Giving Compass' Take:

• San Francisco Magazine interviews author and Stanford ethicist Rob Reich on how philanthropy perpetuates inequality and why accountability may actually be a negative since it often stifles innovation.

• Do you agree with Reich on these points? Are organizations doing enough to encourage bold ideas, while also making sure to champion and lift up those who have been marginalized?

• Here's why strategic philanthropy can learn a lesson or two from advocacy.

We live in a second great age of American philanthropy. Especially in the Bay Area, we have seen a boom of millionaires and billionaires and a boom in the number of philanthropists as well. The social norm about philanthropists seems to be mainly that we owe them our gratitude because they are deciding voluntarily to give their money away rather than keep it for themselves. But I want to set aside that social norm, because big philanthropy is an exercise of power. It’s an attempt to convert one’s private wealth into some form of public influence. And whenever there’s power exercised in a democratic society, it deserves scrutiny ...

Philanthropy, and large foundations in particular, are really well situated for discovery or innovation in social policy that other actors in society, such as businesses and government, are not well positioned to undertake, in part because of the accountability mechanisms that bind them. The very unaccountability of foundations can be turned into a sort of virtue if they act in a way that brings about this discovery mode. If all you do in a foundation is give money to the local soup kitchen, you don’t need a foundation to do that. But if you want to run a professional foundation with a lot of money, take the long view and try a whole bunch of experimental and risky things to bring about long-time-horizon social change.

Read the full article about why philanthropy needs to be scrutinized by Lindsey J. Smith at San Francisco Magazine.