ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Matthew Bishop is New York
Bureau Chief of the Economist and Michael Green is an
economist and writer
There is a lot of justifiable worry at the moment about the
triple whammy that is hitting charities in the UK: donations were
down by GBP1.3 billion in 2008/09 according to UK Giving
2009, and could fall further as the economy limps along;
demand for their services is up, as unemployment rises and the
recession takes its toll on the nation’s health; and public
services are facing the biggest cuts in at least 30 years, as
whichever party wins the next UK election struggles to put the
country’s finances in order.
A range of ideas have been floated to tackle this charity
funding crisis, such as improving the (already pretty good) tax
treatment of philanthropy and thereby strengthening the giving
culture in Britain. Welcome as they are, these initiatives will, at
best, feed through slowly. In our ‘Philanthrocapitalist Manifesto’
we argue that it is time to turn to an (allegedly) radical way to
fill the funding gap now, when we need it most: introduce a 5 per
cent payout rule for charitable foundations.
According to the latest comprehensive survey, by the Cass
Business School, in aggregate the 100 biggest foundations in the UK
(by donations) paid out 4 per cent of the value of their endowments
in 2007. With total grantmaking by this group of GBP1,174 million,
adding one percentage point to the average payout rate would add
nearly GBP300 million to total giving. Or the sum could be even
larger, nearer GBP600 milion, if the group of foundations that
already pay out more than 5 per cent maintained their giving and
the rest hit a 5 per cent minimum. Even then, that’s not enough to
make up for the fall in giving during the recession, but it would
offer welcome relief to beleaguered charities.
Why has such an obvious win not been
considered?
The objection in principle is that this is an unjustified public
interference in the private decision to give. This argument might
work if charitable foundations were not recipients of generous tax
breaks. Since the public is subsidising giving, surely it is
reasonable to ask that foundations be asked, within limits, to
serve the public interest of the taxpayers who are actually footing
the bill?
Introduce a 5 per cent payout rule for charitable
foundations
Liberty-loving America crossed this bridge 40 years ago and a 5
per cent payout rule is now a relatively uncontroversial part of
the social contract between philanthropy and wider society.
American experience also suggests that the practical concern that a
payout rule would deter giving is not something to lose sleep
over.
Some may object that this rule would threaten the viability of
our venerable foundations, which want to maintain the value of
their endowments and grantmaking for centuries to come. Well,
maybe. A payout rule could actually be a welcome challenge to
endowment managers and trustees over the performance of foundation
investments. One important tweak in the rule, however, would be to
give some credit for ‘mission related investing’ that prioritises
social or environmental returns over financial returns. Making
allowances for this type of investment in calculating payout rates
would be a useful stimulus to the UK social investment market.
Another complaint is that a payout rule emphasises quantity over
quality. The point is well taken. UK foundations’ grant-making
effectiveness is erratic, which needs to be tackled anyway (we make
specific suggestions on how to do this in our manifesto). But that
is not an argument against the payout rule. There may, however, be
a case for giving new foundations an exemption to the rule for,
say, five years while they put policies, people and plans in place,
in order to be ready to give wisely.
Mandatory seatbelts in cars and the smoking ban in public places
are examples of infringements of the rights of the individual that
were imposed for the public good, resisted by a vocal minority and
now accepted as an uncontroversial part of everyday life. Most
foundations hate the idea of a mandatory payout rule, but they
could learn to live with it, as their American counterparts have
done. Given the state of our country, the public benefit from
several hundred millions of pounds of extra giving now outweighs
the rights of foundations to limit their generosity. It is time for
Britain to embrace the 5 per cent solution.