Theories for Philanthropy: History and Background

Theories for good-will History and BackgroundIt is easy to motivate volume to bet fundraising resolutions average ask them to turn up and they go away, because its the head(p) liaison to do. DiscussIntroductionPhilanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, services, time or try to support whateverthing that is soci altogethery beneficial, has a defined objective, and no material return to the donor. Whilst the majority of people imbibe this as one-on-one alms bounteous, the other boldness to handsome without material reward is fundraising and corporate liberality. There is a slew amongst some organisers of fundraising levelts that little extra pauperism is needed for people to att suppress they will simply attend because it is the beneficial(a) thing to do. Of course, there atomic number 18 likewise those who canvass beneficence as wholly occurring where there is some gain outside of money for the donor, especi whollyy when it comes to corporate sy mpathy. Instead of organism about the right thing to do, it is much about the perception of doing the right thing as a market and PR weapon. 1 This essay will examine the roots of philanthropy and look at some of the motivational factors involved. This will involve looking at marketing techniques, psychological and philosophical theories as to why people chip in. The aim of this discussion is to provide recommendations to fundraising exit managers to assistance them better promote their events in light of the motivations discovered. The first arm will look at the history and backdrop of philanthropy.History and background of philanthropyThe earliest forms of philanthropy can be traced back to credence and the cerebrations of full-grown and charity inside Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The idea of charity in these texts looks at dower the forgetful and those in need no government issue what their assurance or situation. This idea of charity set the beginnings for t he secular concept of philanthropy.Where charity and philanthropy differ somewhat is that charity has a commitment to the sorry and helpless, whereas philanthropy is non so closely linked to the poor.2 However, religious faith is still a strong motivator rat philanthropy even today because it instils the belief that giving is the right thing to do and an weighty part of faith. In this whiz, it could be said that people need no more motivation than their faith to found to fundraising events. However, faith cannot explain all aspects of philanthropy for those who argon not religious or where faith is not an important element.3Philanthropy foundered into a concept in the ordinal century to do with being kind and add-on, which in the 18th and nineteenth centuries was then(prenominal) to do with being actively involved in homosexualitarian projects, such as hel marijuana cigaretteg the insane or prisoners, and the abolition of slavery.However, it was towards the end of the nineteenth century that philanthropy began to mean the donation of money to causes that would public assistance all levels of family and not nevertheless the poor. The accent of philanthropy has shifted from just helping the poor to helping all regions of society. The government is now seen as the primary carer for those under or around the poverty line, whilst philanthropists look to turn a profit society as a whole. This of course does not mean that the poor do not or cannot expediency from philanthropy, but that the goal of philanthropy is now wider than helping just those who are poor.4The modern version of philanthropy is very much to do with injection of money into causes and raising silver to help develop mixerly worthwhile projects. Philanthropy is not just about pouring money into something and forgetting about it, but about giving money so that results can be achieved. In fact, if results are not achieved through the donations then generally the donations to tha t position project will be reduced. This is a method that wealthy individualists and organizations use to keep projects aimable and to pass water a measure of social control.5 This social control whitethorn often be in the interests of the philanthropist and so it begs the question as to whether this is the completely motivation behind modern philanthropy. If this is the eccentric person, then perhaps the idea that motivation to do the right thing is enough is no durable a valid charge to promote or achieve fundraising. The next component will look at some competing theories of motivation with regards to philanthropy to see if this question can be answered.Philosophy and models of motivationOne idea of motivation behind corporate philanthropy is obviously that it corrects the image of an individual or business whilst also providing an opportunity to shape society in a certain way. In modern philanthropy there is no doubt that this is a part of motivation, but in legion(p redicate) ship canal it acts no polarly to idea of doing right. An individual who begets because they believe it is the right thing to do will give in the same way as an individual or organisation who gives because they perceive that others think it is the right thing for them to do. corporate philanthropy is a part of business husbandry today, and companies see it as an important marketing similarlyl to be seen as an ethical, responsible and socially aware company that looks to give back to the federation and to society.6Also, there is the other side of fundraising that as a company cash in hand are needed to be generated to be given by philanthropists, and so a good company that can benefit society will have a fundraising strategy. Mullin believes that the key to good fundraising is less to do with motivational factors and more to do with detailed strategic planning and advertising of the event is the key to its success.7 For Mullin, fundraising works very much like any r eturn with a life cycle of fundraising that determines where and when the best opportunities for gaining funding are within each project or event. Wendroff also believes that the key to successful fundraising is frugal aid to detail and planning, and that there is no real need to look into motivational factors as much as there is to employ proper marketing and organization of the event. If this is pay backn care of then people will donate because of the feeling that this is a worthwhile cause portrayed by the step of the event.8However, there are a number of other theories with regards to the motivation behind fundraising that can help fundraisers. Sargeant and Jay believe that the motivation for philanthropy comes from push and pick factors. People give not just for one reason but for a wide variety of reasons depending on the social humour, empathy and sympathy for a cause, potential for results from the donation and other factors. These push and pull factors are Byzantine and it is believed that more research into why people give and also why they stop giving is important. If this is not undertaken then organisations are in endangerment of spending too long developing techniques to gain funding kind of than really penetrating why people want to give and how to then present their project.9Other theorists see motivation behind giving as being somewhat different. The philosopher Immanuel Kant sees giving as a simply matter of duty, and that the act of philanthropy is an example of duty to our society. Kant doesnt believe that humanitarian acts or charity are the motivations behind philanthropy, but rather the organisation of duty, society and law are the motivations behind donation. Whilst Kants view may appear somewhat cold and does not take into account the human or sympathy aspect of donation, there is evidence that modern philanthropy does on some level work like this. People give money because they feel it is their responsibility to help societ y with what they have, and this fits in more with a wizard of Kantian duty than being charitable.10Despite this, Kants view is perhaps too narrow and does not take into account the fact that part of giving is certainly to do with individual(prenominal) feelings towards a specific project. Even if someone feels it might be right or their duty to donate, they are less credibly to do so if there is no personal fit with the project and understanding of its social worth. perchance the view of John Stuart Mill is a better explanation of motivation in this case. Mills idea is that people donate because they see it as the rational way of making society most efficient. full-grown their wealth to help socially beneficial organizations means that they are helping to maximise utility within society. Whilst this theory also seems extremely well thought-out and neat in that it would be great to think that philanthropists and donors need only l achieve about a projects benefit to society to g ive, it again seems that there is more to motivation than this. It also seems unlikely that all donors clearly see this bigger picture and that their wealth being offered to others in this way really is helping the overall efficiency and utility of society. If this were the case then philanthropists would all give to very similar and large-scale projects that could benefit as many people as possible clearly this isnt the case.11Motivational factors and on-line(prenominal) climateThe problem with all of these theories is that they seemingly take a narrow view on motivation to try and pin down why people donate so that fundraisers can develop techniques to increase funding. However, the situation should probably not be looked at in terms of strict individual motivational factors but rather in terms of the current climate of donation and philanthropy on a local, national and global scale. For instance, whilst values in the UK and US on many topics are rather similar, levels of phila nthropic donation are much refuse in the UK (less than 1% of GDP) than in the US (2% of GDP).12 Understanding why different national markets vary in level of donation can help fundraisers to understand why people are donating in a particular area or during a particular time period.The US and the UK differ in their giving policies, with US philanthropy very much to do with charity begins at home, and that self-interest, social appreciation and public financial statement of giving are important motivational factors. However, in the UK the act of philanthropy is much more to do with the notion of charity for all and the sense of duty that doing something socially worthwhile is important. This is done in a more private way and is not so much linked to personal interest or social acceptance. Despite the US and the UK being quite similar they have very different motivations for giving, and this shows how important it is to know the area and culture that the fundraising is being carried out in. This is perhaps more important than knowing individual motivational factors, because these are likely to change depending on the current climate and market conditions.Certainly, since September 11th and the bombings in London the status towards giving has changed as people look again to help others and draw and quarter more of their influence and wealth than before. However, things are changing again as a worldwide economic slump means people are being more cautious, yet demand for funding is increasing as more is needed from individuals to help support the government.13In the current climate it looks like corporate donors will move away from corporate giving for PR, and move towards investing in communities to give them a strategic receipts in the approaching. With companies having less money and all individuals having to reduce their spending, it seems that currently the emphasis for fundraisers should be on showing worth and value to the companies and individuals who want to invest. Companies should also look towards diversifying their fundraising so that they can survive even if philanthropic donations are in decline.14ConclusionAlthough some people will always give money because they believe it is the right thing to do, philanthropy is no longer synonymous with charity. This means that fundraisers have to do more to get the pecuniary resource they need than simply appeal to a sense of right. In an effort to find new techniques to generate funds, fundraisers have looked at the individual motivations behind philanthropy. Whilst the theories presented here all have their merits, individual motivations are too complex, unpredictable and diverse to base fundraising manoeuvre upon. Instead, fundraisers should aim to base their tactics on the current economic climate as well as the fundraising climate within their locality or national culture. This is more likely to give general patterns that can be used to strategically improve fundraising. In the current climate, this means diversifying tactics and even looking to earn a certain amount of funds to offset the effects of the economic slump. Fundraisers should also emphasise the benefits to philanthropists with regards to social and corporate results, as anything that will give donors a strategic or social advantage in the future can be a factor in donation.In conclusion, it is no longer enough for fundraisers to rely on peoples sense of charity and humanity to generate funds. Instead, companies should focus on the worth and social benefit of their projects to attract investors in their particular region. Whilst individual motivational factors are complex and need more investigation, local and national trends can be used to develop fundraising strategies.BibliographyBennett, R., 1997. Corporate philanthropy in the UK altruistic giving or marketing communications weapon?. daybook of Marketing Communications, 3(2), pp. 87-109.Boney, R., 2008. Corporate donors adjust to economic slump. Philanthropy Journal, September 15th, 2008. getable at http//www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/special-reports/corporate-giving/corporate-donors-adjust-economic-slumpBoswell, H., 2003. Motivations for big and Serving. (Online). Available at http//www.learningtogive.org/papers/paper33.html (Accessed 15th November 2008).Bremner, R.H., 1996. Giving Charity and Philanthropy in History. New Brunswick and London Transaction Publishers.Johnson, G., and Scholes, K., 2002. Exploring Corporate Strategy sixth Edition. Prentice Hall.Matthewson, D.J., 2001. An analysis of John Stuart Mills Justification for Redistribution. brisk for delivery at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Western Political lore Association, Alexis Park Hotel, Las Vegas Nevada, March 15-17. Available at http//faculty.fullerton.edu/dmatthewson/Final%20Mill.docMullin, R., 1997. Fundraising Strategy. Directory of Social Change.Sargeant, A., and Jay, E., 2004. Fundraising circumspection Analysis, Planning and Prac tice. London Routledge.Slim, H., 2001. Not Philanthropy But Rights Rights-Based Humanitarianism and the proper(a) Politicisation of Humanitarian Philosophy in War. Centre for Development and Emergency Practice, Oxford Brookes University. Available at http//www.odi.org.uk/hpg/confpapers/slim_new.pdfWendroff, A.L., 2004. Special Events Proven Strategies for Nonprofit Fundraising. John Wiley and Sons.Wright, K., 2001. Generosity vs. self-sacrifice Philanthropy and Charity in the United States and United Kingdom. Voluntas International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(4), pp. 399-416.Footnotes1 Bennett, 1997, pp. 87-912 Bremner, 1996, p. xii3 Boswell, 2003.4 Bremner, 1996, pp. xii-xiii5 Boswell, 2003.6 Johnson and Scholes, 2002, pp. 35-377 Mullin, 1997, pp. 2-88 Wendroff, 2004, pp. 195-1989 Sargeant and Jay, 2004, pp. 111-113.10 Slim, 2001, pp. 2-511 Matthewson, 2001.12 Wright, 2001, pp. 399-40013 Boswell, 200314 Boney, 2008