Wealth Inequality and Power Dynamics in Philanthropy

A picture of chessboard to illustrate the idea of wealth and power inequality. Critics argue that large-scale philanthropy can sometimes do more harm than good, but there's no doubt philanthropy can bring positive change. So who's right?
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Philanthropy, by its nature, carries an air of generosity and goodwill—a way for the wealthy to give back and help address big societal challenges. And let’s be honest, most of us admire the idea of someone using their resources to make the world a better place.

But not everyone sees it that way. Critics argue that large-scale philanthropy can sometimes do more harm than good, creating or reinforcing power imbalances that let the rich call the shots on what gets funded … and what doesn’t.

It’s a tricky topic, one that fundraisers and philanthropists like you are in a unique position to wrestle with. Let’s dig into the debate, one layer at a time.

What the Critics Are Saying

The big concern here is that philanthropy, for all its good intentions, can end up being about power—who has it, who doesn’t, and how it’s used. Here’s what critics point out:

  1. The Wealthy Set the Agenda. Let’s say a billionaire decides to pour millions into, for example, funding charter schools. That sounds great, but what if the local community is more concerned about fixing crumbling public school buildings or hiring more teachers? When a donor’s priorities don’t match the community’s needs, whose voice carries more weight? Often, it’s the person writing the check.
  2. Tax Breaks or Public Funds? Donations come with big tax breaks, which means less money going to public revenue—money that could’ve been used for schools, roads, or healthcare. Critics argue this gives wealthy donors a say in how resources are allocated, while the rest of us don’t get much of a say at all.
  3. Where’s the Accountability? Philanthropists don’t answer to voters the way politicians do. If a philanthropist’s money doesn’t go where it’s supposed to—or worse, causes harm—there’s often no real way to hold them accountable.

In short, the argument is that large-scale philanthropy might feel like a generous gift, but it’s sometimes more about control than true change.

The Case for Philanthropy

On the flip side, there’s no denying the incredible good that philanthropy has done—and continues to do. Let’s give credit where credit is due:

  1. It Funds the Unfundable: Governments can’t always afford to take big risks. Philanthropy often steps in to fund things such as experimental cancer treatments, bold climate initiatives, or grassroots social movements that might not get public funding.
  2. It Fills Gaps: Think about disaster relief efforts or global health initiatives. When government budgets are stretched thin, philanthropy can make all the difference. Vaccines, clean water, scholarships—these are often made possible because someone decided to write a check.
  3. It Challenges the System: Some wealthy donors genuinely try to address the root causes of inequality. For example, funding social justice organizations or reforming criminal justice systems—initiatives that challenge the very structures that allowed some to amass their wealth in the first place.

When done thoughtfully, philanthropy has the power to transform lives and tackle issues that might otherwise go ignored.

So, What’s the Real Issue?

At its heart, the debate isn’t about whether large-scale philanthropy is good or bad. It’s about balance. How do we keep the good while minimizing the risks?

For Fundraisers:
This means having tough conversations with donors. How can you encourage them to think beyond their own preferences and focus on what the community really needs? Can you advocate for more collaboration and less control?

For Philanthropists:
It’s about self-reflection. Are you listening to the people you’re trying to help? Are you open to giving up some control? Are you investing in solutions that empower communities, rather than just imposing your own vision?

No one’s expecting perfection, but these are the kinds of questions that can make philanthropy more impactful and equitable.

Let’s Keep the Conversation Going

At the end of the day, philanthropy is a tool. It can uplift and empower, or it can perpetuate inequality and concentrate power in the hands of a few. The difference lies in how it’s used.

For those of us in the fundraising and philanthropy space, it’s on us to ask hard questions and hold ourselves—and each other—accountable. How do we ensure that giving isn’t just about money, but about creating real, lasting change?

It’s a conversation worth having. And it starts with you.

  • Viken Mikaelian founded PlannedGiving.com in 1998 and has spent nearly three decades advising and training nonprofit professionals responsible for billions in charitable gifts. He has presented at over 500 fundraising conferences and is widely published on planned giving strategy. Viken is the founder of Philanthropy.org and publisher of GIVING Magazine.

    View all posts

Browse by Topic

Colored open hand illustration

Seeking Visionary Voices

We occasionally publish thoughtful perspectives from practitioners and researchers shaping the future of philanthropy.

Learn about contributing.

Related Posts

Young Indian student carrying notebooks and backpack on rural road

They Outscored 2 Million Students. Their Families Earn $1,100 a Year.

In 2025, 42 students earned medical scholarships through one of the toughest need-and-merit screens anywhere. Median family income: $1,102 a year. Median exam rank: top 0.25% of over two million test-takers. These are students who studied under kerosene lamps, commuted hours to reach coaching centers, and still outperformed nearly everyone. Without support, their families face impossible choices—sell land, take predatory loans, or watch talent go to waste. The scholarship doesn’t just help. It prevents harm before it happens.

Read More »
Open checkbook on desk with a pen next to it demonstrating hesitant donor

Generosity Hasn’t Vanished — Confidence Has

American philanthropy isn’t suffering from donor stinginess—it’s suffering from institutional betrayal. As universities lose billions in federal funding and private donations simultaneously decline, the pattern is clear: high-capacity donors haven’t stopped giving, they’ve stopped trusting. Nonprofits that traded mission for ideology, accountability for rhetoric, and partnership for entitlement are now doubly vulnerable. The path forward isn’t another initiative—it’s a return to basics: measurable outcomes, donor autonomy, and respect for the people whose generosity built these institutions.

Read More »
A lemon beside a mirror reflecting a lemon half, symbolizing a mismatch between appearance and reality.

Digital Dissonance: When Your Website Contradicts Your Mission

Nonprofits often build websites that look impressive but feel hollow. In chasing “professional,” they erase their own voice, personality, and lived reality. The result is digital dissonance—a subtle but powerful mismatch between who an organization actually is and how it presents itself online. Visitors feel it instantly. They don’t complain. They just leave, unconvinced and unlikely to return.

Read More »
>