...... POLITICS SYMPOSIUM

...... Why Political Scientists Should Study Organized Philanthropy

......

of organization, and policy impact (other than the impact of Introduction the advocacy groups to which they donated). However, that is changing now. As this intriguing symposium shows, political Theda Skocpol , Harvard University scientists are questioning how philanthropic institutions and ...... networks operate; probing their contributions to public agendas, hilanthropy” has a warm and fuzzy ring to policy battles, and partisan polarization; and asking pointed, it—bringing to mind the year-end checks normative questions about the infl uence of tax-subsidized “fat that local notables write to community cat” philanthropy on inequality and democracy. causes and the small monies that millions Much of the value added in the new research is from of ordinary men and women give each expanding the focus on wealthy individuals one by one. “week at P their place of worship. Perhaps because such gifts do Today, we need only pick up the newspaper to read stories not seem to be the central stuff of politics and public policy, about wealthy philanthropists. The fabulously wealthy have most political scientists—until recently—have left this domain always made for great press: we want to hear about the more to sociologists, anthropologists, and students of nonprofi ts or less ethically dubious ways in which they have amassed based in centers focused on studying philanthropy. In the their fortunes. We also want to learn how some do their “Civic media and, to a lesser extent, in academia, whenever philan- Duty” or “Get Right with God” by using their foundations to thropy is discussed, it often is touted uncritically as a quintes- promote world health or signing pledges to give away most sentially American form of benefi cial civic action. of their wealth to worthy causes. However, a focus on broad Our discipline’s reticence about philanthropy is especially social and political trends—and, above all, a close examination ironic for students of US politics. Not only have Americans of organizations, networks, and institutions—reveals much always stood out for their voluntary giving to churches and more than stories about individual benefactors. charities; since the early 1900s, the US government also has In the current period of sharp accumulations of wealth given enormous tax benefi ts to wealthy philanthropists—in at the very top, philanthropic giving is booming with many eff ect, magnifying the impact of their values and choices in societal reverberations. Currently, even mere multimillion- public aff airs. Many public eff orts undertaken by governments aires set up their own personal or family foundations to take elsewhere occur in the United States, if at all, only at the advantage of tax breaks. Small foundations have proliferated, behest of wealthy people who make donations amplifi ed by arguably promoting a fragmentation of public life as every taxpayer dollars. Subsidized philanthropy is literally at the donor tries to micromanage this or that worthy program. In heart of American public policy. addition, philanthropy has become professionalized. Expert Years ago, Jack Walker ( 1983 , 1991 ) and Jeffery Berry consultants have emerged to help wealthy people decide ( 1999 ; Berry and Arons 2005 ), among others, signaled the where to distribute their largesse. Additional professions off er importance of US foundation patronage to the explosive tools that supposedly measure the eff ectiveness of donations growth of public-interest advocacy groups and social move- and recipient groups, promising to assure wealthy Americans ments in post–1950s America. However, in this early work, that they are getting an eff ective “bang” for their charitable wealthy patrons and foundations were treated mainly as “bucks.” “black box” sources of funding to replace the reliance of early The latest fad, described by Jeff Berry in his contribution US voluntary associations on dues collected from millions here, treats charitable grants to nonprofits as if they were of ordinary members. In political science at least, not much “investments” to be tracked, like commercial investments. attention was given to the philanthropists, their aims, modes The eff ectiveness of this approach is questionable, but Berry doi:10.1017/S1049096516000652 © American Political Science Association, 2016 PS • July 2016 433 ...... Politics Symposium: Why Political Scientists Should Study Organized Philanthropy ......

suggests that it may undercut possibilities for nonprofi t groups The most provocative symposium contributions direct to engage in policy advocacy and grassroots mobilization. our attention to the macroscopic, system-level implications The unintended and indirect political consequences of organ- of evolving political philanthropy. As Reckhow shows, in ized philanthropic practices may be what is most interesting policy arenas such as school reform, there has been bipar- about them—especially for political scientists. tisan convergence among wealthy donors around certain Other political scientists (e.g., West 2014 ) are examining policies—in this instance, promoting testing and teaching- lists of many individual major donors. However, we also need quality assessment as well as charter schools. In the short to examine how donors are organizing their eff orts. As Kris- term, this bipartisan donor consensus makes the adoption tin Goss argues, wealthy people are taking an ever-stronger of favored policies almost unstoppable. However, donor- interest in political advocacy and policy causes—and they implanted reforms may not have staying power, Reckhow are doing so not only as scattered individuals or families but argues, if they lack buy-in from communities, local politi- also through professionally run foundations and organized cians, and parents. Her research suggests that the lack of consortia of major donors who seek to infl uence public agen- such support has undermined teacher-evaluation programs, das. Never have so many individuals publicly and privately for example—even as a diff erent type of buy-in, from com- pledged to donate so much money to public causes—and never mercial companies, has buoyed donor-promoted eff orts to have they had as much organizational capacity for doing so. increase charter schools.

Through advocacy organizations and private foundations, these billionaire “issue entrepreneurs” and others like them engage in every stage of the policy process: formulating and amplifying ideas, creating policy networks with common goals, and pushing coordinated reform agendas.

In the growing arenas of political philanthropy, the Criminal-justice reform also enjoys a modicum of biparti- unabashed promotion of ideological and partisan agendas san “fat cat” support recently, but many policy realms divide often is the order of the day for donor groups. Politically wealthy donors into liberal versus conservative camps (Teles, engaged billionaires and millionaires are sharing information Hurlbut, and Schmitt 2014 ). On issues such as taxes, climate and strategies through formally organized consortia com- change, health reform, and the role of government generally, posed of hundreds of donors. On the Left, the Democracy politically active, wealthy philanthropists are fueling partisan Alliance channels tens of millions each year to many lib- polarization and, in key instances, infl uencing policy agen- eral advocacy groups. On the Right, the “Koch seminars” das toward the ultra-free-market Right (for case studies, see led by Charles and David Koch convene wealthy conserv- Skocpol 2013 and Skocpol and Hertel-Fernandez 2016 ). atives twice a year to discuss strategies for change. They In theoretically fascinating ways, the contribution by raise and direct hundreds of millions annually to an inter- Steven Teles draws on James Q. Wilson’s (1995 ) classic work related array of educational, policy-advocacy, electoral, and about political organizations to highlight the routines that constituency-building efforts. Overall, the Koch political foundations use to establish legitimacy and monitor grant- network rivals and buffets the Republican Party itself, ees. Organizational routines matter, especially when they are encouraging asymmetric partisan polarization and public used to disburse funding in enormous amounts to advocacy policies that favor the super-wealthy (Skocpol and Hertel- organizations that would otherwise fold without the grants. Fernandez 2016 ). The routines that foundations follow will permeate the goals Beyond the broadest collective plutocratic eff orts, we also and routines of grantees—even if the net result is to cause see billionaires who assemble sets of organizations to pursue most groups to neglect their substantive missions and focus policy changes in specifi c areas in which elected offi cials have instead on the short term, as they scramble to apply for their been slow to act (Rutenberg 2014 ). Tom Steyer’s NextGen next foundation grants. As Teles suggests, foundation prac- Climate operation and Michael Bloomberg’s campaign for tices promoting short-term, fragmented public eff orts may gun reform are good examples. Through advocacy organiza- exert substantial infl uence on liberal groups in US civic life. tions and private foundations, these billionaire “issue entre- If so, the net result may be to bias overall partisan competi- preneurs” and others like them engage in every stage of the tion and policy debates toward the Right. Because this very policy process: formulating and amplifying ideas, creating well may have happened without foundations or individual policy networks with common goals, and pushing coordi- donors intending such effects, Teles’s work underlines the nated reform agendas. They are not only scattering big checks importance of looking at the “big picture” and overall organ- around to institutions or advocacy groups controlled by others. izational dynamics—not only crediting what individual phi- They are “more than patrons,” as Sarah Reckhow notes in her lanthropists say they want to accomplish. contribution here, drawing on research also developed in It is obvious that more empirical work is needed to explore her recent book (2013 ) analyzing the goals and impact of macroscopic trends and trace the overall impact of foun- educational-reform philanthropy. dation routines and donor practices in various policy realms.

434 PS • July 2016 ......

......

One such study is included in this symposium: Alex Hertel- current developments as if they were extensions of relatively Fernandez’s examination of the role of Right and Left donors bipartisan policy experimentation as it happened under foun- in supporting—or frustrating—advocates’ efforts to build dation guidance decades ago. There was a time when bipar- cross-state policy networks in the United States since the tisan US foundations encouraged experimentation in ideas 1970s. This study seems to fi t the Teles framework; Hertel- and the search for policy solutions to problems the majority Fernandez shows that conservative foundations and wealthy wanted to solve. Those days are gone, in our era of widening donors have been patient in giving sustained support to economic inequalities, partisan polarization, and fi erce polit- right-wing think tanks, whereas liberal donors and foun- ical eff orts to undermine any semblance of public problem dations have followed a stop-start pattern, leading to many solving. In my view, many of the empirical contributions to failed efforts to build an equally powerful network of think this symposium raise searing questions about the normative tanks spanning the states (see also Hertel-Fernandez and arguments that Reich makes in support of a strong role for Skocpol 2016 ). private foundations in contemporary American democracy.

In summary, this symposium opens a rich new agenda for empirical political science, challenging students of US politics in particular to bring the “big picture” of organized philanthropy into sharper focus.

In summary, this symposium opens a rich new agenda However, this is simply how I read the symposium. Others for empirical political science, challenging students of US can and should read it for themselves and come to diff erent politics in particular to bring the “big picture” of organized conclusions. Healthy research fi elds thrive from discussion philanthropy into sharper focus. Studies of rising inequality, and arguments. What all of us in political science can surely declining democratic accountability, and asymmetric parti- agree to, however, is that the time has come for much more san polarization are at the forefront in cutting-edge political robust research on the political roots and results of organized science. However, none of these transformations can be fully private philanthropy. The contributors to this vibrant sympo- understood without bringing organized philanthropy into sium show the way forward. Q the analysis. Normative political theorists also have much to gain from REFERENCES a more sophisticated focus on philanthropy and its effects. Berry , Jeff ery M . 1999 . The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Groups . The proper role of foundations in a democracy is ripe for Washington DC : The Brookings Institution Press . ethical exploration, as Rob Reich brilliantly describes in his Berry , Jeff ery M. and David F. Arons . 2005 . A Voice for Nonprofi ts . Washington, contribution here. Modern foundations are, jointly, creatures DC : The Brookings Institution Press . of unequal wealth and public-policy choices about taxation Hertel-Fernandez , Alexander and Theda Skocpol . 2016 . “Why the States and rules of organizational accountability. In the industrial Turned Right.” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas 39 ( Winter ): 46 – 59 . Reckhow , Sarah . 2013 . Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public era, the United States has given more leeway than any other School Politics . New York : Oxford University Press . modern democracy to private foundations and other non- Rutenberg , Jim . 2014 . “How Billionaire Oligarchs Are Becoming Their Own profit forms created and used by wealthy citizens. Can this Political Parties.” New York Times , October 17. be justified? Reich explores the arguments, both pragmatic Skocpol , Theda . 2013 . “Naming the Problem: What It Will Take to and moral. Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight Against Global Warming.” Rockefeller Family Fund and Scholars Strategy Network , Critics argue that privileging private philanthropy does February. little to reduce economic inequality—and actually may exac- Skocpol , Theda and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez . 2016 . “The Koch Eff ect: erbate it—because most private foundations and charities do The Impact of a Cadre-Led Network on American Politics.” Presented at the Inequality Mini-Conference during the Annual Meeting of the Southern not help the poor. Moreover, giving so much authority over Political Science Association. San Juan, Puerto Rico; January 8. vital civic resources to wealthy donors undermines demo- Teles , Steven , Heather Hurlbut , and Mark Schmitt . 2014 . “Philanthropy in a cratic governance in many ways. Still, as Reich points out, a Time of Polarization.” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Summer). case can be made that wealthy private philanthropy encourages Walker , Jack L . 1983 . “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in innovation and experimentation—thereby furthering plu- America.” American Political Science Review 77 ( 2 ): 390 – 406 . ralistic creativity in American democracy. (This argument ——— . 1991 . Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements . Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press . resembles the classic argument in US federalism for states as West , Darrell M . 2014 . Billionaires: Refl ections on the Upper Crust . Washington, “laboratories of democracy.”) DC : The Brookings Institution Press . Personally, I am not persuaded by Reich’s case because Wilson , James Q . 1995 . Political Organizations . Updated edition. Princeton, NJ : I think he poses the issues through a romantic lens, viewing Princeton University Press .

PS • July 2016 435 ...... Politics Symposium: Why Political Scientists Should Study Organized Philanthropy ......

SYMPOSIUM CONTRIBUTORS

Jeff ery M. Berry is a professor of political science economy, the politics of organized interest and public Social Research, Yale Human Rights & Development at Tufts University. His research interests include policy. He has previously been published in the Journal Law Review, and the Journal of Philosophy and policymaking, interest groups, nonprofi ts, and urban of Health Politics, Perspectives on Politics, and Education . He can be reached at [email protected] . government. He has previously been published in Studies in American Political Development . He can Theda Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Political Communication, PS: Political Science & be reached at [email protected] . Government and Sociology at Harvard University. Her Politics , and Nonprofi t Quarterly . He can be reached Sarah Reckhow is an assistant professor in the research interests include comparative politics and at Jeff [email protected]. department of political science at Michigan State American politics. She has previously been published Kristin A. Goss is an associate professor in the University. Her research interests include urban in Perspectives on Politics, PS: Political Science & Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and politics, education polity, nonprofi ts and philanthropy, Politics , and the American Political Science Review. the guest editor of this symposium. Her research interests and racial and ethnic politics. She has previously been She can be reached at [email protected] . include fi rearms and crime, gun control, nonprofi t published in the Journal of Urban Aff airs, Policy Steven M. Teles is an associate professor of political organizations, philanthropy, and US politics. She has Studies Journal and Planning Theory . She can be science at Johns Hopkins University. His research previously been published in Perspectives on Politics, reached at [email protected] . interests include social policy, law and public policy Political Science Quarterly , and Social Science Rob Reich is a professor of political science at and political analysis. He has previously been Quarterly . She can be reached at [email protected] . Stanford University and co-director of the Stanford published in Perspectives on Politics, Studies in Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is a doctoral candidate Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. His research American Political Development , and The Stanford in government and social policy and Harvard interests include charitable giving, philanthropy and Social Innovation Review. He can be reached at University. His research interests include the political political theory. He has previously been published in [email protected] .

436 PS • July 2016