No / The aggressive promotion of a neo-liberal form of economic globalization has created super-rich capitalists in the South as well as the North, many of whom choose to invest some of their accumulated wealth in philanthropic ventures targeted at helping to reduce social problems, such as poverty, disease and food insecurity. The rich who have been actively involved in giving to charities and setting up philanthropic foundations – and who have developed a global reputation around this activity – are referred to here as capitalist philanthropists. While capitalist philanthropists’ often-stated rationale for this activity is to help others benefit from their ‘wealth creation’, this form of philanthropy is both politically and ideologically committed to a market approach. In the case of agriculture, this means the modernization of agriculture through market-led forces of production and support for a strategy to restructure agriculture with implementation of new technologies, innovation and management techniques. What has become known as the New Green Revolution is delivered through partnerships between public, private and local institutions and small farmers with a particular focus on sub-Saharan Africa. The article critically examines why capitalist philanthropists give away significant portions of their wealth to projects and programmes that support agrarian change and food security. It considers the motivations for partnerships with private corporations through which they engage in this agenda. What are the political and ideological motivations of capitalist philanthropy? Is this kind of giving altruistic, for the good of society? Or do the origins of capitalist philanthropy determine ‘giving’ as market-led development and expansion of the market as the solution to food security?

No / Is there an alternative to the undemocratic and unaccountable power of capitalist philanthropy? If people in sub-Saharan Africa at grass roots level are to regain control of their futures, they must bet everything on democracy. But the challenge this presents should not be underestimated. We need social relations through which solutions can be determined with individuals and community groups to serve their needs and over which they exert a high degree of direct responsibility. In the spirit of Ubuntu or ‘oneness’, local communities understand what is required to meet their diverse needs, whether they are revenue-generating options or changing behaviours and conditions that inhibit social transformation. Who owns and controls philanthropy, and how other forms of influence become attached to it, are questions that lie at the heart of any transformational agenda. A local ecosystem model starts from a very different set of principles – it reduces the domination and influence of capitalist philanthropy in global development and instead empowers local communities to drive forward change.

No description available.

Over the past 10 years individual capitalists have become increasingly involved in philanthropy, setting up charitable foundations targeted at helping to reduce social problems such as poverty, disease and food security. This form of neoliberal capitalist philanthropy is both politically and ideologically committed to market-based social investment through partnerships, to make the market work or work better for capital. The new structures of philanthropy have received much praise in the media for imbuing capitalist business principles into the non-profit sector and for their potential for social transformation. While philanthropic activities may be considered worthy in themselves, this article examines the relationship between giving and business interest and the agency associated with neoliberal capitalist philanthropy. It questions partnerships between philanthropists and private corporations and their motivations for engaging in poverty-related philanthropy. The discussion focuses on capitalist philanthropic foundations' involvement in the process of agricultural commodification in sub-Saharan Africa through the New Green Revolution and genetically modified (gm) technologies.