With Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World, Michael Edwards delivers a powerful critique of the movement he calls philanthrocapitalism. This review tracks his main arguments and summarizes the book's content. Despite a few weaknesses in sourcing its arguments, the book is strongly recommended both to academics and to practitioners, especially to the prophets and disciples of the venture philanthropy and social business.

An increasing body of literature reveals that powerful businesspeople have a long history of using their wealth for the benefit of the greater common good. With philanthrocapitalism, a new generation of hands-on donors that have made incredible fortunes within business sectors like information technology or finance, are taking on the world's most pressuring social and environmental problem, willing to change the way of giving and enhancing traditional philanthropy. The rich entrepreneurs turned philanthropists are applying their skills and talents that have made them successful in business and infusing the charity sector with corporate tools and strategies and are getting personally engaged and using political and social networks to leverage their efforts. Driven to find solutions to the world's most severe problems, philanthrocapitalists tend to target problems that cut across national boundaries, such as AIDS, Malaria, illiteracy, and population growth. Next to these familiar fields such as health and education, philanthropists are also increasingly engaging in nature conservation. By establishing private nature reserves or taking over failed state-run nature reserves, elite donors are increasingly featuring neoliberal conservation and intervene in political ecology particularly in biodiversity hotspots in the global South. Notwithstanding philanthrocapitalism growing prominence and significance, broader public debates and academic literature is just emerging in recent years and the impact on nature conservation has received little scholarly attention. By examining the case of the Gorongosa Project (GP), a transnational nature conservation project that was established by U.S. multimillionaire Greg Carr in Mozambique, this thesis seeks to illustrate: a) how philanthrocapitalism influences nature conservation, b) how philanthrocapitalistic conservation projects work in practice and, c) enhance understanding about the implications of philanthrocapitalism in conservation governance, recognising its advantages and limitations. The thesis further seeks to contribute to the academic discourse as the far-reaching ventures of Western philanthrocapitalists have provoked a controversial debate. Advocates such as economists, journalists and political organisations argue that the financial power, unique business skills, resources and networks enable philanthrocapitalists to contribute to solving global issues more efficiently than other stakeholders. In contrast, critics from political or social sciences or conservation point out the increasing influence that wealthy philanthropists have on global policymaking as well as social and political agendas and have raised concerns about democratic values and power and wealth inequalities.

This thesis examines the desire and efforts to 'do something' about what is variously called 'modern slavery' or 'human trafficking'. Neoabolitionist efforts to fight such phenomena are typically wedded to a simplistic and essentialist ontology, unaware of or rejecting their own performativity. The thesis is not about slavery: it is about the ethico-political problem of responsibility and hospitality toward the other in the context of contemporary anti-slavery. What constitutes an ethical response to modern slavery? I explore the often violent effects of particular answers to this question but ultimately argue that the focus on doing something (and knowing it) threatens the very possibility of hospitality - of an ethical response. Through a conceptual vocabulary of 'scenes' I explore the performative interrelation of ontology and ethics. It is intended to help resist the metaphysical seductions of ontology and moral urgency. Scenes bundle specific ontologies, frames, conjured histories and futures, roles and narrative structures, distributions of concern, desire and enjoyment. Response begins with the discursive and affective co-constitution of the self, the one to whom we respond, and the scene in which it takes place. Scene-specific forms of responsibility can operate as a defence against the full force of responsibility to the other. Chapters 1 and 2 develop the notion of scenes and explore how neoabolitionism sets its scenes and locates favoured solutions. The remaining chapters explore those solution areas. Chapter 3 looks at how a US movement against 'sex trafficking' in internet advertising reproduces a Manichean world of simplicity by a game of Whac-A-Mole with websites, ritualistic repetition of baseless 'facts', silencing of sex workers, and aggressive demonization of those who disagree or argue for greater complexity; Chapters 4 and 5 draw on time I spent in San Francisco with two very different organisations. One, Not For Sale, makes a product of experiencing neoabolitionism, joining together charity, capitalism, consumer enjoyment, technology and the excitement of a movement of 'true believers', producing innovative approaches but in the process reinforcing problematic gendered and colonial stereotypes. The other, Anti-trafficking Collaborative of the Bay Area, works quietly and tactically in a messy immigration system, aware of the political and performative nature of their work. They actively take responsibility for their own preconceptions and desires to ground a profoundly hospitable client-centred approach avoiding many pitfalls identified in earlier chapters. The thesis has a performative element woven through it - the ethos of the work is one of unsettling both existing practices and literatures, and the writer and reader. The concluding chapter explores the impossibility of hospitality, its interrelation with juridical subjectivity and the ethics demanding and giving accounts in light of the preceding chapters, suggesting a performative approach toward the other is possible.