Editors’ Note: Dana Doan continues HistPhil‘s forum on the Inclusive Study of Global Philanthropy, with a perspective from Vietnam and the United States.

When people find out that I study philanthropy, I feel compelled to have a conversation about the term to prevent them from jumping to the conclusion that I research elite individuals donating large amounts of money to formal, not-for-profit organizations. This happens to me when I visit the USA, where I am from, as much as it happens in Vietnam, where I have worked since 2002. The tendency to focus on elites and formal institutions does not describe my experience researching and working in the field of philanthropy, and more specifically community philanthropy, as a founder, staff member, volunteer, consultant, and partner to registered and unregistered nonprofit organizations.

In my opinion, a more inclusive understanding of the term philanthropy would do three things: (1) pay greater attention to the persistent and wide-ranging indigenous practices of mutual aid and care work; (2) resolve existing critiques concerning the criteria and definitional boundaries for philanthropy and nonprofits; and (3) ensure that measures of philanthropy value the expressive roles that I believe philanthropy is best positioned to deliver to foster inclusive and cooperative societies. Our societies’ current lopsided attention towards a particular type of philanthropist, the use of unsuitable boundaries to categorize and compare philanthropic actions, and the inclination to give outsized value to outputs and short-term measures of effectiveness contribute to promoting a problematic understanding of the term ‘philanthropy.’ To overcome these challenges, I propose that we bring back the love.   

Where is the love for the large group of “small” givers?

From my experience working in philanthropy in both the Global North and Global South, the lives and actions of celebrities and high net worth individuals attracts outsized attention. Whether we aim to commend their giving, attract some of their resources, or investigate their motivates or strategies, practitioners, researchers, the media, and society in general provide a disproportionate amount of attention to people like Mackenzie Scott, Elton John, Wee Wei Ling, and Jackie Chan. In doing so, we pay comparably less attention to the larger and much more diverse group of everyday givers, who carry-on long-held, indigenous practices, such as various forms of mutual aid and collective giving.

Scholars identify a variety of forms of mutual aid and collective giving practices around the world and throughout history. While these practices are ubiquitous in the Global North and Global South, there is a higher level of expectation in collectivist cultures, such as Vietnam and other countries in Asia. For example, in Vietnam, it is taken for granted that family members will contribute to care work (e.g., retirees taking care of their grandchildren, children taking care of their parents) rather than expecting institutions (private, for-profit, or nonprofit) to provide care services.

Having spent the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA and the second in Vietnam, I was struck by the similarities and differences in collective action. In both settings, I observed an increase in organic, local, responsive giving practices by individuals, both online and offline. Individuals in both the USA and Vietnam mobilized friends, neighbors, and employers to deliver moral, financial, and in-kind support to community members, colleagues, and essential workers. I also observed some differences in collective action. For example, in Vietnam, individuals were more willing to comply with government recommendations to protect the greater good (e.g., stay home, wear masks, test for COVID-19, get vaccinated, buy only what you need) compared to individuals in the USA. On social media, Vietnamese citizens were shamed for not wearing masks, while US citizens were confronted for wearing them. I believe that a more inclusive approach to the study and practice of philanthropy would explore the similarities and differences in mutual aid and collective action as much as, if not more than, the attention we offer big givers.

What would happen if our society, and the field of philanthropy, spent more time examining and comparing this large group of “small” givers and paid less attention to the much smaller group of “big” givers? For example, if we understand the motivations and practices of everyday givers, we might gain better understanding about factors that enhance collaboration for the well-being of others. And if we include some of the taken-for-granted forms of giving, like family caretakers, generous neighbors, and non-monetary collective action, we might discover important nuances in our comparative reports on global giving.

Where is the love in our definitions?

In the pursuit of knowledge-building and comparison, researchers tend to craft definitions and set boundaries for a concept. But, as with the concept of philanthropy, definitions and boundaries can prove limiting, inappropriate, or impractical. When I began my Ph.D. program, I remember feeling startled by Robert Payton’s definition of philanthropy, “voluntary action for the public good,” referenced in my core courses and in academic journals dedicated to the study of philanthropy and voluntary action. My concern with Payton’s definition resides in the fact that it lacks any sense of the relational and expressive roles that I expect philanthropy to play.

Several years ago, reflecting on my work in community philanthropy and my conversations with other community philanthropy practitioners, I wrote a short paper for the Global Fund for Community Foundations to address the question: “What is community philanthropy?” The primary aim of that paper was to operationalize the concept, as community philanthropy practitioners worried the term was on the verge of being co-opted. Fortunately for me, there were over a dozen academic and practitioner papers that explicitly or implicitly defined the concept. One such definition, co-authored by a pracademic and practitioner, came closest to my own understanding. In my paper, I made a modest amendment to this definition:

“Community philanthropy is both a form of, and a force for, locally driven development that strengthens community capacity and voice, builds trust, and most importantly, taps into and builds on local resources, which are pooled together to build and sustain a strong community.” (Hodgson & Pond, 2016; Doan, 2019)

While I recognize that this definition is unwieldy and prescriptive, I like that it addresses the ways and means by which community philanthropy is delivered. Similarly, I would like to see a definition of philanthropy that is less transactional, and less donor centered.

Another challenge that I encounter while studying philanthropy in different contexts is translation. Living overseas for most of my life, I have learned to resist the urge to expect to find an exact translation of a term or concept. Instead, it is more constructive to identify (current and historical) terms that are close in meaning and take the time to understand the ways in which the translation may be similar and different.

In Vietnam, there are two-word pairings typically offered as close equivalents to the term philanthropy. The first pairing is “từ thiện,” which connotes love, goodness, and benevolence. The second pairing is “thiện nguyện,” which connotes goodness, voluntarism, affection, and goodwill. Notably, both terms in Vietnamese highlight personal values, which resonate with the Greek origins of the English term “philanthropy.” If philanthropy is intended to mean love of mankind, then perhaps “từ thiện” is a closer equivalent. However, if philanthropy is intended to mean voluntary action to convey love or goodwill then, then perhaps “thiện nguyện” is a closer equivalent.

Where is the love in our measures of philanthropy action?

After nearly two decades working in the philanthropic sector in the USA, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, I started my Ph.D. in Philanthropy to unpack a growing concern with the way we rank and evaluate philanthropic action. When looking at comparative and evaluative measures used by philanthropy practitioners and scholars, there is disproportionate focus on instrumental measures and limited attention towards valuing the sector’s expressive roles. Emerging alternative models and renewed calls for the sector to measure what matters should lend greater urgency to the goal of finding better ways to account for the love in philanthropy.

By comparative measures, I am referring to cross-country and in-country studies that attempt to count or compare giving in or across different geographies or demographics. These maps and rankings tend to ignore or minimize care work, mutual aid, grassroots organizations, and other groups engaged in non-monetary forms of giving. If we do not count care work or giving to informal groups, we miss an important part of philanthropic action taking place in Asia. Many measures also exclude online philanthropic crowdfunding, which often results in giving within our social networks.[1] Given how often our sector references Alexis de Tocqueville’s description of associational life in the early days of the USA, it is surprising that many of the voluntary actions and associations he wrote about now go unaccounted for in our counts and comparative studies.[2]

Regarding measures of philanthropic effectiveness, scholars and practitioners have raised concerns about who influences what we measure and what might be missing from our measures. While nonprofits are accountable to multiple stakeholders, evidence on nonprofit evaluation demonstrates that funders disproportionately influence what gets measured. Yet funders are inclined to favor short-term, tangible measures, which can come at the expense of long-term, transformational change.[3] In addition, scholars find that evaluations often miss the work that goes into social change. For example, staff-program participant relational work is often missing in impact measurement models, although staff and program participants report that this work is key to building trust and gaining collaboration.[4]

Alternative approaches to measurement are being piloted as I write this blog. One example is a framework for performance evaluation designed by staff at the Oregon Food Bank, which set out to “decenter money to center love and equity.”[5] This involves de-emphasizing transactional measures (e.g., dollars raised, meals served, scholarships funded) while prioritizing transformational measures (e.g., personal and professional growth of all stakeholders, quality of relationships, community solutions to systemic issues). When transformation is the goal, we take the time to help stakeholders understand the complexity of the issues we aim to address, we provide opportunities for meaningful engagement, and we connect people and organizations so we can address the root causes. I believe we can learn from examples like the Oregon Food Bank to identify measures of philanthropic action that value the uniquely expressive roles of the sector, such as love, inclusion, and collaboration.

***

For me, it is less important to understand when or how the word ‘philanthropy,’ a Greek word meaning love of mankind, came to represent a transfer of wealth from the haves to the have nots. Instead, I would prefer that our attention focus on restoring the word to its original meaning. Pamala Wiepking suggests we may want to adopt a different word, like generosity, to ensure we are talking about the same thing across different contexts. While that may be necessary in the future, I would like us to first try to bring the “philos” back to philanthropy by paying more attention to everyday givers and by ensuring that the sector’s expressive roles are represented in our definitions and measures.

-Dana Doan

Dana has over 20 years’ work experience leading, consulting, advising, and conducting research with a variety of philanthropy and social purpose organizations in the U.S.A., Southeast Asia, and Latin America. In 2009, Dana helped establish the LIN Center for Community Development to enhance the efforts of philanthropic individuals and organizations in and around Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. She is completing her doctoral research on social impact measurement at Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

---

[1] Irma Borst, Christine Moser, & Julie Ferguson, “From friendfunding to crowdfunding: Relevance of relationships, social media, and platform activities to crowdfunding performance,” New Media & Society (2018) 20:4, 1396–1414; Claire van Teunenbroek & Sandra Hasanefendic, “Researching the crowd: Implications on philanthropic crowdfunding and donor characteristics during a pandemic,” Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing (February 2023) 28:1, e1773.

[2] Susan Appe, “A Critical Perspective on Counting and Mapping Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations.” In Eikenberry, Mirabella, & Sandberg (Eds.), Reframing Nonprofit Organizations: Democracy, Inclusion, and Social Change (Irving, Calif.: Melvin & Leigh, Publishers, 2019).

[3] See, for one example: Lehn M. Benjamin, “Bearing More Risk for Results: Performance Accountability and Nonprofit Relational Work,” Administration & Society (2008) 39:8, 959–983.

[4] Lehn Benjamin & David C. Campbell, “Nonprofit Performance: Accounting for the Agency of Clients,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (2015) 44:5, 988–1006. Also refers to preliminary findings from my dissertation research. 

[5] Vivien Trinh & C. Nathan Harris, “How do you measure a year? What about love?” Oregon Food Bank blog, February 1, 2021, https://www.oregonfoodbank.org/how-do-you-measure-a-year-what-about-love/