We Can't Shift Power in Philanthropy and Aid Without Addressing Tax Justice, Labour Rights, and Debt Cancellation

By Jessica Oddy-Atuona

Jess has worked in the social impact/third sector for around 15 years. In 2021, she founded a social enterprise, Design for Social Impact, to champion equity-centered, anti-oppressive, evidence-based programs, policies, and research, with a focus on co-design and structural change.

There’s growing excitement in the philanthropic sector around trust-based, participatory approaches to grant-making. Advocates rightly call for funders to cede more power and decision-making to communities, particularly those most affected by structural oppression. While this is a welcome shift, it’s impossible to ignore the elephant in the room: how the wealth used for philanthropy is acquired in the first place.

Many philanthropic fortunes are rooted in historical and ongoing systems of hyper-exploitation, extractive industries, and, in some cases, direct links to colonialism and enslavement. These legacies raise critical questions about the ethical contradictions in redistributing wealth that was (and continues to be) amassed through harm. Furthermore, calls for more participatory approaches to philanthropy often focus on morality and virtue, but without addressing these foundational injustices, they risk perpetuating the inequities they aim to dismantle. It is clear that systemic change requires not just a matter of redistributing wealth but also a reckoning of how that wealth was accumulated.

Philanthropy cannot create sustainable change if we don’t confront deeper, systemic issues plaguing our sector and make material demands, such as tax justice, labour rights, and debt cancellation. True justice isn’t about giving away excess wealth in more participatory ways; it’s about creating fair taxation systems and trade agreements that prevent, recognise and repair centuries of wealth injustice.

The Billionaire Problem: Are They Really "Giving Back"?

We often celebrate when the super-rich give large sums to charitable causes, but we need to ask tough questions: Why are we so quick to praise the ultra-wealthy for philanthropy when many haven’t even paid their fair share of taxes? The system that allows billionaires to accumulate such vast wealth is often the same one that underfunds public services, perpetuates inequality, and exacerbates poverty.

Charitable donations, while well-intentioned, often serve as a band-aid for a broken system and reinforce a misleading narrative about generosity, distracting from the need for more profound, structural change. For example, Forbes highlights that the  2023 Forbes 400 list members have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, which accounts for less than 6% of their combined net worth. The reality is that when the wealthiest exploit tax loopholes and offshore accounts, the burden of funding essential social services falls disproportionately on the rest of society—especially working-class people.

This isn’t to suggest avoiding our civic responsibilities, including charitable giving. It is clear that individual contributions play a vital role in supporting communities and addressing immediate needs. Mutual aid is age-old and a means by which structurally marginalised and historically underserved communities have developed their own systems of giving and solidarity. However, charitable donations should complement, not replace, a fair system where everyone—especially the wealthiest—pays their fair share in taxes. True justice requires both personal responsibility and systemic reform.

The Debt Trap: The Dark Side of Aid and Philanthropy

The narrative of the “localisation” of aid and philanthropy has become more prevalent, emphasising “shifting power” and directing funds to grassroots and local organisations. This is undeniably a positive shift, but we must also scrutinise the context. Many of the same governments and institutions that now “give” through development aid or philanthropy are responsible for placing these countries in debt in the first place.

For decades, structural adjustment policies imposed by wealthy nations and international financial institutions such as the IMF have left formerly colonised countries trapped in cycles of debt, unable to invest in their public services. The aid money flowing back to these countries often pales compared to the debt payments and resource extraction. The result? Wealth continues to flow upwards from the Global South to the Global North, reinforcing global inequality.

Redistribution Over Charity: The Systemic Change We Need

What if, instead of applauding billionaires and institutions for participatory grant-making, we focused on policies that promote wealth redistribution before it pools into the hands of a select few? The Global Alliance for Tax Justice points out, what if we championed fair tax systems that make it harder to hoard wealth and easier to fund public goods like healthcare, education, and infrastructure? 

As ActionAid points out in its recent report, there is an urgent need to transform how global tax rules are set and enforced. Many low—and lower-middle income countries are limited in their potential to raise fair taxes owing to unfair global tax rules set by the club of rich countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Imagine the strength of our public services if advocacy for tax justice and debt cancellation were prioritised over charitable donations.

Even when rooted in participation and community empowerment, Philanthropy often only addresses the symptoms of inequality. Tax justice, labour rights, and debt relief strike at its very roots. Without tackling these underlying issues, any shift in philanthropic power is incomplete and risks perpetuating the same imbalances it claims to address.

Building Solidarity: How Do We Link These Movements?

I’m eager to learn more about networks, spaces, events, or resources that are pushing the conversation further: linking calls for power shifts in funding with advocacy for tax justice, debt cancellation, and labour rights.

We need a more visible and louder dialogue connecting the dots between tax justice, debt cancellation, and progressive grant-making to ensure that the push for more participatory, trust-based approaches to giving does not become a rebranding of the status quo but instead is integrated into a broader movement for systemic justice.

We can claim solidarity only when we make these material, tangible efforts of connectedness.