SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropisms podcast with Roger Davis.

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, Rodery Davis, and we're back after the usual break for the summer, uh, during which I have very much been not podcasting and trying as hard as I can not to work uh wherever possible, and had a very nice break. We are back with uh is it a new season of the podcast? I don't really work in seasons, but certainly a new run um of episodes featuring lots of great interviews, some of which are recorded already, some of which are lined up, uh, potentially some deep dives into topics uh that are relevant and interesting around philanthropy and civil society. Uh but there's going to be lots of stuff to get your teeth stuck into over the coming months. Um and to start things off, we have uh an interview with a guest this week. Um, so I'm speaking to Michael Jarvis from the Trust Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative. Um, TAI Collaborative, as it's known, is an organization that brings together uh a number of kind of major funders in the international development um space, big US institutions and foundations and European ones that you'll have heard of as well, uh, in order to facilitate learning and action. Um and I sat down with Michael uh before the summer, uh so a month, six weeks ago now, uh to talk about well, two things really. Um firstly uh his perspective on the post-USAID landscape for aid and development, so kind of what's happened since the destruction of USAID in terms of the kinds of issues that that uh TAI Collaborative works on, but also how it's affected the work of the sorts of organizations that they're interacting with all the time. And then something else as well that I think links interestingly to that, which is what is happening in terms of the growth and rise of philanthropy in other places in the world, particularly in Southeast Asia. And I say those two things are linked because what Michael and I talk about really is kind of why there's been such a lot of interest in the growth of Asian philanthropy in recent years and what some of the things are behind that, a little bit about what Asian philanthropy, if that's a helpful term, uh, looks like, um, and what some of its features are and what some of the things that we know so far and what some of the things that we don't yet know. But also I think in the context of a landscape of global philanthropy and particularly around sort of aid and development, in which USAID is no longer there, many kind of bilateral funding commitments from governments elsewhere have been radically reduced and seem to be continuing to do so. Um, there are more and more gaps opening up. And I think there are questions obviously about how US foundations and European foundations step in to fill some of those gaps. But what happens in a future where some of those gaps increasingly get filled by organizations from other parts of the world, uh and particularly thinking about whether philanthropy that we're seeing growing in Southeast Asia will start to be more outward looking and whether that will start to fill some of those gaps and what the landscape for global philanthropy will look like as a result. Um, so that was really kind of the focus of the conversations, and we covered lots of different angles uh within that. Um, I thought it was a really fascinating conversation about a topic that I'm really interested in, and I think is really kind of important and timely. So hope you'll enjoy this one. Um, I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping, but for now, enjoy the conversation with Michael. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Michael Jarvis. Hi there, Michael. Hi, Rodri. Thanks for having me. Oh, great to have you on the podcast. Um, and as people will know from listening to the intro, you are the executive director of the Trust Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative. Um I want to hear about that in a moment and kind of just to frame what we're here to talk about. I was really keen to do this conversation because when you got in touch, um it was kind of focused on the idea that there's been enormous growth in giving, particularly in Asia in recent years, and sort of unpicking some of what that is and what that might mean for the global philanthropy landscape, particularly in the context of what's happened in the last few years with uh the removal of USAID and some sort of fairly seismic shifts. So I thought it was a really interesting framing for conversation. Um, but maybe the best place to start before we kind of dive into all of that is just for you to tell everybody a bit about what the Trust Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative actually is, what the organization does and what the mission is.

SPEAKER_02 5:18

For sure. So essentially, we are a collective of funders who believe that trust, accountability, and inclusion, as you guessed from the name, are essential for development. They're the building blocks for what we term as a healthy economy, a healthy democracy, a healthy planet. And our role is to get the funders to learn together, to strategize together, to fund together, and also to think about how to influence the broader funder ecosystem. So, how do we get more funders to care about these issues and think about good governance, think about rights and how those flow into other issues that they might care about, like health or education, et cetera? And then just to note, we're also for this conversation, we've we've recently got asked to be the secretariat for a new space called the Funders Roundtable on the Future of Development. And this is over 30 philanthropist coming together to try and think through amid all these discussions around the world on what what comes next in the wake of some of the recent changes, um, what role philanthropy should play. So it's an interesting challenge and it's uh a lot of players with different views. But um, so that's a particular piece that we're doing just for this moment that um I think is probably relevant for this conversation.

SPEAKER_01 6:38

And in terms of who some of the funders that you're working with, can you give a sense of what kind of geography and what kind of names we're talking about?

SPEAKER_02 6:46

Yeah, so majority of these are major US institutional philanthropies. So TAI's core membership is is along those those lines. So it's funders like Hewlett Foundation and Ford Foundation. Um, and within this broader funders roundtable that is thinking about this particular futures for development piece, it's it's got Gates Foundation, uh usual suspects, but we've also got some funders from Europe, uh, a couple from South Asia, a couple from Latin America. And I think part of our ambition is to definitely broaden that. Like there are a lot more perspectives that we should be listening to.

SPEAKER_01 7:23

Yeah, absolutely. And you you touched on it already there, um, about the kind of the changes that have happened in the landscape around aid and development, um, particularly in the last sort of 18 months or two years. You know, the highest profile thing, obviously, there is the kind of decision to dismantle US uh aid, but also lots of changes to kind of bilateral aid commitments from governments. What impact have those changes had both on TAI collaboratives' work, but also what's your sense of kind of what they've meant for that wider ecosystem that you work in?

SPEAKER_02 7:55

It's been quite profound, I would say. So I'd say there was an initial shock and um a rush to shore up existing partners as best as possible. Um and that's certainly true for the groups the TI members typically support who tend to be civil society actors, and um many of them had a high dependency on bilateral donor funding in addition to um philanthropic. Um and we were getting waves of requests of like we need help on these issues. So there was an initial impulse to do that. Um, but I think it's also changed just the overall development landscape and it's forcing questions about okay, where is funding going to come from in the future? There's been this pressure on philanthropy to fill the gap, um which they've been very clear that we don't have the resources necessarily, or you could argue even the will to fill the gap. And that's partly because they're starting to think about well, what is this disruption revealing about the system? Like, is there what is our strategic longer view? What would be a more trusted, effective way of doing development? And so there's a lot of strategizing. And I know philanthropy gets, I think, probably rightly criticized, the the the always in strategizing mode. And there's probably always at least one TEI member who's in the strategy refresh at any one time. And I think there's probably some fair criticism that philanthropy entered a bit of a freeze state in the initial months after USAID's dismemberment. Um, and then there was other cuts in the UK and elsewhere. But I think that's melting, and I think there's a genuine appetite now to look, let's get to action, let's be building something better, even if there's not full clarity about what that actually is.

SPEAKER_01 9:40

And do you do you see any sort of shift? Because I've sort of heard this from people that, as you say, in that initial aftermath, particularly what happened around USAID, um, there was just sort of shock and confusion and then questions about whether philanthropy needed to step in and fill kind of immediate short-term gaps. But as the dust settled, more of a sense that even if this was a crisis that nobody would have asked for, at the same time, perhaps it did present an opportunity to make some more kind of fundamental changes of the kind that lots of people have been talking about for a long time. Do you see any of that sense that there is also, I mean, I hesitate to say a silver lining to a situation like this, but a kind of at least an opportunity to think differently about the future?

SPEAKER_02 10:19

I do. And I I go to a lot of meetings now where I hear, you know, let's not waste this crisis and you know those those lines come out all the time. But I think that's that's probably right. And it's no disrespect to the groups that and the individuals that are, you know, felt the effects of of those cuts and also then the ripple effects for communities and lives lost and um and all of that, that is no matter which figures you pick, they're severe and they're significant. Um but I think it has revealed some underlying dependencies that probably were not healthy on both sides. And I think it's provoked a lot of discussion about amplifying what many were asking for, as you as you know, the you know, we we were moving to you know, the full shift, the power movement, some of these discussions within philanthropy, but also within broader, like that applies to government donors as well. Um those those are more urgent than ever. And if countries are moving beyond aid, as is sort of the new cliche, um, and are looking at different ways of finding their own financing, um, philanthropy is always going to be one piece of that puzzle. But we could be doing philanthropy in a way that sort of feels in tune with that sort of country leadership, um, you know, national sovereignty, uh locally led, whichever phrase you want to use, um, I think there's broad recognition, and certainly I feel that across this fund around table space, that I think there's pretty broad consensus that yes, this is what we should be doing. Maybe some have paid done it more effectively than others to date, and there's a lot of learning to be done. But it I think it is a shift. And I think you will probably see some patterns in funder behaviors that when you look back over time, you'll be able to see that moment of early 2025, and you'll be like, oh yeah, that was the moment when we started to address these things more significantly.

SPEAKER_01 12:09

Yeah, and I and I guess this brings us to a kind of the core of what what we were going to talk about today, which is that that sense that one of the most interesting things maybe about what's happening is it's happening at a moment where, you know, if this had happened five or ten years ago, still the assumption might have been, well, if anyone is going to come in from the philanthropy side and fill these gaps or do something differently, we're still talking about the big UK, European, US funders. But actually, there's this sense that there are other places in the world where philanthropy is growing very rapidly. And a really interesting question about, you know, as spaces open up in this global aid and development landscape, are they going to be filled by different actors? And particularly, I guess we were uh kind of discussing before about Asian philanthropy. Before we come to that question of sort of how they're going to respond to this moment, um, I guess it'd be worth sort of zooming out a bit and setting the scene about what's been happening in Asian philanthropy in the last few years for anybody who's sort of not aware. Can you give a sense of the growth in the scale and prominence of Asian philanthropy and your sense of maybe what's behind that?

SPEAKER_02 13:12

It's been interesting to watch. And I mean, first thing I should say is I'm I'm neither Asian nor based in the region. So what I'm going to say is based off learnings from those who we've been talking to and deliberately trying to better understand the patterns. But there is this really significant growth. Um, and you know, China, for example, their giving is up to the last figures I saw were about $123 billion a year. Um, so we're not at levels anywhere near the US, but the US is exceptional, but rising fast, and then it's starting to be bit matched across the region. And and the amazing thing about Asian philanthropy is you span from sort of the Gulf countries um all the way through South Asia to Southeast and East Asia, and they're obviously it's not homogenous. There are different approaches and patterns, and but I think this growth, if you if you look across, like if you look at India, partly because of mandated corporate social responsibility laws, the giving there is also spike significantly. And there are slightly different approaches emerging across the region. Um if you're interested in sort of rising philanthropy amongst high net worths, for example, it's not a surprise that Singapore and Hong Kong have become real hubs for offering more vehicles for giving in those settings. There's a pattern of more state-led philanthropy or partnerships with state and delivery philanthropy across that is pretty different manifestations of that across the across the country. You have more of this corporate-led, particularly, for example, in India, because of that legislation. So I guess the first thing is it there's a variety, but the trend line is up across. And I think there are certain ways in which philanthropy is operating in the region that we could learn from, and that I think are perhaps more in tune already with some of the what we were just hinting at. Like there's a needs to be a different way of doing this going forward that we could be learning from.

SPEAKER_01 15:03

Yeah, and and you're absolutely right to point out that you know, I neither am I Asian nor based in in the region. Um, I'm just a kind of keen, interested observer and approaching this hopefully in the right sort of spirit of intellectual curiosity. Uh, and if anybody listening to this who is based in Asia and frantically disagrees wants to get in touch, I would be delighted to hear from them. Um, but I guess one of the things that I've heard as well in talking to people who do work in the region, again, as you say, it's absolutely not a homogenous region. It's an enormous, vast, and incredibly varied part of the world. But there do seem to be at least some kind of trends that are shared uh across parts of the region. And one of those, um, as you mentioned, is that there's kind of closer alignment perhaps with governmental priorities from philanthropy. The other one currently that I've heard is that still a lot of the philanthropy is domestically focused or at least kind of focused within the region rather than looking outwards. Is that your sense too? And do you think that is something that is starting to shift or that we might see start to shift in in the context of this changing global landscape?

SPEAKER_02 16:07

From all the data I look at, it's definitely still true that the majority of um giving is is local. And a lot of it goes to issues around service delivery, so health and education and things that you would expect that uh sort of make sense in in sort of supporting the communities in which you're living and operating. But there are also striking examples starting to emerge of of cross-border um arrangements in giving. And I think partly that may be due to the increased infrastructure that's starting to be built around um philanthropy in the region. So you've you've got well-known spaces like Asian Venture Philanthropy Network, but there's also Commission on Asian philanthropy, there's philanthropy age reliance. There seems to be a new group emerging to try and connect across existing and emerging philanthropists. And as those spaces for knowledge sharing are growing, I think we're also starting to see groups be like, oh, look, you're doing something similar. And there might be ways that we can um link up and and and approach these things together. And also some of the bigger, particularly, you know, a lot of the philanthropies are family-owned or linked to you know, founders of corporations. Um, and as their operations are grown, it's also you see the footprint of philanthropy start to expand with um uh with those footprints too. And the last piece I think that's driving it a little bit also ties to what I think we can learn from is that a lot of the underlying philosophy behind uh some of Asian philanthropy is sort of a systems change approach. And they're thinking about the role of government, the role of private sector, the role of civil society naturally, and uh and the interplays between them. Um, but that systems change encourages you to think to a bigger lens. And I think it's starting to think to sub-regions, and I suspect over time probably we see more uh giving that goes more Asia-wide as a result. Um, and maybe to other parts of the world, because I was looking at the data on you know OECD collects data on philanthropic giving um around the world. It's not a perfect data set, but if you look at giving from other parts of the world into Asia, it's the third ranked. Um, it's you know close to six billion, I think, over from 2020 to 2023. It's behind what the giving into Latin America, it's way behind the giving into Africa. Um, but when you consider Asia and the size of the population, the you know, um, its importance for development, I find that somewhat strange. And I wonder if it's just a lack of linkages that have been built, understanding. Um, so I also hope that if more Asian philanthropy starts to operate globally, we might also see more, ironically, more global philanthropy start to operate in Asia. Um, I think there might be a positive reinforcing effect there. And um, the biggest poverty reduction, if you're using that as a proxy for development, has come in the Asia region. Um uh philanthropy is only one small part of that story, but uh I think it it's an indicator that you know sometimes where we put time and attention and like where do we want to go to understand what we should be doing doesn't match up with the potential most effective sources of inspiration.

SPEAKER_01 19:21

Interesting what you're saying there about the growth of philanthropy in Asia, potentially almost counterintuitively, resulting in more philanthropy from elsewhere going in. More widely, do you think that's something that we will see in the future? Kind of more of a blurring of the distinctions that we sort of traditionally have drawn between donor countries and recipient countries, and actually we'll start to see more countries where they both do have extraordinary levels of economic wealth and philanthropy starting to look outwards, but also there's still need, and so that there's a you know need for cross-border philanthropy going inwards as well.

SPEAKER_02 19:54

I do. I think it's part it's just a natural result of globalization, and and for example, one thing I I've been trying to raise with with TEI members is there tends to be a siloing in institutional philanthropies. Like so those are the ones like you know, Ford Foundation that um have legacy of operations and you know, so they work in particular geographies, they work on particular themes, and uh they tended to have, for example, very separate US programs and then an international program on the same topic, that they're they don't talk to each other particularly well. And we're seeing partly through this wave of disruption, partly through political changes, that those distinctions don't make a lot of sense. Like, you know, the same dynamics and issues that are impacting you know society here in the US is also impacting um in other countries. So you need a strategy that straddles both. And um, and I think that would apply similarly, you know, uh across other regions that any philanthropy, where are their home bases? Um that you need to be thinking about the global factors and supporting what's gonna impact you um from outside the region and anticipating and working to mitigate that, just as you would, you know, for what's happening locally and the dynamics that are deriving that. So I do think we're gonna see more truly global framed approaches and strategies. Um and there'll be probably shifts that have to happen in how institutions are set up and like how they're you know, I think there needs to be more flexibility in how philanthropies can respond. Uh that's probably one lesson from this crisis. Um but the old sort of very clear structures and parameters that you would put around particular programs, I think won't make sense in the same way.

SPEAKER_01 21:45

And and it's really interesting what you're saying there, you know, about potential lessons, because I was thinking as you were talking and you mentioned about silos, is one of the potential advantages of philanthropy in these new centers of wealth in Asia and in other places that they aren't. Is kind of tied to long legacies of how you do things and the ways in which you operate. And so, for instance, in the fact that we were saying before, they may be more aligned with governmental priorities. Actually, at a time where lots of kind of traditional funders in the UK and the US are thinking about how to form cross-sectoral partnerships and public-private philanthropic initiatives and all this kind of thing, but it's often difficult because they're not geared up to do it. Actually, do some of these newer organizations from Asia and other places have an advantage because they're creating things from the outset with that in mind. And actually, could you know some of these legacy institutions have the humility to learn from that, perhaps? I think that's exactly right.

SPEAKER_02 22:42

And for example, we're trying to, we've been talking with um the Neil Khani family philanthropies in India, and they've been very kindly offering to run sort of immersions in the ways you know, go and see actual examples of uh their approach in practice and bringing together different partners they're supporting, particularly through this sort of scaling and systems change approach, which are all buzzwords we you know we hear now. But a part of their starting point is like well, you can't scale without government. And we've been working with government from the beginning, and that's part of how we see change happening. And I it's not exclusive to, you know, I think if you go to some of the Latin American um donors and the approaches that they've had, there's you can see similar patterns in certain contexts. Um so I do think that's right. And I think some of the new wealth coming in, you know, there are more billionaires now in Asia than any other region. And as they start to think about what, you know, what are their strategies for giving alongside wealth management, I think it's for a number of factors, including cultural and the sort of uh even faith-based sort of senses of the approaches that they want to take, they're looking at interventions that will build on what's already there, um, are sort of framed as sort of within society and perhaps lesser philanthropy as its sort of external interventionist actor in the in the way that maybe it gets perceived sometimes in the US. So I think it's going to be fascinating to watch. Um and we we should be, there should be humility certainly on, I think, donors who've been around a long time. Um there's a lot that they can share too, but we we need to be going and listening to what others are doing. And that's partly one ambition personally for me for this funder round table is to diversify like not just voices we're listening to from those on the ground about what the future of development should be, but even within the funder community, we need to be, you know, what's worked for you from different approaches? Like what's the philosophy that you think fits for this new age we're we're having to navigate? And um, if it's the same club of donors who already talk to each other just trying to do this behind closed doors, it's not going to end up being fit for purpose.

SPEAKER_01 24:55

Yeah, absolutely. And and and on that, I guess one of the things I wanted to ask, just sticking on on Asian funding for a minute, and then I want to to touch on what we were saying there about the fact that there are lots of interesting things going on elsewhere. But what's your sense from obviously TAI, you know, in the name of the trust, accountability, and inclusion as kind of key things that you work on. Around those kinds of ideas and the debates that are around them, do you have a sense of how those play out in the context of Asian philanthropy? Do you are they things that are seen as important? And if so, are they seen as important in the same way, or have you noticed there are any differences?

SPEAKER_02 25:30

I think the language really does matter. To some extent, we sometimes we use a proxy of saying, oh, we're about good governance and we're uh and I I found that that isn't a particularly good entry point in talking to counterparts in Asia. Um, I think trust really does resonate, and um they there's a lot of thinking about how they as founders sort of build trust and uh sort of work with their stakeholders, but it's also seen as sort of integral, obviously not across the board, but in terms of how they're doing program design as well. Um and so we have tried to run a couple of sessions through, you know, it was one a few years ago with Asian Venture Philanthropy Network that sort of did use these framings and actually had great people show up and great examples. And but a lot of it was skewed to corporate accountability, and I think partly because of the links to um strong links between um corporate foundations and then the business operations side. So a lot of it was around like business roles in society and building trust and accountability on that, as opposed to our frame, which is as much about government and use of public resources and accountability there. And I think there is a bit of a disconnect on that side. For example, if you think about the wave of protests in South Asia and the Parliament of Bangladesh that overthrew governments and um led to significant societal change, my I don't have data on this, but my instinct is philanthropy really played no part in if you looked at the causes and like what emerged and how those movements developed, I suspect philanthropy had no meaningful role. And I I think we start to see more questions asked, like what is philanthropy's role in terms of social change in these contexts? Should you know there's a history of funding democracy work in in the US or Europe that will that emerge equivalently in um in Asia? Um it probably won't in that exact way, no. But I suspect that some of the societal dynamics that are emerging are gonna prompt evolutions in philanthropy, naturally, uh, that we can't quite anticipate yet. But um at the moment, um there are hooks to our issues and and we've always found ways to work, and um but it's it's perhaps framed slightly differently, and there's less of this sort of sense of inside game and outside game that you might get when you're talking to uh someone like an open society foundation and how they frame what they're doing. Um that that doesn't quite click in the same way.

SPEAKER_01 27:55

Yeah, and it's it's really interesting, I guess, because that question of whether philanthropy is sort of operating within the status quo and accepting that and sort of ameliorating within it, or whether it is seeking to challenge that status quo is obviously a choice and attention that's been there in philanthropy in the UK and in the US and you know in other places for many hundreds of years, and we haven't kind of solved that yet because it's not really a thing you can solve, it's just a series of quite complex decisions about what you think the role of philanthropy is. But as you say, I think it'll be really fascinating to see inevitably how some of that then plays out in the context of places like Asia as philanthropy develops, because it it seems to me there's no way that people won't start to grapple with those questions, but they may well come up with different answers. Um, and there's no reason to assume that they will just follow the model that we've had in the UK or the US.

SPEAKER_02 28:43

And I would just add on that, Rodri, like as philanthropy in Asia grows in volume, it's gonna become more visible. And that also creates different pressures on how they operate. So, you know, part of the way you know debates in the US are about the legitimacy of philanthropy and and there's politicization of the debates that it's hard to escape. Um, but that's partly because of all the discussions of you know, the volume of wealth that is out there and it links to debates in society about inequality. So as the volume of wealth that's concentrated in certain ways in Asia plays out, um uh and we start to see, yes, increased giving, but more debate about is that a fair balance? We're paying more taxes or whatever it is. Like uh I I suspect it, you know, it'll it will go up down its own path, but there's just something about as you become bigger um and your funding is a bigger part of the equation, um you're gonna get more attention and that's gonna prompt a lot more reflection on what your risk management strategies are. And and so uh yeah, I and I imagine there'll be a very uh variety of risk appetite, just as there is for philanthropy in the UK, France, wherever.

SPEAKER_01 29:48

Yeah, absolutely. I think it's a really good point. And I guess that the choice about how you operate and the scale at which you're doing it obviously do lead to those questions about legitimacy. And I suppose the uh the other things that tend to come into that conversation then when philanthropy is concerned about its own legitimacy and wanting to sort of uh do what it can to maintain it are things around you know trust and uh often linked to that around transparency. And I know those are things that TAI Collaborative has worked um a lot on. I'd be really interested to pick up at this point on you know how you see those two things working together particularly. Like what part does transparency play in some of these conversations about legitimacy in new contexts like Asia? Um, and does transparency sort of automatically lead to trust, or do we need to sort of think about them as connected, but not in such a direct way?

SPEAKER_02 30:39

Yes, we've thought a lot on this, our members fund a lot on this. Um and our starting point was actually how do we strengthen transparency of information, um particularly around use of public resources. So it was more like transparency within society and how can citizens, you know, know what their governments are up to, know what corporations are up to and hold them to account. But a natural evolution of that was then also well, what's how transparent are we as philanthropy? And um it it led to increased efforts to walk the talk and be more transparent about why we're funding and how. And we've certainly encouraged that. Uh and I think it leads to greater efficiencies. It you know, it um I think it does help build trust, which you talked about. Um and I think that would be true of a government being more forthright about how it's doing and releasing information uh just as it would be for a philanthropy. But we actually used to have transparency on our name, and we we made the switch because it became too much about transparency as the end goal in and of itself, and not enough about okay, so how are people taking advantage of that? And the point is to uh prompt those debates and and build that trust between different actors, lead to more accountable decision making, um, and too often it was the slightly performative transparency that we'd start to see. And I you could probably argue that about philanthropy just as you could about, you know, um the government of South Africa or whomever. Um and so so we think there's a clear linkage, um, but we don't think transparency is sufficient in and of itself. Um, and in the current debates, there's I think a real need for pragmatism. So obviously philanthropy is under scrutiny, at least in the US, but not exclusively in the US, in a way that it hadn't been a few years ago. And there's a some of the funders have taken down the portals of grantee data, and and there are very good reasons for that. Um uh so you're having to face trade-offs between a commitment to be upfront and transparent about what you're doing, but also protecting um partners, and these tensions aren't easy to navigate. And so we have a lot of internal debates about what's appropriate and different parts of institution, like a communications team and a foundation, the general counsel, they're all gonna have different views, and you've got to find a new pathway to navigate this. So if you're you know, I still think for governments, like there's not really an excuse for opacity, like you need to there's another whole question about what they're publishing is is reliable or not, and uh that's taking us down in a different conversation. But for philanthropy right now, I think it's a really I sort of take personally the line that there's no one, you know, you've got to be flexible to the context, and you know, some funders are gonna have much portfolios that might have more significant consequences for groups if certain information was made available than that than for others. And so they're gonna have to take a case-by-case approach. But um, but it can then reinforce questions and like those who are trying to question legitimacy of philanthropy and use that against them. So you don't want to go too far the other extreme either.

SPEAKER_01 33:44

Yeah, absolutely. And I think you're right, there's sort of naive assumptions about transparency just being inherently good in all circumstances. I think you're right, there are lots of counter examples um of funders that have taken decisions to be less transparent in a sense, but for the exactly the right reasons to protect grantees or even kind of individuals uh in places they're working. So I think it is you know a lot more complicated. Um, I guess the other factor I'd be really interested, just your take on that that's complicating it further, is it feels like you know, we're at a point where the capabilities of technology are, on the one hand, making it much easier to be more transparent uh in lots of ways, either through choice by you know the organizations releasing information themselves or by other people seeking to find out information about them. But at the same time, it doesn't feel like technology is necessarily making trust in society a lot better. So, in your work, how does that show up? What's what kind of impact does technology have on some of the issues that you're working with?

SPEAKER_02 34:43

There's been a real step-by-step change over the years. So I think when I first started working on these issues and civic engagement and first started dealing with philanthropy, technology was very much seen as a positive enabler. It was like the years of like uh civic tech, and like we were we're gonna build an app to do this, and citizens are gonna love it. And we our members funded a lot of that work. And then I think there was a bit of a backlash, a sense that perhaps it didn't deliver on its full anticipated potential. And obviously, no one tool is ever enough. So like there was a bit of elated recognition of that. Um, and then we've seen this huge wave of change with um first sort of open data at scale and be able to scrape and open intelligence and all of these issues. And now obviously you've got AI. And I think on the one hand, it's it's a total game changer in terms of the volume of information that you can access and build and the stories that you can you can then tell, which if you're interested in accountability and like that, it's actually extremely useful. And some of the groups, like investigative journalists and others, like this is now a core part of their talk here. But then as you say, it's also had a whole ripple effect of you know the impacts of social media and and lack of trust with between people and technology. And I'll think a lot of the concern you'll see in polls about of people about AI right now is is in part concern of about or a lack of understanding of how it's going to positively impact their day-to-day. Um, uh, and then the risks that come with it in terms of what it could expose them to, you know, misinformation, scams on a scale we've never seen before, et cetera. And I think funders are really actively trying to figure out what's the best use of their resources to inform those debates, to push for more constructive solutions. TI members fund quite a lot of work on information integrity and those types of issues that often now increasingly have AI and tech pieces to them. Some are working to hold big tech accountable and that's their full purpose. Um others, it's much more on building a like how do we inform AI design so that it's going to have principles that we think are essential that lead to better outcomes for people. And you know, look at the volume of money going into humanity AI and some of these pooled funds. Um, what I haven't seen a lot of reflection on is what it might mean for the relationship between society and philanthropy themselves and and what new, you know, there's a lot of talk of this third wave of US philanthropy that's gonna come from all the AI money, right? Like anthropic and others and the foundations they're gonna have to create. I imagine questions of their legitimacy and like what they use that money for are gonna become very live-wired. And how much they'll want to talk to and deal with long, you know, family uh foundations that have been around for a longer time and individual givers that have been around for a longer time. I suspect they're gonna do things slightly differently, just like they have on everything else. So this I know that you, you know, people like like Raj Kumar at DevX is great about talking, like there is enough money out there increasingly because of these new billionaires and what's gonna come from um AI-related philanthropy that you can do things at a scale where you know maybe we can fill some of that gap in a way that we weren't we were debating last year. I just am not convinced they're gonna want to spend the money on the things we like, whatever you put, you know, what their slice of what what that money should go to is gonna be very particular, I suspect. Um, but it's gonna be fun to watch.

SPEAKER_01 37:59

Well, maybe not fun, but important to watch. I think I think it is gonna be fascinating. And I do think that, as you say, that kind of the uh Substack article a few weeks ago that I'd referenced loads of times, the one that Nan Ransahoff wrote about the third wave. I didn't agree with all of it and some of the calculations I think were designed to be eye-catching. But I think it is genuinely true there's an enormous amount of wealth being generated already, and there's gonna be significantly more. And if even a small portion of that gets directed towards philanthropy, it's gonna be, you know, a huge shift in the resources available. But all of those questions, as you say, about, you know, okay, but what does their philanthropy look like? And you know, what in terms of what they're interested in focusing on, what kinds of models they want to use. My my uh you know, supposition based on what we've seen already is that they will want to bypass some of this kind of traditional infrastructure that is seen as not having delivered, and you know, that that mindset of wanting to kind of innovate and to move fast and break things and that kind of thing is is gonna be part of what they want to do with philanthropy. And I guess the the question for those of us maybe in the sort of more traditional part of the philanthropy world is how to work with that and adapt to it to kind of make sure everybody can broadly end up doing something worthwhile with it, and we're not all kind of working at cross purposes, but you're right. I mean, terrifying in some ways, but it's gonna be absolutely fascinating. Um, one thing I've really wanted to ask you about, because of the nature of the way that TAI collaborative works, and again, the collaborative is in there, is about that question of collaboration. It feels like for a long time it was something that was much more talked about in philanthropy than actually done, but it does feel as though in the last couple of years there's been a real shift in terms of collaborative funds and pooled funds and models that are kind of bringing donors and funders together. Why do you think that is so important? And kind of, I guess, how do you make that work in practice in the work that you do? Because I know it's not easy necessarily.

SPEAKER_02 39:54

It's not always easy. Um, but you are right, it is a growth area. I think I discover a new collaborative pretty much every day, like through Pierce and others. And I know there was a a recent study that, you know, I think putting over 500 of these collaboratives at this point. But there is a reason for that. And I I think one is particularly for this current context that we're dealing with, one is that there's less appetite to go it alone. So I think part of it's a risk management approach. And then there's the argument about you can get to bigger impacts and the scale of the challenges we're facing demands collective action in response. Um, so I suspect those are the key drivers. I certainly see funders that we deal with and talk to all the time, the the array of issues that they're facing, like uh and are under pressure to put money towards, is can feel somewhat overwhelming. So, and at the same time, they've got the same number of staff that you know, they're not tending to scale up internally in terms of their capacity. So, another reason I think for the rise in collaboratives and pool funds is that you can outsource some of that capacity. So this is an issue that's important to us. We don't have a program that's explicitly on it, but we're gonna contribute anyway because it allows us to say we're we're addressing this in part, that there's someone who's it's their day job to think about it and they're gonna know the players, they're gonna give the money faster to good groups than we we could do in any short ramp up. So so there are a number of factors coming into play on that. I think one word of caution is I don't think a collaborative certainly I don't think a pooled fund is always the answer. There is a tendency, I think, to create new things always. We don't sometimes take advantage of what already exists enough. And like I think there's some potential for alignment, maybe even, you know, mergers and you know, it's sensitive stuff. But I sometimes think funders can pause and ask that question a little bit more. And you know, sometimes the incentives aligned to create new things as opposed to reinforce what's already there. But I do think they add, if done well, I do think they lead to more effective uh giving on that will have a clear shared purpose, like the key is to have that shared objective. Uh, and it it also helps provide a bit of a bridge between those receiving the money and doing the work on the ground and those giving it. And that can sometimes also like we deal a lot of requests from from groups who are seeking funding or uh already have funding from our members, but they want to provide some feedback, like you know, I wish they would do this thing this way. And it it's hard for them because of the power dynamics in many cases to say that directly. I actually think it's under talked about, but I do think these collaboratives play that bridging role and we collect feedback and we feed it back and we care about the issues. So, like there's there's sort of a truth telling that can happen in a collaborative. I had a peer-to-peer truth telling of that that is is helpful. Um, and it depends on, you know, the key to it all is relationships. Like if the funders who come in trust get to trust each other, everything's gonna work much better. Um so a grand announcement with 20 funders all just signing on, but they haven't really collectively thought about what it's gonna do. You know, there's gonna be a very long lag and questionable impacts, I suspect, until those relationships are there.

SPEAKER_01 43:11

Yeah, I think that that's really interesting. And it's something I've heard from other kind of collaborative funds and intermediaries playing that role. I think both that they can enable funders to have the sort of confidence to fund things that they might otherwise not, either because they wouldn't be able to find them because they don't have sufficient kind of granular knowledge, or because they wouldn't have the risk appetite by themselves to fund these organizations. And so you can kind of help from that side, but also the other way, as you say, you can allow those recipient organizations to say things to you that you can then pass on that that you know they might not be able to say directly to a funder. I guess what what I was going to ask, and I've I've been really interested in this for a bit, is is that something that would always be necessary? So is it just that a kind of an intermediary of that kind is necessary because of the fundamental nature of the power dynamic? Within philanthropy. Or would you see your role as an organization over time to kind of shift things so that it was no longer necessary to intermediate uh intermediate that relationship and actually kind of you're solving a problem by showing both sides that they can work with kind of better power dynamics?

SPEAKER_02 44:19

That's a good one. Um I certainly think part of our role is to help push towards uh those better direct relationships being trusted enough that you can have you know and I I do see instances of that. That that does exist. Like there are um partners I know of who are very frank and uh you know see it as as part of who they need to be as their identity as individuals and organizations that this is how they're gonna engage with donors. It isn't always received that well, but it's in places it is. And but I don't think it's gonna obviate the need for I would say this because it's my day job, but like I don't think it's gonna obviate the need for intermediaries. I think there are other reasons that intermediaries exist, but I do think it should be part of the job description of an intermediary to think building that. And um and we, for example, I asked like when our members are bringing together their partners in a portfolio, which they increasingly do, like in have it's to it's to build those direct connections, it's to help build the peer-to-peer between the groups they fund on a particular issue. I always ask to sit in because it it helps me see the dynamics and then it enables me to then think about what we could do that would actually build on positivity that comes out of these, like where are the tensions that I'm sensing that maybe we could then raise with the funder afterwards and say what might be ways we could creatively address that. Um, and some of it's just tweaks in like we did a pilot years ago on we mapped out all the shared grantees across our membership and said, Look, you've each got asking them to do an individual report to different requirements. And but they're all you're all funding them for the same reason. They're all doing the same good work. So we used ourselves as a pilot and built a template that met all the requirements but in one form and said, Look, can we just use a shared reporting framework? And to their credit, they said yes. So they wrote to all the shared grantees, and like, if you want to, we can just use this format and it will serve for all of us. Um, so there are tweaks you can make. Sometimes you just have to ask. It's like no one's thought about it. And all the assumption is, oh, we can't do that because it's always been this way. And it wasn't often when you push it, it doesn't need to be like that. So some of it's very practical stuff, and some of it is much more yes, the the relational dynamics, and particularly recently, where so many groups have been hit budget-wise, like I think it's already exacerbated like the desperation for funding, and you might agree to do something that you wouldn't otherwise do. And I think funders have to be very attention, uh, you know, bring their attention to the risk of uh pushing organizations to meet something the funders want, which isn't actually what their core mission was because they're in this funding crunch. Um, so again, part of the role I think of collaboratives, if they've got that trust internally, is is to ask them those awkward questions and say, look, are you doing this? Like um and and we'll we can we're never gonna be perfect. And uh I suspect in some times as we reinforce you you can see I I suspect we even do it. Like there are probably finds where we end up reinforcing certain dynamics that are unhelpful just because we've got our own blind spots. But um I still think in general, we're exactly working to what you said, you know, would be the ideal that we're we're gonna shift the culture of philanthropy going forwards. Um, and it's gonna be one that is much more a conversation amongst equals the extent that you can because the knowledge piece is just as important and the networks are as important as the money, and we've got to stop having the money prioritise over everything else.

SPEAKER_01 47:50

Yeah, absolutely. Um I'm aware we're closing in on the hour, and I don't want to take up more of your time than uh than allotted. But um I guess what I I wanted to ask before I let you go is we've obviously we talked at the beginning of the conversation quite a bit specifically about the the recent rise of philanthropy within Asia and what that meant within a kind of more global context for aid and development. We we touched on on it at the time that obviously, you know, it's not just a story about Asia. There's lots going on elsewhere in the world. And I just um wanted to get your sense of where you're seeing other interesting things happen in terms of new approaches or new sort of potential centres of of philanthropy, you know, philanthropic resources emerge beyond Asia and and beyond kind of UK and and US. Um, you know, are there other places that you think we should be watching and are interesting? How do they compare in terms of the sort of scale we're talking about at the moment?

SPEAKER_02 48:42

Maybe I'll mention two that are quite different. So one is the emerging inherited wealth. Um, these tend to be individuals, families, particularly in Europe, although I think it's true in there are some people we're talking with in the US as well. But one of the issues we care about is uh it's like fair tax systems and like tax justice. Um and it's interesting to see uh inherited wealth at younger generation of philanthropists who saying, I benefited from this system, but I didn't really do anything to get this. And they actually want to change the system. So we've got people who are funding tax justice work, which is gonna, you know, cut off a future part of their ability to grow their own wealth, um, because they're like this system needs to change fundamentally. So there's some emerging shifts that are new players in philanthropy either because of the you know, just the perspective and their entry point um uh that I think are fascinating to watch. And then I was at a meeting called the Africa Exchange in a couple of months ago that Rockefeller Foundation, Hilton Foundation had organized, but they to their credit, they did a really good job of bringing in family foundations, individual donors within Africa and listening to them. Like there were one group that their default is that they gave eight-year grants. Like I can't no TI member has that as a policy. Like we're talking about getting towards multi-year core operational support. This is their default. Um, and yes, it's not at a huge scale, but I think some of the practices that they're just like, oh, this is common sense, this is how we're doing it, it reflects the context we're trying to operate in. And as they grow, and I think they will, like that's that becomes the culture that influences others and their peers as well. So I that I actually gave me a lot of hope. So I do think it just reinforces this point that as philanthropy thinks about what is its best role in this current context and how do we forge development or whatever your priority issue is, it needs to be a global exchange of doing this. Like there's pockets of good practice, there's different scales of working that we all need to be learning from. Um and and two, you know, so uh yes, there's a role for regional coordination and country coordination, but I also think we need those places where we're just talking about getting inspiration from each other in a way that's wasn't as easy even 10 years ago, but I think these days it's a lot easier.

SPEAKER_01 51:04

Yeah, yeah, I agreed. And I think you know, the both of us are probably working in philanthropy often enough that we've probably heard a lot of the same things and kind of received wisdom uh being trotted out a lot. And it's often easy in some of those meetings to uh you know, I slightly sometimes have rolled my eyes at times when people just kind of say the same things over and over again. And the conversations where I don't get that these days are the ones that are more global in nature, because you hear genuinely interesting different perspectives. So I I totally agree that the more that we can provide sort of platforms and forums for that, the the better I think it will make uh all of our work. It remains just to say thanks ever so much, Michael, for finding some time to come on the podcast. It's been really great to talk to you. Um I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find out more information about TAI collaborative and some things that you've written. Um and just yeah, wish you all the best with your work in the future.

SPEAKER_02 51:55

Thanks, Rodri, and thanks for doing this. I I'm I'm an avid listener, and it's you know, you always find interesting angles that I don't always think about. So I appreciate it.

SPEAKER_01 52:13

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Michael for coming on the podcast. Uh great to hear about uh the work of the TAI Collaborative and to hear some of his thoughts on the current global landscape for philanthropy. I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can find out more about the work of TAI Collaborative and some of the things that Michael's written. I'll put links to a few things that I've written that might be of interest. If you're interested more broadly, generally in issues around philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. You can find lots of articles and think pieces about all kinds of aspects of philanthropy. You can find sort of shorter guides to interesting angles on philanthropy with a heavy dash of history often. Uh, you can find all the back issues of this podcast. You can also sign up for the newsletter that I do once a month. Uh so lots of things there you can get stuck into. If you want to follow me on social media, you can do that too. Uh, best place to find me these days is LinkedIn. Uh, so I post things there pretty regularly, so do come and find me and please interact with me so I don't feel quite so lonely. Uh, if you think that there are other people that might enjoy the podcast, please do let them know about it. Um, or give us a nice review wherever it is that you get your podcast, so that bumps us up the algorithm. And if you've got ideas for topics we could cover or people that I could talk to, please do get in touch. I'm always up for suggestions, uh, and I take a lot of them forward where they you know fit and will work for the podcast. So uh it's definitely worth doing if you've got an idea of your own. Other than that, it just remains to say thanks ever so much for listening. Uh, it's great to be back, uh, and I'll see you next time. Bye.