Introduction
According to the IEFG Spotlight Report on Education Philanthropy in Africa published in 2024, total philanthropic funding to education in Africa tripled between 2019 and 2022, from US$ 290 million to US$ 867 million. At the same time traditional donors have been reducing aid budgets overall (UK, France, EU, Sweden), and budget to education specifically e.g. FCDO has reduced its education budget by 67% in 4 years.
Add to this picture the shocking destruction of USAID, and we may be witnessing a change to the aid landscape, including to education, more profound than any in the last thirty years. Philanthropies have already become more important in the education sector, and they look set to become even more significant players in the future.
A good moment then to look at how philanthropies are currently performing and what we might expect if they start to play a greater role in supporting education in the global south.
Background
OECD 2025 estimates total philanthropic giving to development at $9.9bn. The Global Philanthropy Report (2019) found that (excluding the Gates Foundation support to Health) education is the top priority for philanthropies with over 35% of organisations' sampled funding some type of education. The IEFG Spotlight report says :
“Data from the OECD and previous IEFG reports from 2016 to 2019 show that education ranks as the second highest philanthropic priority for international funders and the top priority for domestic philanthropy, with both areas witnessing growth.”
The article that follows is based on interviews and research among a wide range of people and organisations – from staff at large and small education philanthropies, to grantees, academic researchers, advisers to philanthropic organisations and recipient government staff. All will remain anonymous, but I thank them for their candour and honest self-reflection. To preserve their anonymity all are referred to as “respondents”.
My focus has been on large international philanthropic organisations working in education in Africa : including Mastercard Foundation, Jacobs Foundation, the Aga Khan Foundation, the LEGO Foundation, the Susan and Michael Dell Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Porticus and a few others – organisations who are big enough in terms of funding or influence to make a difference at a country level with their support to education. From a sector perspective I have focused on philanthropies working in the basic education sector (which received about 20% of philanthropic funding to Africa 2016-2019).
Philanthropies operating in Asia are referenced but not the focus of this article. In summary, the largest domestic philanthropies are in India, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust ($69m disbursed in 2023/4 a quarter to education) and in Latin America the Carlos Slim Foundation – established with a donation of $4bn in 2010. In terms of disbursements, overshadowing all, but very little known outside Asia, is the Hong Kong Jockey Club which donates 90% of its profits to community causes. In 2023 it distributed an astonishing $1.24bn to 173 community organisations, three times more than Mastercard Foundation gave to Africa.
In Africa, IEFG estimates there to be at least 10,000 philanthropic organisations. Those organisations undoubtedly make a direct difference to the lives and educational opportunities of those they support, but are (with a few exceptions), mainly locally focused and not working in the same space as multilateral or bilateral donors.
As the chart below shows, Mastercard Foundation are by far the largest funder of education initiatives in Africa – accounting for more than a third of all philanthropic funding but it is not even in the top five for basic education (see charts below).
The chart below shows which of the funders most active in Africa gives the most to basic education.
Why Philanthropy ?
Or, to put it another way : if governments could support and fund education systems fully would we need philanthropic organisations ? That question seems almost redundant in the context set out above – good, bad or indifferent, philanthropy is not just here to stay, but, probably more important than ever.
Nonetheless, philosophically, it’s worth asking why we need philanthropic organisations in the education space – if only to better understand what unique contribution they can bring and what motivates them
Are they a sign of government failure or do they represent a worthy desire to fund initiatives too risky, too unevidenced, or too radical for governments ? Perhaps they represent the idea that no government can fully and adequately fund, or know the needs of, all education systems and the children / young people in them, and frequently overlook the needs of the least powerful ? Or the idea that individuals / organisations who have the resources of money or time to make a social contribution are often drawn to education because it’s familiar (all funders have experience of it) ?
Curiously, most respondents found this question hard to answer. And when they did answer, they answered in very similar ways (interestingly, none of the books or reports cited at the end try to answer this question either). The arguments they advanced were the familiar justifications : philanthropies are more nimble, more innovative and more risk-taking ; they can be in it for the longer term because they are less subject to political whims and caprices ; and they can be more strategic because they are able to be evidence driven rather than politics driven.
And so, what follows takes some of those claims and holds them up to a little light scrutiny (it’s a blog after all). If philanthropic organisations are going to become more important in the education development space, then more and deeper examination will surely follow. I examine six questions :
Are philanthropic organisations working strategically ?
Are philanthropic organisations aligned with national government policy
Are philanthropic organisations taking risks that more traditional donors are not ?
Are philanthropic organisations collaborative and well-coordinated with each other ?
Are they focused on sustainable change ?
Are philanthropic organisations accountable ?
1. Are philanthropic organisations working strategically ?
Specifically, are philanthropic donors who support education focusing their resources for the best impact ; are they avoiding overconcentration in specific countries and subsectors ; are they aligning with government policy ; and are they thinking long term ?
Geographically, many of the larger organisations are focusing investment. For example, Jacobs Foundation concentrated its focus from 35 countries to just one (Cote d’Ivoire) in 2017, and now support four. Porticus (who focus primarily on socio emotional learning) are active in only 8 countries, just one in Africa. Mastercard Foundation currently supports 37 countries only 6 of which are not in Africa and LEGO Foundation supports less than 10 countries at present.
This reduced geographical focus is driven by a recognition that spreading resources thinly is ineffective, especially if you want your money to make a significant impact. But, despite this trend of focus, historical ties and personal favourites mean some countries are disproportionately supported by philanthropic donors ; a phenomenon dubbed the “Kenya Effect”. That is, if you took all the claims philanthropic organisations made about the education change they had effected in Kenya, you would expect to see Kenya vying with Singapore for education development status.
Thematically, there have been clear strategic changes too, mainly from the larger philanthropies, towards prioritising education system building and system change as the essential space in which larger philanthropies can make the most sustainable impact, and where governments generally see the greatest long-term benefit. In this they have been in step with similar changes of focus from traditional donors.
Within the basic education sector, the Learning Crisis has driven some organisations to focus greatest attention on Foundational Learning, and, within that area, on Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL), and Structured Pedagogy. The Gates Foundation, though it spends a tiny $30m annually on education, has focused single-mindedly on foundational learning and on building a strong advocacy story, leveraging its seat at the table with the World Bank, UNICEF, USAID and FCDO.
Early Childhood Development and Play-based learning are two other connected areas where the voice of philanthropic organisations is loudest and strategic direction clearest. To what extent these strategic choices are aligned with government policies is the subject of the next section, but, it is still largely the case that organisational strategy is driven by Boards and Management staff headquartered in the USA or Europe.
That in itself is not inherently bad, but it creates a possible tension. A case in point : the LEGO Foundation’s strategy focuses firmly on play-based learning. Most educators would strongly agree with that – so, it’s a strategic win for LEGO, but is it the top priority for the governments in the countries they work in ?
Overall, there are some positive and encouraging trends towards more strategic approaches. But, the overwhelming impression of the sector as a whole is of fragmentation. There are a very large number of small and medium sized philanthropic organisations doing great work, in silos. This should not be surprising : many philanthropies have been established by individuals or families and with very specific aims, or countries, in mind.
But, it increases transaction costs for governments lucky enough to have too many organisations and furthers inequality of funding for those who don’t. Additionally, many foundations struggle to find the right local organisations to partner with, or grant to, especially when they are looking to scale. Some speculate this is why the Gates Foundation has been shy of putting significant funding into the sector and why others organisations, like Prevail, spend significant time scoping where and how best to invest.
2. Are philanthropies aligned with national government policies ?
To understand why being government aligned or led may not be a natural position for education philanthropies, it’s necessary to appreciate the modus operandi mentioned above. Most foundations operate on a skeleton central staff (typically in Europe or America) and work through local partners to deliver the programmes they wish to support employing no staff of their own in country. Very few are willing to give their money directly to government for transparency and fiduciary risk reasons.
Mastercard Foundation is one agency that has a reputation for having taken localisation seriously, with their senior staff largely located in Africa. But, in general, locally based foundation staff are there mainly to coordinate / quality assure grantee organisations and manage relationships with HQ and government, not provide technical services directly.
Hence, almost by definition, international philanthropies are inclined (sometimes even mandated) to work with non-government, community and civil society organisations rather than with government directly (and many of those local organisations / grantees will have an ambivalent relationship with government). That does not preclude working with government on education systems strengthening initiatives, but the partnerships and relationships needed are different from those in most indigenous NGOs.
There are increasing signs some of the larger organisations are recognising this and adapting. One example is T-Tel in Ghana, a local NGO that was created, with money from Mastercard Foundation, from the contractor team that worked on an FCDO funded teacher development project that completed in 2020. That combination of the skills and expertise of working with government, now embedded and nurtured in a local NGO, looks to be an effective model, but so far little replicated.
The pivot towards more cooperation on systems strengthening, cited above, is another area where the larger philanthropies are being more government aligned. But, being government aligned does not mean blindly doing everything a government wants. It is about a more respectful and candid relationship – being a critical friend.
Are philanthropic organisations willing to have the difficult kinds of conversations that often accompany traditional donor – government negotiations ? As an example. progress on putting disadvantaged pupils, girls’ education or disability on government agendas in the last twenty years has been, partly, a result of pressure from donors, supported by international campaigns. Can philanthropies play similar roles ?
Many respondents cite the increasing use of research and evidence in their relations with government to answer those questions positively for philanthropic organisation, with ECD or climate change in education cited as areas where philanthropies can play a role in demonstrating what governments know to be a good investment but shirk because of the financial implications. Pushing at open doors maybe ?
3. Are philanthropies taking risk ?
“Some of the most risk averse people I’ve met in my life are working in foundations. Because they are afraid of their Boards and Boards have unlimited power. We should do so much better in taking risks”. (respondent)
This is probably the area where there is the greatest delta between the public image of philanthropic organisations, and the reality. It’s not that there is no risk-taking, but it is significantly overblown, say many. Most Boards of large philanthropies are populated by successful American or European senior figures from industry, finance and government ; often retirees with little actual experience or knowledge of the foundation’s work.
Many Foundations are established, and effectively controlled by, an individual or family (90% of philanthropies are independent family foundations ; Global Philanthropy Report). They have single tier boards and the boards are the ones liable for the organisation’s performance, not the management team. Few foundation management teams are bold enough to face down their boards – so significant risk is avoided. Like all organisations working in development, they want to make the most effective investments – not be accused of wasting foundation money.
Making a pitch to a Board sitting in DC about investing for the longer term in education systems change is actually much harder than funding a small Kenyan NGO. (respondent)
And while the overall trend is that foundations are becoming more important within the education space that does not mean that the direction of travel is all one way : some are getting out of education or reducing their exposure to the sector. IKEA and Dubai Cares have recently started to reduce or withdraw. Some look at the sector and feel uncertain where they can make a difference, or risk picking the wrong country or initiatives.
Technical risk is easier for foundations. Almost all profess to be evidence driven and so if the evidence is strong, risk taking (new country, new sector, new methodology) is easier to accept. It’s also easier because, unlike traditional donors, philanthropies do not have to give too much consideration to home country political issues. Risk has different forms too and is sometimes to be found in the lack of uptake of an initiative rather than pure failure.
One respondent suggested that an area philanthropies could play a key role in is what they called “the messy middle” (aka “the valley of death”), between pilot and full scale up, an area difficult to secure funding for. It entails risk even after projects have been funnelled from say, ten pilots to three successful ones because of the work to be done on contextualisation. Despite the trumpeting of their risk-taking credentials, there are only a few who will take on this unseen, high stakes work.
The most obvious current area where risk taking is needed is the application of AI in education. You might expect to see philanthropies at the forefront of this zone of uncertainty, but few are.
“One good example is the Agency Fund. They don’t just focus only on education, but they fund pilots in AI in education and then connect those successful ones to in-house or external expertise to develop use cases and scale up. The McGovern Foundation also builds capacity in AI within grantee organisations.” (respondent)
Some philanthropies are setting up accelerators ; Mastercard Foundation fund several edtech groups some of whom are focusing on AI. But, like traditional donors there is considerable hesitance. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the greatest interest is in making their own organisations more efficient by the application of AI.
Political risk is the most difficult area – and one fraught with danger for philanthropic organisations. The relationship of philanthropy-to-government rather than government-to-government or multilateral-to-government is an inherently weaker relationship, no matter the size of the funder. The ramifications for government of falling out with the Gates Foundation, the LEGO Foundation or Mastercard Foundation are far fewer than with the World Bank or a bilateral relationship. As the power of traditional donors declines, it seems unlikely we’ll see philanthropic organisations step into this space, unless they collaborate.
Will that matter ? If system change is the goal, it will. Supporting the development of education systems is inherently political and rarely plain sailing. Working at the front of educational change usually entails conflict (government, unions, interest groups) – and while philanthropies do that through local organisations and individuals who are politically engaged, a completely hands-off approach is not possible from an accountability perspective. Strength in numbers is the solution.
That was demonstrated by the Transforming Education Summit (TES) in New York in 2022 where a number of philanthropic organisations came together under the umbrella of the IEFG to produce a “Statement by Philanthropic Actors Supporting Education”. Working together in this way will give more political impact than working alone.
That statement pointed out another advantage philanthropies have – namely, their ability to take longer term views. Of course, that depends on certainty of their own funding. But, as they are not subject to political cycles they can afford to invest in timescales that recognise the gestation time inherent in educational change. One funder deliberately frames their support in ten-year cycles – as that will encompass at least two political cycles (and maybe multiple education Ministers) - demonstrating that they are supporting the country not a political party or individuals.
4. Are philanthropies collaborative and coordinated ?
“..there is no current platform or movement dedicated to uniting Africa-based or Africa-focused education philanthropy..”(IEFG Spotlight Report)
“..that is the piece I find most difficult, philanthropies have their own thematic or geographic preferences, so even where there are possibilities to align, they are reluctant, because that’s how they create their USP…” (respondent)
“..I think we are doing well. We have set ourselves a target to do more. Could we do better ? Absolutely.” (respondent)
At least in principle, all philanthropic organisations say publicly that they work collaboratively. But, that can take many forms – and it doesn’t mean that they don’t have different, and often competing, agendas. For many, collaboration with other philanthropic organisations is actually about raising additional resources for their initiatives, not combining with others to create joint approaches.
That partnering does happen, and probably more than it does with traditional donors. AKF for example, doesn’t invest its own money unless it can leverage other funding as a way of ensuring greater buy-in. LEGO Foundation, Jacobs Foundation, Gates Foundation, Porticus, all blend funds with other philanthropies on a spectrum of full partnership to just raising additional funds. Where partnerships work well there are clear complementarities in service and few overlaps.
Collaboration with government is increasingly common, especially for those philanthropies who are trying to work to support education system change. But, as each organisation has its own approaches, and its own rules and regulations, the transaction costs to government are rising as they have to deal with multiple funders. One on-the-ground respondent said :
“The government is pretty polite to all these funders, but you’ve got all of these organisations pushing their own approaches and it overwhelms them. Also, most of these agencies work through the -------- directorate, which has no leverage within the Ministry of Education, so there’s a lack of coordination. But, these funders are bringing money, so government won’t say no”.
This is all reminiscent of the early 2000’s when the same plethora of systems and processes was overwhelming recipient governments. Then, there was a big push on bilateral and multilateral donors to align their systems in order to reduce the burden on government. The outcome was the Paris Declaration of 2005 which committed signatories to align their financial and reporting systems. There has been progress on that, though less than many would wish, but, there is a danger this whole process is being repeated by the philanthropic sector, with few of the lessons learned.
Some funders are trying to adjust and streamline their processes to make it easier for grantees, and there are increasing calls for more “unrestricted” funding. Commenting on these developments, the IEFG Spotlight quoted some grantees saying :
“Though positive, some participants noted that this is still difficult as funder behaviour typically fosters competition so ‘it is powerful when funders model collaboration themselves’.
The status of philanthropic organisations in country is also ambivalent compared to bilateral or multilateral relationships. In most countries there is a Local Education Group (LEG) that brings traditional donors together in a, sometimes effective sometimes ineffective, attempt to coordinate donor activity with government. Some philanthropic organisations have a seat on these groups (e.g. Jacobs Foundation chairs the one in Cote d’Ivoire), but not all do, which creates resentment, rivalry and lack of information.
Some of the bigger philanthropies now have seats at the table with the larger multilateral donors, ECW (LEGO Foundation) and GPE (AKF) for example – and Gates Foundation is part of the “Famous Five” (Gates Foundation, USAID, UNICEF, FCDO and the World Bank). This gives opportunity to pitch for the sector, providing visibility and potential coordination.
For example, where the “three Ps”, Public-Private Partnerships, used to the be the shiny new vehicle for raising funds, now it’s the “4Ps” ; Public-Private-Philanthropic Partnerships – the 4Ps. (Given how many foundations made the money that they distribute from commercial activities, their almost universal avoidance of using the private sector to deliver their programmes is bizarre).
But, where there may be further and deeper opportunities to collaborate in the sector is in partnering and developing indigenous philanthropic organisations, many of whom focus heavily on education. This may be partly by blending international and national funds, but more by developing the skills in these organisations to be sustainable philanthropic organisations in their own right.
For a good example of how this might be done see Kat Pattillo’s (Edwell substack) 2021 piece “How Locally-led Foundations in India, South Africa and Brazil created systems change – and Charted a New Path for Philanthropy”. She outlines these opportunities and challenges well through a focus on three foundations : Central Square in India, Lemann in Brazil and DG Murray Trust in South Africa.
Sharing of good practice, of information, and of opportunities to partner can also be considerably improved. The IEFG report notes the lack of data and evidence in this sector and calls for greater sharing. IEFG itself and the partner networks who produced the Spotlight report also have a role to play here, if supported by their members. As too might supporters in the business community like the Global Business Coalition for Education (see here recent joint article IEFG / GBCE in Devex).
5. Are philanthropies focused on sustainable change ?
Despite the much-touted ability to take the longer-term view, the idea of sustainability for philanthropic organisations seems to be largely framed in terms of finding sources of funding to continue successful initiatives. Those sources are often other philanthropic donors and / or hopeful aspirations about how government needs to absorb and institutionalise the programmes in question (see Issue #8 on this issue re the Luminos programme in Liberia).
To address this issue effectively would need much greater and more consistent relationships with governments – both Ministries of Education and Finance (not to mention the President’s Office) – since sustainability tends to only happen where an initiative is subsumed within the government education budget or when it is taken over by the private sector. As suggested above, these are both areas where philanthropic organisations are weak. (To be fair, there is a flip side to this coin : philanthropic organisations often step in when government itself stops being strategic and cuts money to NGO’s for ideological of financial reasons).
Is there also a danger that philanthropic funding could “crowd out” government funding, leading to less investment by government than there should be ? At first sight the question seems obtuse – even the most generous donor funding is less than a drop in the ocean of the spending on any education system. If Mastercard Foundation were to allocate all $275m of their budget to basic education in Nigeria, it wouldn’t even meet a third of the total annual cost.
But, the fact is that over 90% of most LMIC education budgets are for teacher salaries, leaving tiny amounts for non-teaching costs – and even less for new initiatives, such as investments in AI, or a revamped teacher education curriculum. In this context, even small sums of money from philanthropic organisations can help an ambitious Minister achieve an agenda (even more if you coordinate donors to the same ends, as Minister Sengeh did in Sierra Leone).
Philanthropies may have more leverage than they realise to help drive government agendas or establish policy. But, with that power comes the imperative to recognise the potential substitution effect of funding initiatives that the government should really be doing itself. Additionally, there is a risk of work being paid for twice as happened with one respondent whose organisation was asked to fund a study via a government agency only to find that agency pitching for the same funding to another donor.
As a speculative variation on this, is there a possibility that philanthropy is crowding-out initiative and ideas? Are civil servants in education ministries sitting back and letting donors / philanthropists do the heavy lifting of experimentation and idea generation to fix the problems of basic education that they should be doing themselves ?
“Cynically, I don’t think any civil servant here has ever troubled themselves with that thought” responded one interviewee.
The issue of sustainability is part of a subset of concerns about north-south power relations which are far wider than philanthropy – but where philanthropic organisations are straddling both sides of the (shifting) line. Headquartered largely in the north, they channel most of their funding through local organisations and local expertise. Sustainability then, is as much about changes in the locus of decision-making and the development of local partners as it is about continued financial support.
6. Are Philanthropies Accountable ?
Public Accountability
The question is something of a false dichotomy. The standard understanding in democratic systems is that government agencies, like USAID, Government of Canada or FCDO etc. are accountable, ultimately, to an electorate and, periodically, to the executive and any agencies set up to scrutinise government aid. In the USA there are a number of Congressional and Senate Committees playing this role, in the UK, the Independent Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI) and the International Development Select Committees (ICAI) have briefs to scrutinise the uses of international development assistance.
In truth, these layers of oversight are limited and often ineffective. Witness the defenestration of USAID and DFID, virtually by executive fiat. The lack of understanding of the purposes and size of aid budgets, even in countries with a free press, does not help the appeal to democratic accountability (a recent US poll found respondents believed the US spend 25% of its budget on development assistance ; the true figure is less than 1% ; in the UK the figure often cited is 10%, true figure 0.5%).
It’s in this context that we need to set the criticism of philanthropic organisations : that they are only accountable to their Boards, founders and auditors. That aspect of accountability is stronger or weaker according to where organisations are registered, thereby dictating the laws that cover scrutiny of charities or companies.
This also can determine how transparent they are – with a wide range of public reporting from full and transparent accounts to opaque and vague impact statements. Data reporting is pretty poor for the sector, making it hard for partners to have confidence.
In addition, the larger philanthropies, in particular, have brands and reputations to be concerned about – and it is probably true to say that they worry as much about scandal in the court of public opinion as about organisational malfeasance.
LEGO Foundation, for example, owns 25% of LEGO Group and needs to be sensitive to reputational damage going in either direction. The Aga Khan Foundation, Mastercard Foundation, Gates Foundation etc. have worldwide brands and reputations, developed over 25 years, to protect. Some of those brands are closely linked to existing commercial enterprises.
Brands and reputations are painstakingly built and quicky destroyed : remember the Academy for Education Development (AED) ? For twenty years it was the largest US contractor in education until it was brought down, within a matter of months, by a fraud scandal, and sold off to become FHI360.
None of this is to downplay the question of democratic accountability, but rather to demonstrate that there are other risks and accountabilities that motivate philanthropic organisations more than governments. A single serious fraud case may damage an international philanthropic brand in a way that would not be comparable to a government department suffering the same event.
However, this aspect of public accountability requires a free press that scrutinises the works of philanthropic organisations. Does that happen, except when a scandal is exposed ? Is there a degree of deference accorded to philanthropies by the national press in recipient countries simply because they are bringing much needed additional funding to education ? Are there journalists asking difficult questions about the use of funding ? Not enough perhaps.
Perhaps philanthropic networks need to push the case more firmly with their members for voluntary transparency of data, strategy, spend and decision-making in order to ensure continued public credibility.
Internal Accountability
If external accountability is less black and white than it may initially seem, how does internal accountability fare ? Are philanthropic organisations properly accountable to their own Boards ? One respondent commented :
“There’s no stakeholder feedback – there’s no market to punish us, so we are encouraged to do traditional things. There’s little oversight on what we do, but if government money is involved there’s massive oversight.”
Others speculated that the issue lies more with the composition of the Boards and the level of familiarity they have with the sectors they are funding. Many philanthropic organisations are covering a wide range of grant support, from education, to health to climate change and civil justice. Do they have the skills to intelligently challenge management teams on all these sectors ?
The other aspect of internal accountability is of the grantees to management / Boards. Here there are a wide range of views on how well this executed and perhaps as many answers as organisations. But, based on my conversations with grantees and philanthropic staff, the answer is not a resounding positive : philanthropic organisations may do well to ask themselves this question in a much more rigorous fashion.
One grantee compared two organisations they were working for, saying :
“X Foundation are really lax on their financial reporting – we could get away with anything it’s so weak. In fact, we suggested a stronger contract. But Y Foundation, who we work with too, don’t take any interest in the technical reporting (they trust us), but their financial reporting really keeps us on our toes”.
Conclusion
As philanthropic organisations become more important within the education development sector in the global south, there needs to be a better understanding of their comparative advantages, greater transparency on their motivations and operations and greater scrutiny of their role to facilitate indigenous philanthropy and locally led education organisations.
The emasculation, if not complete defenestration of the world’s largest bilateral donor, to be followed in short order by significant financial pressures on multilateral agencies dependent on US money, is already leading to a crisis where philanthropy is being looked to as a “saviour”. They will not be that, except in some very specific cases – and there is even speculation that the Trump administration will attack philanthropic organisations in the US.
That possibility aside, they have the unique potential to be part of a positive solution, a new paradigm for development cooperation that emerges from this shock. To fulfil that, philanthropies will need to be much more strategic, more collaborative with each other and local actors, and more willing to be led by government. They will need to leave their egos and logos at the door.
Further resources :
IEFG Presentation : More than the Money: What else does philanthropy contribute to global education progress?
The Development Dimension, Private Philanthropy for Development (Second Edition) Data for Action, OECD 2021
Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2025, OECD
“How Locally-led Foundations in India, South Africa and Brazil created systems change – and Charted a New Path for Philanthropy” Kat Pattillo Edwell
AI for Philanthropy, Blog by Nora Marketos
“Reimagining Philanthropy in the Global South” Edited by Clare Woodcraft, Kamala Munir and Nitya Mohan Khemka
Global Philanthropy Report PD Johnson, The Hauser Institute
Philanthropy in Education 2019, editors, Ridge and Terway
Insightful interview with Howard Buffet, son of Warren Buffet, on lessons learned as a philanthropist
“And this is a really tough lesson I learned in philanthropy — and we learned it really well when we worked in Africa — is people don't care about things unless it affects them. That is pretty much true. So, I can tell you about Ukraine, but then you're going to go home and cook dinner and get your kids ready for school and everything that goes on in your daily life. It doesn't really affect you, unless intellectually you can grasp the magnitude of what's happening.” Howard Buffet, link above
Thanks for this amazingly well written and nuanced article!
Another really insightful and useful summary Andy - thanks.