Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better

by Rob Reich

The troubling ethics and politics of philanthropy

Is philanthropy, by its very nature, a threat to today's democracy? Though we may laud wealthy individuals who give away their money for society's benefit, Just Giving shows how such generosity not only isn't the unassailable good we think it to be but might also undermine democratic values and set back aspirations of justice. Big philanthropy is often an exercise of power, the conversion of private assets into public influence. And it is a form of power that is largely unaccountable, often perpetual, and lavishly tax-advantaged. The affluent--and their foundations--reap vast benefits even as they influence policy without accountability. And small philanthropy, or ordinary charitable giving, can be problematic as well. Charity, it turns out, does surprisingly little to provide for those in need and sometimes worsens inequality.

These outcomes are shaped by the policies that define and structure philanthropy. When, how much, and to whom people give is influenced by laws governing everything from the creation of foundations and nonprofits to generous tax exemptions for donations of money and property. Rob Reich asks: What attitude and what policies should democracies have concerning individuals who give money away for public purposes? Philanthropy currently fails democracy in many ways, but Reich argues that it can be redeemed. Differentiating between individual philanthropy and private foundations, the aims of mass giving should be the decentralization of power in the production of public goods, such as the arts, education, and science. For foundations, the goal should be what Reich terms "discovery," or long-time-horizon innovations that enhance democratic experimentalism. Philanthropy, when properly structured, can play a crucial role in supporting a strong liberal democracy.

Just Giving investigates the ethical and political dimensions of philanthropy and considers how giving might better support democratic values and promote justice.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, Philosophy, History, Social Justice, Business

256 pages, Hardcover

Published November 20, 2018

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 3 out of 5]

The best thing about this book is that it gives an interesting history of philanthropy and charity even including some Islamic forms – and this discussion includes the legal and ethical requirements associated with the kinds of charities that have existed in the past and what we might learn from them. It also includes philosophical discussions around the nature of charity, not least the idea that the preferences of the dead should not be allowed tie the hands of the living. This hadn’t really been an Idea I’d spent much time thinking about before. The future really does not belong to the living, and yet, so many of us seem to want to leave our mark by binding the hands of future generations according to our will.

Charities and trusts can be particularly guilty of this. People might decide to leave everything they own to curing leprosy, say, only for leprosy to be cured before the money runs out… or a curious recent example from Australia. Over summer we had some remarkable bushfires – end-of-the-world type fires. Anyway, a comedian decided to raise money for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. A really lovely thing to do – and she raised bucket loads of money – millions and millions. The only problem was that the money was raised so as to be donated to the RFS – but the RFS is only allowed to spend money donated to it on fire equipment. Which isn’t quite what the people donating it thought they were donating for. They wanted to help people in need due to having lost everything in the fires. If we struggle to get charity right in the present, getting it right into the future after we are dead is obviously going to be even more difficult.

The author ends up saying that charity is probably, on balance, a good thing, but that we ought to change the laws to ensure that it is actually achieving what it is sets out to achieve. I have to say that while reading this that wasn’t the conclusion I was coming to. As he makes clear, most money that is donated ends up in a very small range of services. We tend to think that charities mostly helps the poor – and so is a kind of redistribution of wealth. But this is often not the case. For instance, the main recipients of charitable donations are churches. Also, the rich tend to donate to organisations that provide services to the rich – the opera, say, or their alma mater. That doesn’t automatically make the donation worthless, but it doesn’t automatically make it about redistribution of wealth and helping the poor, either.

Tax breaks once you donate are also a problem. This effectively means the government pays for your preferences, since this ends up being foregone revenue. That is, the poor get to pay for your preferences too. This is doubly difficult on the poor, not merely because they tend to miss out on the benefits because rich people support rich people’s charities, but also because while it might be true that in aggregate the poor donate more than the rich, they are less likely to claim a tax rebate than the rich are, missing out in all ways.

The author makes the point that although the rich do not contribute the largest proportion of all the donations made, they often donate the largest single donation and this gives them a disproportionate voice in deciding how all of the money gets to be spent.

A lot of this book relates back to US tax codes and although the author assured us that this was similar to what happens in other countries, I basically got lost and didn’t really want to make the effort to be found again. Otherwise, this book gives an interesting overview of a number of issues related to the problems of charity.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who works in philanthropy, I found this to be a very interesting book, although it is not very readable. It is written by a philosophy professor and was written it seems with more of an academic audience in mind - so the language is a bit stilted.

That being said, the author's purpose is to analyze philanthropy's role in a liberal democracy. He starts by looking at three historical examples of giving: ancient Greece, the Islamic waqf and the creation of the Rockefeller Foundation (the later was particularly eye-opening to me).

He then goes on to discuss the current system and legal parameters of philanthropy in the U.S. today before looking at private foundations in particular.

Ultimately he concludes that private foundations can be a positive for a democratic society if certain limitations are put on them because they potentially serve pluralistic and "discovery" needs in society. However, he appears to come out against any sort of charitable deduction for philanthropic contributions. Personally, I am in agreement with him regarding the desirability (or lack thereof) of allowing individuals to take a charitable deduction. However, professionally and from my organization's point of view, I would never argue in favor of total elimination - but that's a debate for another day.

[Matt Lechel · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important dissection of philanthropy. I liked this book from a professional lens of working as a nonprofit capacity builder and I loved this book from the lens of being a citizen in kalamazoo Michigan in 2019 where recently two mega-rich donors (one of whom already funds the kalamazoo promise- a free college program for kzoo public school graduates) created a ‘foundation for excellence’ that lowered property taxes as its first initiative and created a quasi city linked nonprofit entity, led by the mayor and other community members. This book raised more questions than it answered for me but the questions needed to be raised and I’m thankful to the author for this work.

[Conrad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting read on a topic that I'm exploring and thinking about more and more often. This book offers a bunch of interesting vectors of thinking about philanthropy. Many of them are beyond the individual question which is always asked about whether a person should give (yes of course), and what that person should be giving to (things that will be effective). Instead, this book offers a discussion of the larger question of philanthropy and how it might or might not fit in our current modern manifestations of society.

While reading it I flip flopped back and forth between 'philanthropy bad!' to 'philanthropy good!' in my head. This maybe makes it seem like there wasn't a cohesive conclusion to be drawn from the book, which could be seen as a problem with it, but I kinda like reading something that is meant to be almost entirely a discussion of various points and their pros and cons. These different perspectives will help guide my own into the future.

Definitely worth reading if you're interested in society and you're thinking about your role with philanthropy as a part of it.

[Elizabeth Stolar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very academic book, and even though it was only 200 pages, it took me a while to read it, as it was not a quick read. That said, it was worthwhile and it raises a lot of interesting points. I hadn't thought about the potential for charitable foundations to be anti-democratic, as they give plutocratic voices and outsized voice in social policy. This is a good read for those interested in social policy and in charities and non-profit institutions, but it's not for everyone.

[Dana Schmidt · Rating 3 out of 5]

A provocative look at philanthropic giving in the US and the rationale (or lack thereof) for the tax incentives behind it. A little dry and overly repetitive, but an important set of ideas.

[Kara of BookishBytes · Rating 3 out of 5]

The tone of this book is quite scholarly and I'm not sure I learned much by the end that I hadn't learned after reading the first chapter. The author's thesis is that very large, multi-generational philanthropic foundations exert so much social and financial power that is controlled by a handful of individuals that these institutions might be counter-democratic in their influence.

OK. I can see why that's a potential problem. And he discusses ways to control their power, such as requiring them to close or distribute all of their capital after a certain number of years, or taxing them at a high rate after a certain amount of time.

I hoped the book would provide more broad philosophical discussions of the benefits and drawbacks of all types of philanthropy, but it didn't. So for donors who aren't Bill Gates or Warren Buffett (or other extraordinarily high net worth individuals), the book didn't have much to say. It's not just 99% of us who fall under the threshold of wealth the author is talking about, it's 99.999% of us.

So it felt like the author was discussing a very abstract concept that has little relevance to my life.

[Matt Aukamp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not the easiest or most accessible read. Perhaps needlessly academic and dry for the ideas it conjures. But, full of incredibly interesting history, discussion, and analysis. A thorough examination of one facet of philanthropy as a suspect institution. Namely, the benefit or hindrance of foundations in a liberal democratic society.

You may find this take narrow in scope if you're hoping for discussion about philanthropy in an increasingly conservative and undemocratic world. Or if you're hoping for more than cursory mention of how wealthy giving shapes a world for the wealthy. Mostly its about tax benefits and institutions in perpituity.

He generally approaches his topics with assumptions about well-functioning democracies and well-meaning charities, which is necessary for his argument but incongruous with the real world.

Also, I'm a bit skeptical of his final conclusions. He leans on the idea that preserving the stability of democratic institutions is a preferable use for our money to providing for the currently-needy. I wonder if he's considered how failing to provide for the needy is a VECTOR for future destabilization of democratic institutions.

Still, a smart and insightful read with a ton of political and philosophical value about a subject that WAY MORE PEOPLE should be paying critical attention to.

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Just Giving" is an illustrative example of how philosophy can really muddle up an argument. Reich has a lot of good things to say in here, but as a general audience book it's a complete dud. Five stars for what he's saying. A weak two stars for how he's saying it.

It's worth keeping in mind that his goal with "Just Giving" is to create a political philosophy of philanthropy, this is arguably the reason for the very heavy philosophizing throughout.

For frame of reference here, in a lot of ways, I hate philanthropy. One could even say that I hate it in most ways. I generally see it as a way for people with money to hold on to as much of it as possible - often while drumming up some good PR in the process - while receiving all kinds of subsidies to do so. However, I'd also love to work for/with certain philanthropic endeavors. In other words, while I'm not a political philosopher, I had thought about both the good and the bad relating to philanthropy.

Reading "Just Giving" provided me with a better historical and philosophical framework to approach the topic, but I also think that Reich over-complicated things a bit. The strongest and least controversial parts of the book covered the history of primarily North American philanthropy - but effectively juxtaposed with historical examples from elsewhere - and how intertwined the industry has been and is with politics.

The author makes it abundantly clear that the current philanthropic system is broken and more often harms than helps - and that's without taking into account his more hypothetical slippery slope arguments of what happens when private interests (often even those of dead people) controls more and more how investments and money in general is distributed. He also rightly argues that governments too often subsidize philanthropy instead of directly using and directing state funds (tax money) to fulfill state needs and wants.

The book then moves on to the purely philosophical arguments (albeit that philosophy and philosophical discussions are tapped in to throughout the book) in an attempt to outline a better role for and system of philanthropy. He lands in that philanthropy can be a good in society if and only when it serves very specific purposes. I think he lands in a sound argument and, dare I say, generally succeeds in his goal of establishing a bare-bones political philosophy of philanthropy. I feel like there's room for improvement on it, and I especially don't feel the need to anchor my own opinions in philosophical canon like the author did (and likely lost a lot of readers because of). But we've got to start somewhere, right!?

Recommended, but a rough read.

[Nick Klagge · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this up after reading Anand Giridharadas's "Winners Take All," which I gathered drew on a lot of ideas from Reich and other academics. It's a short but engaging read, which I would personally recommend over WTA. Reich's point in JG is to try to develop a theory-based view of the appropriate role of philanthropy in specifically democratic societies. He notes that government incentivization of philanthropy (through tax breaks for charitable giving) is a relatively recent development in human history, while of course, charitable giving in various forms has existed at least back to ancient times. What is a democratic government's interest in supporting private giving--especially when, at least as currently structured, this giving is heavily weighted toward the preferences of the wealthy and in general is not targeted to help the poorest in society?

Reich also explores whether there can be any justification for perpetual private charitable foundations. He presents some very interesting historical context around this point, showing that the idea was heavily resisted by the likes of John Stuart Mill, and showing the initial political resistance to the establishment of the Rockefeller foundation. This is quite eye-opening for a reader coming from a period where charitable foundations are nothing short of lionized. But Mill and others expressed concerns that foundations outlasting their founders would be essentially unaccountable to any living persons. Reich also demonstrates the proliferation of small foundations, which can probably be better described as "family tax dodges" more so than civic institutions in the public interest.

Ultimately, Reich identifies some ways that both governmental incentives for private giving and foundations can be justified in and reconciled with democratic societies--though perhaps not exactly in their present forms. I found his arguments mostly if not entirely convincing, but more than that, I think he does a great service by presenting this as a question that needs to be asked, and attempting to give us a framework in which to talk about it. Too often, the "obvious moral good" of philanthropy can be used to distract us from taking a critical view on the specific ways it is enacted and incentivized in our society.

I'm really looking forward to reading Reich's co-edited and even more academic collection, "Philanthropy in Democratic Societies."

[Sandrine Pal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat dry, but very interesting in some parts. I picked this up because of a footnote in Thomas Piketty's Capital et Idéologie, which was marginally less dry, but considerably longer! Reich's position (which I share) is mostly opposed to unchecked philanthropy, but he leaves no stone unturned in examining the arguments on both sides. One point I found compelling is that, in systems where charitable donations are essentially subsidized by taxpayers, the failures of some philanthropic ventures become all of our failures, in a sense. Another point, on the topic of deducting donations: the 'reverse progressiveness' of those deductions had never occurred to me. A person in a high tax bracket gets a bigger deduction from the same gift than a person in the lowest bracket (not to mention people who have to take the standard deduction because their gifts and other deductions do not warrant itemizing). On a silly note, it must be rough being in this line of research and having as a homonym a former Secretary of Labor.

[Robert Wechsler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well-written, well-organized look at the forms of American philanthropy and the incentives that have, for the most part, led us to those forms. Reich focuses a bit too much on big philanthropy, especially big foundations, but one of the weakest parts of his book (in terms of the quality of the writing) is the defenses he makes of foundations: far more arcane and long-winded than the rest of the book. The other weakness is the “How It Can Do Better” part; there’s not a clear picture of how Reich sees a better philanthropic world. But overall it’s an eye-opening book that I hope will fuel responsible conversation on the topic.

[Amanda Kelso · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rob Reich gives an excellent overview of the history of philanthropy in the US and then provides credible evidence on how it is creating deep flaws in our society. I would recommend to anyone who wants to get a better understanding of how foundations work, and the tax incentives inherent to them. When we look at scandals like the funding of scientific research by Epstein or cultural institutions by the Sackler family, we need to start asking ourselves why these important institutions must rely on private funding in the first place.

[Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I applauded every chapter of this book. As much a way to think systematically about philanthropy, this was also an introduction for me to the notion of public morality. I hope Reich writes a follow-up that further develops the notion that foundations should be a locus of innovation work.

[Lada · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is interesting discussion about the history of foundations in the US and how tax breaks for charitable giving are regressive. The political philosophy was interesting at first but grew a bit repetitive. One point the author kept returning to was how allowing foundations to operate in perpetuity would harm future generations. But short of hypothetical catastrophic events that would need the resources, there were no examples given (I think) of foundations being somehow outdated in purpose or over-constrained. It was also not clear why future generations could not change laws or make other adjustments to make foundations work for them. Overall a thoughtful exposition.

[Anu Khosla · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my opinion, an absolutely critical book for anyone who works in philanthropy or policy, or who is general concerned by how to structure a healthy and sustainable democratic society.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book for donors, non profit board members and anyone interested in our Democracy. Tax laws and record inequality have led to some perverse trends in philanthropy, where the rich can exert self-serving influence on our public institutions. Reich offers evidence of the troubling trends and some thoughtful solutions, including using donor funds to accelerate experiments in policy and programs. When successful, those experiments should become publicly funded policy. Sometimes his writing is too academic, since its message should be heard by all.

[Zachary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just Giving makes a persuasive case for the role of philanthropy in democratic societies that could have been made in the span of an essay rather than a book. Unfortunately, Reich’s efforts to stretch his claims about the parameters within which charitable donations and philanthropic foundations would be morally permissible make this book needlessly repetitive. That Reich’s conclusions would have been better served in article format is evident in the fact that the book itself is compiled from many of Reich’s previously published essays: he names seven academic articles in the introduction that have been reworked and revised for this book’s publication. One also wonders whether the entire first chapter, a scatter-shot overview of philanthropic practices in ancient Athens, Islamic societies, and industrial Britain meant to demonstrate that “philanthropy is not an invention of the state but can be viewed as an artifact” of it (20), could have been totally eliminated without any loss to the book’s main thesis.

So what is Reich’s thesis? First, Reich is extremely critical of the laws that structure philanthropic practices in the United States and many other democratic societies. The tax deduction that the United States offers citizens to incentivize individual charitable donations—“a subsidy for the exercise of a liberty that people already possess” (149)—is “difficult or impossible to justify,” Reich maintains (19). Nevertheless, Reich does not claim philanthropy, even if it does not accomplish the social justice objectives that the subsidy implicitly presupposes philanthropy is meant to achieve, should be entirely prohibited. In fact, he insists that “philanthropy should not be considered a remedial activity, a second-best approach to the aims of justice in a liberal democracy. It can promote, in a first-best sense, the aims of liberal democracy” (19). More specifically, Reich concludes that in the case of individual charitable donations, philanthropy’s objectives should be what he calls “pluralism,” i.e. to amplify all citizens’ voices via means that circumvent the constraints in representative democracy of majority rule and the median voter. In the case of foundations, he concludes that philanthropy’s objective should be what he calls “discovery,” i.e. to incentivize policy innovations “that, if successful, can be presented to a democratic public for approval and incorporation into state policy or, alternatively, adopted into a market economy by corporate actors” (19). Thus, Reich ultimately comes to defend the role of philanthropy in democratic societies, albeit on different terms than its advocates usually put forth.

It is difficult not to concur with Reich’s criticisms of the laws that structure philanthropic behavior in the United States. First and foremost, Reich demonstrates that the tax deduction on contributions of cash or property to 501(c)(3) nonprofits does not treat donors equally, as it explicitly benefits the more well-off. For starters, “the charitable contributions deduction is available only to those individuals who itemize their deductions, people who opt not to take the so-called standard deduction on their income tax,” Reich points out (78). Most people (around seventy percent of all taxpayers) do not itemize their deductions, yet ninety percent of all Americans make charitable contributions every year. This means that taxpayers who itemize deductions have their charitable contributions effectively subsidized while taxpayers who take the standard deduction receive no such subsidy for their donations, even when both parties donate the same amount. There is no reason for this, Reich insists: “Why should your $100 donation to a charitable organization be deductible, and therefore subsidized, while my $100 donation to the same charitable organization goes unsubsidized simply because I cannot avail myself of itemized deductions?” (78). On top of this, Reich observes that “the tax subsidy given to those who do receive the deduction possesses what is known as an ‘upside-down effect.’ The deduction functions as an increasingly greater subsidy with every higher step in the income tax bracket . . . perversely but as a matter of mathematical logic” (79). Both features of the tax code, Reich concludes, unfairly benefit the wealthy for no clear reason. “Donor-facing charitable giving policies in the tax code are deeply inegalitarian,” he writes. “They systematically favor the rich in providing them larger benefits” and thus introduce “a potent plutocratic bias” (80).

Reich therefore contends that these features of the tax code should be eliminated. Even then, however, philanthropy is not in the clear, especially since philanthropy is by its very nature plutocratic and, consequently, potentially antithetical to the aims of democratic states. By this, Reich means that philanthropic norms permit wealthier citizens to exert considerably more public influence vis-à-vis causes, movements, and institutions they endorse than most of their fellow citizens. While, in principle, philanthropy stripped of the unfair rules of the U.S. tax code would allow all citizens to express their values with their dollars, in practice, philanthropy—with or without the unfair tax deduction—amplifies wealthier citizens’ voices over and above their less well-off peers. This may not be so much of a threat to democracy if the charitable causes to which philanthropists contributed benefited everyone in society, or else complemented the state’s redistributive efforts to reduce inequality and care for the poor and afflicted. Data that Reich canvasses indicate, however, that “as an empirical matter . . . charity is really not much about caring for the needs of strangers, providing for the poor and disadvantaged. . . . It is not an especially significant supplement to the state’s efforts to establish a social safety net for citizens.” Therefore, “if we believe the purpose of philanthropic or charitable giving to be predominantly redistributive . . . the actually existing distribution of giving in the United States does not meet the test” (92).

Philanthropy, then, cannot be justified on the basis that it is “a remedial activity, a second-best approach to the aims of justice in a liberal democracy” (19). Philanthropy as it is currently practiced in the United States is not especially concerned with social justice. Nevertheless, in response to the question, “What attitude should a liberal democratic state have toward the preference of individuals to make donations of money or property for a philanthropic purpose” (13), Reich claims that there may be at least two reasons for the state not only to permit philanthropy, but also to incentivize philanthropic activity (albeit not in the form of the unfair tax deduction). The first is what he calls the “pluralism rationale.” As mentioned earlier, this is the idea that philanthropy can be justified with respect to its ability “to enhance or amplify all citizens’ voices, stimulate their contributions to civil society, and assist minorities in overcoming the constraints of majority rule and the median voter” (131). Yet, while Reich proposes that the pluralism rationale may justify state-sponsored incentives to stimulate charitable activity, he is still deeply worried about the philanthropy’s innate plutocratic tendencies, even without the unfair tax deduction. His second and more persuasive justification for philanthropy in democratic societies is, then, “discovery”: the notion that private foundations can serve as incubation chambers for public policy ideas that elected officials, concerned with re-election and thus short-time-horizon policy objectives, are typically less likely to endorse. As privately funded entities, foundations have more latitude to experiment with policy projects. Because foundations have more leeway with their donors than elected officials with their constituents, such projects can even fail without serious detriment to the foundation’s reputation. Unfortunately, Reich observes, very few foundations currently serve this “discovery” purpose. Yet if one were to justify the existence of private foundations, plutocratic warts and all, in a liberal democratic state, the “discovery rationale” most likely offers the surest basis. Notably, the “discovery rationale” also offers a “first-best” justification for foundations which, should they operate as the incubation chambers Reich envisions, would directly serve the aims of liberal democracy.

There is much to endorse in Just Giving. Reich’s criticisms of philanthropy reintroduce into popular discourse sound reasons to be skeptical of most philanthropic activity in the United States today. At the same time, Reich also offers a creative defense of philanthropy in terms of pluralism and discovery. Clearly, as a first step, federal policymakers should work to eliminate the unfair tax deduction for charitable donations and, perhaps, replace it with a tax credit that would not unduly benefit the more well-off and those who itemize their tax returns. Nevertheless, despite these positive contributions and apart from the book’s repetitive nature, Reich does not persuasively explain how to re-orient philanthropic culture—particularly the world of private foundations—toward creative policy innovation and experimentation (i.e. discovery). While Reich does make some concrete recommendations—he proposes an asset threshold below which one could not incorporate a foundation, for example—he does not offer mechanisms for how we, as a society, can help induce discovery-oriented philanthropic behavior. If discovery—over and above pluralism—is the best justification for the existence of foundations in democracies like the United States, our next step is to envision the conditions for the possibility of a philanthropic culture committed to discovery. That is, we need to find ways to make the private philanthropic sphere more civic-minded—a rather tall order.

[Thurston Hunger · Rating 2 out of 5]

"It was ok" seems the most apt rating for this book. While examining the role of philanthropy and foundations seems well worth the effort these days (PAC-men and PAC-women as political king-makers, billionaires as all checks and no balances in terms of social welfare, an interesting way of keeping religion and state seemingly separate but connected on a dotted line), at the end of this book Reich seems happy to have merely raised interest in examining the repercussions of philanthropy.

The book does start with more of a bang, summoning ex-Presidents and other heroes of yore to indict philanthropy as anti-democratic. But we also learn that it has been around forever (waqf history was interesting, at least the first time it was discussed) and that is not really a surprise. Codifying it into law, and tax law at that, with Rockefeller a little over 100 years ago in the US, also fascinating...again the first time.

But the book repeatedly brings up these and other points, I see other reviews calling this well-written. Maybe I'm too far gone from academia, but it seems the very opposite. Perhaps through repetition and overly convoluted language (no concepts herein are thaaaat complicated), perhaps that lends an air of impartial and studied distance.

Meh.

Two things working against Reich may be that he himself is not up for the underlying philosophical bang. He does talk about the ability to take risks through foundations, and to bolster a plurality of opinions (nevermind the woefully underfunded arts in the US), and on the negative side, the ego-feed and power-grab that goes with our captains of industry "sheiking" their booty if you will.

The abundance of smaller foundations, and the idea of folks wanting a legacy of sorts, is this a negative. We do learn (and learn and learn) that foundations must spend 5% of their coffers, but we don't hear too much about how that gets taken advantage of (I assume it does). Reich introduces the new stream of a for-profit foundation, but then that does get taxed....or does it. The question is dodged, as surely as the taxing may be.

Anyways, I get that a final yea-or-nay is complicated, I feel this way about most things. I thought Reich might bring up the amount of actual taxes vs charitable bypass of taxes to help give that concern a little more depth. He does bring up the idea (again and again) that the money for those philanthropic endeavors is at least 50% the public's by way of accounting....and the dead hands still are stronger than the living poor....also the unitemized donations, typically coming outside of the Aspen super$tars, get discounted in a ways.

I did re-read some parts over a couple of times, I remain very vaguely aware of what Reich means by "social capital" in chapter 5. Even after I read pp178 "Here we understand social capital to refer to individual or collective attitudes of generalized trust, civicness, and reciprocity that are generated by and embedded in cooperative activities and networks."

If that sentence gets your engine gunning, then this is the book for you. Otherwise hopefully some other will take the ideas and bibliography herein and run with it. Even so, please beware the excessive repetition in this book; I understand it collected other writings but for the sake of at least this reader, a tidying/editing/rewriting would have been appreciated.

I should say I read this after "Winners Take All" by Giridharadas, as Anand gave props to Reich...I need to review that book next. I had high hopes for this one, but it was ok.

[Bill Lawrence · Rating 5 out of 5]

Both interesting and in a couple of cases interesting historical perspective, as well as thought provoking as to policy for a higher purpose of foundations than they are currently aspiring to (for the most part). Subsidy of charity through tax deductions is relatively new and skews hard toward benefit of the wealthy even though 90% of Americans give to charity. The greater the wealth the lower the percentage of giving is directed to the disadvantaged . How much is giving, in effect, a purchase—social standing, recognition, one’s social network(own church), children’s’ education, access to tickets or events)? Very thought provoking!

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read.
The thesis is our current charitable foundation set up and tax advantages are incredibly regressive and provide benefits to well off people, and the more well off you are. .(the higher the tax bracket), the bigger your benefit at the expense of the services to support the rest of society (schools, roads). The epitome of this is the school foundation (which I've actively supported myself). Wealthy neighborhoods and parents supporting their children, because the state government effort is insufficient, which in turn deprives the state of tax revenue, which exacerbates the problem.

[Nik · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book presents a few interesting ideas, and is certainly novel in its development of a political philosophy of philanthropy. It is not a very critical one, though, and is highly repetitive. By (easily, in my view) making the assumptions that philanthropy will be nested in liberal democratic states (despite the rapid decay of such states), the political philosophy (and attendant moral questions) leap-frog some of the most important, complex, and compelling critiques of the philanthropic sector (coming from anti-capitalist, Marxist, and more left-wing perspectives).

[Rick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating, thought-provoking, challenging examination of the role of philanthropy in society. Highly recommended.

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Regardless of the extent to which you think the critiques Reich makes are tractable issues worthy of more focus, I think that the general ideas put forward in discerning private morality (personal philanthropy) from public morality (system-wide philanthropy and societal implications) are indeed noteworthy. It is true that actions in the microcosm of personal philanthropy may be easily justified compared to their counterfactuals of luxurious spending/stockpiling, but a more systemic outlook on the growing role of philanthropy to differing judgements/counterfactuals (think your standard prisoner's dilemma and the need for a 'Leviathan-type power'). To merely assume that since philanthropy is the best bet for a given individual it's therefore a net good for society is a possible fallacy of composition that should be investigated further.

Reich's framing of the rich unjustifiably receiving more benefits from philanthropic pursuits seems fairly disingenuous, or at the very least underdeveloped with respect to highlighting the way in which progressive tax brackets serve their function, inevitably leading to larger discounts for gifts. The idea that many people are getting 'screwed' because they don't itemize their giving fails to account for the fact that the standard deduction is rarely exceeded, so this seems like a non-issue.

Nonetheless, I think Reich asks great questions regarding what empirically would be the case with different levels of tax incentives towards philanthropy, comparing the treasury's lost income with any benefit private philanthropy does provide. I also think it's understandable to worry about billionaire philanthropists wielding too much power, excessive futility that seems likely with the growing prevalence of donor advised funds, etc. However, 'billionaire philanthropists' is a broad category, and it remains true that some (Gates, Buffet, etc) are likely doing more for the world with their money than the government would/could, whereas other billionaires building their legacies and/or donating to more superfluous causes are likely hurting the country by escaping their standard tax rates. A serious investigation into what sort of philanthropy warrants various levels of tax breaks seems worth pursuing, but public discussion of how some charities are objectively better than others is a can of worms many people aren't yet equipped to handle. Thankfully, Effective Altruism seems to be making great strides on this front!

[Krystina · Rating 2 out of 5]

The main idea of this book is that the United States’ 2016 tax code (although published in 2018, it doesn’t catch up to recent changes in our tax code around charitable donations) unfairly benefits the wealthy by, essentially, subsidizing their philanthropy, while less wealthy donors — although giving away larger portions of their income to charity — do not hit the benchmarks to itemize their donations. Family foundations are a way to: subvert taxes that could have been paid on wealth; pass social capital from one generation to the next; and be allowed too much pull over big investments in a community. It’s an unfair result of capitalist society, but there’s really nothing new or surprising in this book. Reich asks the question of if foundation grants result in more positive impact in a community than the taxes that would otherwise have been paid on that income. He doesn’t know how to answer that, so he just says some sources say Yes and some say No, without going into detail. In a similarly frustrating vein, he later says that there’s so much complex literature on the reproduction of social capital that, “We cannot provide a full discussion here. For our purposes it suffices to note that the nuclear family [...] would not seem to be the ideal or natural candidate (or at least not sufficient) for the reproduction of social capital over time. This is because families tend to be inward-looking and to reproduce exclusive and particularistic bonds rather than more generalized forms of trust.” But, this is *your book*... you have all the time & space you want to explain out theories and to do some original research. Not attempting his own research, including shockingly little examples of how current foundations invest, and the constant repetition of the same few thoughts over and over (I wonder if each chapter was intended as a separate publication) were a few of the reasons I did not enjoy this book. Also, the chapter that meant to talk about how foundations lead to inequality doesn’t even mention the effects on racial inequality. It just seems to me that the author doesn’t seem to have on-the-ground experience in the philanthropic sector. Also, his references to helping “poor people” was very out of touch.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

so glad i finally got around to reading this. i first heard Rob Reich talk about this book at a book launch for Anand Giridharadas' Winners Take All (which i have a lot of thoughts about, so ask me). for me personally, i found Reich's book to be much more substantive and levelheaded, whereas Giridharadas' read more like an extended rant. Just Giving is written in a very academic but comprehensible style. even though i haven't read much political philosophy, Reich lays out his arguments with great clarity and takes the reader along.

as someone who works in and around the philanthropic sector, i found so much in this book that i'll be digesting for a while. some key topics:
1/ the public subsidizes every charitable donation because of tax deductions. the 501(c)(3) system of categorizing US nonprofits creates equal incentives for all kinds of charitable giving. only a small percentage of charitable giving goes to help people in the most need.
2/ how the US system of tax deductions for charitable donations creates a plutocracy through bigger tax breaks for the wealthy.
3/ plurality, i.e. the idea that the government responds only to the wishes of the majority, and charitable organizations better reflect more diverse minority needs. in response to ponderings about whether it would be better for all assistance to go through the government.
4/ discovery, i.e. the idea that foundations, being more sheltered and less time-bound than governments, can invest in riskier, longer-term way of helping the poor and needy.
5/ the intergenerational nature of foundations, especially the idea of being bound to a donor's wishes in perpetuity. also Rawls's theory of intergenerational justice and whether foundations can help to facilitate such justice.

i also appreciated that Reich lays out good ideas for follow up analyses in his conclusion, namely paternalism, dependence, effective altruism, DAFs, and LLCs (such as the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative).

[Melissa Fondakowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might be the first book on philanthropic theory and practice (from the policy and legislative perspective) that I have ever read and so thoroughly enjoyed. Not only is Reich clear and his ideas easy to follow, he's not an apologist. I'm tired of reading about philanthropy in extremes: either histories of philanthropy that are so in love with the myth of the largess and brilliance of wealthy folks that they call all critics of philanthropy "muckrackers"; or the gotcha detractors of philanthropy that point out the very worst of humanity as a reason for philanthropy to no longer exist. Both are red herrings to distract people from healthy discussion of philanthropy as a theory, and as a fairly regular human practice - and the role it currently plays, and could play, as a key part of a just democratic society's structure. Reich lays out a different history of the human practice of philanthropy that is not your usual suspect (and is therefore very interesting/enlightening), and then digs deep into the questions many of us who work in the philanthropic sector have about what we're all doing here - warts and all. Ultimately Reich concludes there's good reasons for philanthropy as a sector/market in society, but he complicates this argument in really specific and important ways that invite more thinking about it, and encourage change in the practice of it.

I highly recommend this book to all people interested in learning more about how the sector functions and why it functions, and/or who are interested in doing the kind of deep critical thinking and discussion that is required in order to make our efforts not only more effective, but warranted.

[Marit · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reich puts a lot of big ideas and strong messages into a relatively slim book. His philosophical/ethical treatises are buttressed by exemplary data and some historical pattern-sensing. I opened the book admittedly receptive to Reich's titular argument and closed the book with new thoughts about what 'philanthropy' is in the United States, its current function and its potential function. I'd never critically thought, for instance, about what it means for the state (our federal gov't) to 'subsidize' a pretty, damn broad notion of philanthropy due to our tax code for registered non-profits and for individual giving. I have a pretty skeptical and often critical take on private foundations in the United States and while those criticisms were upheld by Reich's data-driven conclusions, they were also ameliorated by his (and other colleague's) postulations of how foundations could actually play a role in promoting both freedom and equality in the States. But there's a lot to change, from laws to culture, in order to get to philanthropy that upholds both freedom and equality, instead of the former only.
Word of caution: I found Reich's writing style to be obtuse. Something about his sentence structures made me have to re-read a sentence twice or more to get the meaning. And he often chose the argument style of starting with caveats or full context exposition instead of the punchline. Which made grasping the bigger messages tedious.

[Austin Carroll Keeley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rob Reich considers the role of philanthropy (and often specifically, foundations), but a public rather than private moral perspective. That is, how are citizens of a democratic society to view philanthropic efforts when they are subsidized by the state via tax write-offs? Reich argues the need for, and then constructs, a theory of philanthropy that finds ways for philanthropists to augment democratic processes that would require significant changes to the tax code. The author presents a reasonable, coherent argument and succeeds in his quest to offer a solution. I have seen reviews call the work "curmudgeonly" and "anti-philanthropy". These miss the mark entirely. The author properly demonstrates that philanthropy, from a public perspective, must not be greeted with blind gratitude, but with thoughtful consideration for the impact the institution will have on our democracy.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

A deeply immoral book from a deeply immoral person. After all, anything that might limit the power of Reich's God, the Government, should be crushed. And, in a way, Reich is right to worship the State, after all his entire living and the promise of the good living for his family comes from the people that are manipulating the State. His wages, his living expenses, the perks and the generous pension plan come from tax money. So why should be any different?

As for the immorality of the book: after the wages and debts have been paid, after the taxes have been paid, Reich comes with a bright, and not at all original, idea: the people should have the bare minimum, or what he would probably call "to each according to his needs" and the rest should be taken away as there still are five stars restaurants in which Reich has not eaten.