Accountable and Thus Legitimate? A Comparative Study of Philanthropists

Noomi Weinryb

doi:10.1177/0899764020925916

Abstract

This article takes a comparative qualitative approach to explore the intertwined external accountability and legitimacy attempts of independently wealthy philanthropists. By comparing accountability forums and institutional logics stated by philanthropists, it is investigated to whom they are externally accountable and how they legitimate their controversial funding of public goods. The study compares the external accountability and legitimacy attempts of philanthropists with that of public agencies, corporations, and fundraising-dependent nonprofits. Empirically, this is a cross-sectional study of funders supporting human embryonic stem cell research in either California or Sweden. The study shows that it is through local isomorphism, rather than any specific accountability forum or institutional logic, that philanthropists are accountable and thus legitimate their giving. This is in contrast to other types of funders, which are more similar within each form when comparing accountability forums across societies, and more similar within societies in their usage of institutional logics, with certain patterned statements. In addition, philanthropists in both societies are more detached than any other type of funder as regards both specific patient populations and the general electorate. This finding raises questions on what philanthropists’ private funding for public purposes actually entails.

Highlights

Philanthropy is often described as an obligation to take from one’s abundant private funds and contribute to the public sphere, such as in Carnegie’s (1901) wealth essay or in the more recent Giving Pledge (Buffett, 2011)
Unlike other types of funders, philanthropists barely experienced any political accountability, other than one case of it being inscribed in the bylaws of a foundation. What do these findings say about the relationship between the external accountability and legitimacy attempts of philanthropists? Intuitively, some external accountability forums may seem closely related to the usage of certain institutional logics and may be interpreted as material instantiations of these logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991)
The empirical analysis does imply that there is some overlap between social accountability and legitimation by the community logic, especially among fundraising-dependent nonprofits

Summary

Introduction

Philanthropy is often described as an obligation to take from one’s abundant private funds and contribute to the public sphere, such as in Carnegie’s (1901) wealth essay or in the more recent Giving Pledge (Buffett, 2011). The use of private wealth for public purposes may be criticized, as it entails essentially unchecked private entities being allowed to dictate the organization of the public sphere (Arnove, 1984; Roelofs, 2003). This stipulation poses challenges to some of the fundamental notions of a liberal democracy (Ostrander, 2007; Prewitt, 2006; Reich, 2016). Already the creators of the first major philanthropic foundations understood that to ensure long-term survival, philanthropists needed to gain legitimacy both by legislators and in the public eye (Hall, 2006; Karl & Katz, 1981; Nielsen, 2001). As Heydemann and Toepler (2006) write, “accountability has in many respects become the dominant language through which concerns about the legitimacy of foundation practices is expressed” (p. 5)

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion