the sort of the right of charities to speak out when that is in line with their mission and as long as they do it in ways that kind of meet particular requirements. But it but it still meets a lot of criticism from you know commentators, particularly on you know certain hot-button issues like immigration. So I think you know, we will continue to see that criticism. And I think that is reflected in that sort of broader sense across the world that we're seeing an ongoing issue around the closing space for civil society and you know the the gradual erosion or removal of you know rights of assembly and association and free speech, both within civil society but also within you know journalism and you know, to some extent the judiciary. So this kind of erosion of some of those vital elements of democracy, including civil society, I think is something that we need to be concerned about. Another potential cause for concern is the the ongoing challenge of the loss of infrastructure for civil society and for the nonprofit sector. It's certainly something we've seen in the UK, where over the last year we've seen the closure of Children England, which is an infrastructure body for children's charities, and also um over the last sort of 18 months to two years, the closure of the Small Charities Coalition and the FSI, as well as other bodies. And this sort of follows, you know, already the loss over the last couple of decades of many of the elements of local infrastructure, like the um local CBSs, the community and voluntary service hubs. And this is a real challenge, I think, particularly because one of the things that we saw during the pandemic was the importance of infrastructure at a national and local level and how vital it is when you need to respond to an emergency and a challenge of that scale. But the difficulty with infrastructure is it's not something you can just turn to and hope that is there and ready and waiting for you when crisis hits. It's something that you have to put the time and effort and resources into maintaining in the spaces between those crises. And I think in an age in which we are increasingly aware, I think that we live in a kind of ongoing, rolling poly crisis, things like the COVID pandemic are not necessarily black swan once-in-a-generation events. We will see more and more crises of that scale and that type. And so we will need that infrastructure for that reason, if you know, if nothing else. And so the the loss of of this infrastructure and the sort of failure to maintain it and to resource it appropriately, I think is a real challenge potentially for the charity sector. I think another important trend that we've seen over recent years, and which I think will prove to be important as we move into 2024, is that the the sort of the narrative and the momentum on a lot of issues will continue to be driven by social movements and kind of new grassroots technology-enabled organizations rather than necessarily traditional charities or non-profits. So we've seen organizations and networks like Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil and the Me Too movement emerge and grow to huge scale over a very short period of time. And they've really sort of taken the lead on some of the most pressing social issues of the day and brought them to real kind of public attention and developed kind of mass movement behind them. And I think you know, we'll see new organizations and movements of this kind emerge, undoubtedly. I think what we'll also see maybe is more focus from the traditional non-profit sector and the funding world on what they can do to support those new models. Um I think one of the things I found really interesting when I was in the US earlier this year was how much talk there was about fiscal sponsorship as an approach. So the idea of kind of lending some of the kind of machinery and infrastructure of registered non-profits to smaller groups so that they didn't have to set up independently and could kind of focus on the movement building and on the cause-based work that they're doing. And I think, you know, and I hope maybe we will see more of that in that interface between foundations and traditional charities and non-profits and sort of movements and grassroots organizations. I think there are some really interesting funders out there doing work in this space, and we've sort of spoken to some of them before on the podcast, like the Movement Youth Climate Justice Initiative. And, you know, I think this is something that will become increasingly important if, you know, as I suspect, those sort of grassroots movements and social movements continue to be kind of uh driving the agenda on a lot of these issues. I guess the the couple of other things that I just want to flag up. One was around the the ways in which people work within the nonprofit or charity sector. I know in the wake of COVID, one of the things that we talked about a lot was whether there'd been a fundamental shift towards remote or distributed working and whether this would sort of have an impact on working patterns and the geographic location of the workforce and that kind of thing. I guess what has been a little bit depressing, but sort of interesting to see is the extent to which things have kind of reverted to the norm. And certainly in a lot of commercial contexts, there's been a sort of genuine return to just doing things as they were done before. And some of that's driven, I think, by recognising the value of in-person working environments and events and that kind of thing for in terms of employee well-being and networking and that sort of thing. But some of it, I think, is also driven by more hard-nosed commercial considerations and just a sort of sense that, you know, better the devil you know than the devil that you don't. And I wonder as well whether what we'll see is is not so much that everything will revert to that mean, because I don't think that's what is happening, but whether there will be an increasing polarization between those organizations that decide that the the precedent set during the pandemic shows a new way of doing things and those that kind of push back against that idea and and probably go more hard line on the need for people to be in person in the office. And I wonder how that will play out in the non profit sector, where, you know, in a way, I've always sort of thought that one of the challenges for the nonprofit sector when it comes to attracting people to work in it and keeping them within it is that it can't compete certainly on salary against the commercial sector and certainly not with industries such as technology. So it has to find other ways of making what it does appealing. And traditionally that's always been kind of offering a sense of purpose and mission. But a lot of commercial companies now are doing that pretty successfully as well and telling people that if they come and work for them they'll be serving a kind of higher social purpose as well. So then does it come down to actually the conditions that are in place when you're working within the nonprofit world and does that mean that you can have more flexibility to work remotely or you know different hours that suit your lifestyle for your parents or that kind of thing. And unfortunately I'm not sure that the nonprofit sector has always been ahead of the curve on on those issues and maybe it does need to have more ambition to do that. I think linked to that one of the things that we've seen over the last year which was actually one of our predictions in the uh podcast for last year and and has played out I think is there will be more industrial action within the charity and nonprofit sector as people come to kind of demand their working rights and and employment rights and working conditions. And you know I think often reluctantly because the charity workforce is usually sort of mission driven and there's an awareness that if you aren't working that it might kind of damage the important work of the organisation. But people are sort of pushed to the point where they feel that they need to act collectively in order to to kind of demand better working conditions and employment rights. We've seen quite a few examples of that over the last year as I say and I think we will see more of them over the coming year. And then I guess the other point in terms of working conditions is at an individual level rather than an organisational level I suspect we will have a lot more discussion about the dangers of sort of burnout within the nonprofit world because I think many people leading organisations and just sort of working within organisations that are doing difficult work in a increasingly hard fundraising and funding environment you know and amidst political polarization and division it's exhausting and I think people are really feeling that so I think that is something that we will see more focus on again over the coming year. Okay well there were some thoughts on wider context that might affect philanthropy and civil society and some of the trends within philanthropy and everyday giving and and civil society in the nonprofit world itself over the coming year. I think given the the length we've already run at I'm going to split the podcast in half at this point. So in part two we'll be back to talk specifically about technology. So technology trends what's happening in emerging technology existing technologies how those are going to impact the work of nonprofits challenges that they face and the ways in which people give to them so do a return for that one if that sounds your street. In the meantime if you're interested in any of the things that we've that I've been talking about in this podcast I'll put links in the show notes to various other blogs and episodes of the podcast where you can find slightly more fleshed out versions of those thoughts. Alternatively do just check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters dot com there's all this kind of stuff there back episodes of the podcast and loads of articles and bits of news and things where you can read all sorts of thoughts and news and insights about philanthropy. Other than that just like subscribe tell all your friends about it if you think they'll be interested in this episode or indeed the podcast more broadly and I'll see you next time. Bye bye, I think that's the same