Charitable giving is big business, with many organizations handling millions in revenue. But big charities have come under fire for issues from bad accounting to actually doing more harm than good. In this piece, Tobias Jung looks at how foundations work–or not.
A philanthropic foundation and an octopus have much in common. Their non-rigid forms mean that they are both flexible and able to squeeze into areas that are inaccessible to others. Both are seen as great problem-solvers and have tentacles that are far-reaching. However, understanding their movements is difficult, and they have a spectrum of defense mechanisms against potential enemies. While studying the octopus can be left to natural scientists, foundations warrant closer social and political examination.
Foundations are essentially independent charitable organizations. It is important to realize that there is no such thing as a typical foundation, as data from the United States and Europe shows. Some foundations, such as the Ford Foundation in the United States or the Wellcome Trust in the U.K. have enormous wealth–the majority doesn’t. Some foundations, as illustrated by the cases of the Clinton Foundation in the United States or the Shane Warne Foundation in Australia, raise serious questions about appropriate and acceptable foundation practices–most foundations don’t. Some foundations might be used as fronts for illegal or clandestine activities–most foundations aren’t.
