Preliminary analysis suggests the philanthropy of high net worth individual (HNWI)1
The term HNWI is generally used to describe an individual with investable assets in excess of US$1 million (excluding primary residence, collectibles and consumer durables). The wealth of participants in this study has not been investigated. Indeed, such data would be difficult to obtain or corroborate. Instead the project is examining the philanthropy of the elite of India. However, prima facie those interviewed would either fit into that category or be a member of a family whose collective wealth would ensure membership of that category.
Indians has significant commonalities with that described by researchers in Western countries. It is proposed that the most important fact is that Indian philanthropists, as are their counterparts in the West, are ‘producers’ of philanthropy and ‘hyperagents’. This has great significance for fundraisers and NGOs because fundraisers and NGOs are not in a position to demand support for their causes. They must make considerable effort to understand the personal philanthropic practices and behaviours of HNWIs. In addition, fundraisers must determine whether they have the possibility of entering into the ‘communities of participation’ to which potential philanthropic supporters belong. The article compares existing studies on the philanthropy of the wealthy in the USA, UK and Australia to preliminary data from the author’s ongoing investigation into the characteristics of HNWI philanthropy in India.
AgarwalS. (2010). Daan and other traditions of giving in India: the forgotten pot of gold. New Delhi: AccountAid.
2.
AldredP.GilliesV. (2002). In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 148–165). London: SAGE Publications.
3.
BakerW. E.JimersonJ. B. (1992). The sociology of money. American Behavioral Scientist, 35(6), 678–693.
4.
BaylyC. A. (1983). Rulers, townsmen and bazaars: North India in the age of expansion 1770–1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BirlaR. (2013). From trusteeship to corporate responsibility. In M. Cantegreil, D. Chanana, R. Kattumuri (Eds), Revealing Indian philanthropy (pp. 41–44). London: Alliance Publishing Trust.
6.
BishopM.GreenM. (2010). Philanthrocapitalism: How giving can save the world (Paperback ed.). London: A & C Black.
7.
BornsteinE. (2009). The impulse of philanthropy (viewpoint essay). Cultural Anthropology, 24(4), 622–651.
8.
BreezeB.LloydT. (2013). Richer lives: Why rich people give. London: Directory of Social Change.
9.
CantegreilM.ChananaD.KattumuriR. (Eds). (2013). Revealing Indian philanthropy. London: Alliance Publishing Trust.
10.
Capgemini and Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management. (2011). World wealth report. New York: Capgemini and Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management.
11.
DadrawalaN. (2003). Merchants of philanthropy.New Delhi: Centre for the Advancement of Philanthropy.
12.
DurkheimE. (1992). The rules of sociological method and selected texts on sociology and its method. New York: Free Press.
13.
EmirbayerM.MischeA. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
14.
FeuerbachL.EliotG.BarthK.NiebuhrR. H. (1957). The essence of Christianity. New York: Harper.
15.
GiddensA. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
16.
GiddensA.. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
GillemanG. (1959). The primacy of charity in moral theology. Trans., W. F. Ryan & A. Vachon. Westminster, MD.: Newman Press.
18.
HavensJ. J.O’HerlihyM. A.SchervishP. G. (2006). Charitable giving: How much, by whom, to what, and how. In Walter W. Powell & Richard Steinberg (Eds), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 542–567). New Havens, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
HaynesD. E. (1987). From tribute to philanthropy: The politics of gift giving in a western Indian city. The Journal of Asian Studies, 46(2), 339–360.
20.
HaynesD. E.. (1991). Rhetoric and ritual in colonial India: the shaping of public culture in Surat city, 1852–1928. Berkeley, CA: Harvard University Press.
21.
HeimM. (2004). Theories of the gift in South Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain reflections on dāna. New York: Routledge.
22.
JansonsE. (2015). The business leaders behind the foundations: Understanding India’s emerging philanthropists. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(3), 984–1006.
23.
KeynesJ. M. (1933). Economic possibilities for our grandchildren (1930). In Essays in persuasion (pp. 358–73). New York: Macmillan.
24.
LalaR. M. (2011). The art of effective giving. New Delhi: Harper Collins.
25.
LewinsF. (1987). Writing a thesis. Canberra: Faculty of Arts, Australian National University.
26.
LloydT. (2004). Why rich people give. London: Association of Charitable Foundations.
27.
NaikP.BhattacharyaS. (2013). More than just education and health. In M. Cantegreil, D. Chanana & R. Kattumuri (Eds), Revealing Indian philanthropy (pp. 82–91). London: Alliance Publishing Trust.
28.
OdendahlT. (1990). Charity begins at home: Generosity and self-interest among the philanthropic elite. New York: Basic Books.
29.
OstranderS. A. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356–372.
30.
OstranderS. A.SchervishP. G. (1990). Giving and getting: Philanthropy as a social relation. In J. Van Til (ed.), Critical issues in American philanthropy: Strengthening theory and practice (pp. 67–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
OstrowerF. (1995). Why the wealthy give: The culture of elite philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
ParryJ. (1986). The gift, the Indian gift and the ‘Indian gift’. Man, 21(3), 453–473.
33.
PiliavinJ. A.CharngH.-W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27–65.
34.
PopeS. J. (1991a). Expressive individualism and true self-love: A Thomistic perspective. The Journal of Religion, 71(3), 384–399.
35.
PopeS. J.. (1991b). The order of love and recent Catholic ethics: A constructive proposal. Theological Studies, 52(2), 255–288.
36.
PopeS. J.. (1992). Agape and human nature: Contributions from neo-Darwinism. Social Science Information, 31(3), 509–529.
37.
PrinceR. A.FileK. M. (1994). The seven faces of philanthropy: A new approach to cultivating major donors. Jossey-Bass.
38.
PutnamR. D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America‘s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
39.
PutnamR. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science & Politics, 28(4), 664–664.
40.
RaghunathanV.RaghunathanM. (2013). A unique place for corporate social responsibility. In M. Cantegreil, D. Chanana & R. Kattumuri (Eds), Revealing Indian philanthropy (pp. 46–52). London: Alliance Publishing Trust.
41.
RahejaG. G. (1988). The poison in the gift: Ritual, prestation, and the dominant caste in a north Indian village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
RudnerD. W. (1987). Religious gifting and inland commerce in seventeenth-century South India. The Journal of Asian Studies, 46(2), 361–379.
43.
ScaifeW.McDonaldK.SmyllieS. (2011). A transformational role: Donor and charity perspectives on major giving in Australia. Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/40336/1/40336.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).
44.
SchervishP. G. (1990). Wealth and the spiritual secret of money. In R. Wuthnow & V. A. Hodgkinson (Eds), Faith and philanthropy in America: Exploring the role of religion in America’s voluntary sector (pp. 63—90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45.
SchervishP. G.. (1992). Adoption and altruism: those with whom I want to share a dream. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(4), 327–350.
46.
SchervishP. G.. (2000a). The material horizons of philanthropy: New directions for money and motives. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2000(29), 5–16.
47.
SchervishP. G.. (2000b). The modern medici: Patterns, motivations, and giving strategies of the wealthy (Research Paper No. 5). Los Angeles: The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy, University of Southern California.
48.
SchervishP. G.. (2000c). The spiritual horizons of philanthropy: New directions for money and motives. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2000(29), 17–32.
SchervishP. G.. (2005a). Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major Gifts. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2005(47, 1 April 2012), 59–87.
51.
SchervishP. G.. (2005b). Today‘s wealth holder, tomorrow’s giving. Journal of Gift Planning, 9(3), 15–19, 35–37.
52.
SchervishP. G.. (2006). The moral biography of wealth: Philosophical reflections on the foundation of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 477–492.
53.
SchervishP. G.. (2007). Is today’s philanthropy failing beneficiaries? Always a risk, but not for the most part. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 373–379.
54.
SchervishP. G.. (2008). Why the wealthy give. In A. Sargeant & W. Wymer (Eds.), The Routledge companion to nonprofit marketing (pp. 165–180). Abingdon: Routledge.
55.
SchervishP. G.HavensJ. J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8(3), 235–260.
56.
SchervishP. G.HavensJ. J.. (2001a). The mind of the millionaire: Findings from a National Survey on Wealth with Responsibility. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, Summer 2001 (32), 75–106.
57.
SchervishP. G.HavensJ. J.. (2001b). Wealth and the commonwealth: New findings on wherewithal and philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 5–25.
58.
SchervishP. G.HavensJ. J.. (2002). The Boston area diary study and the moral citizenship of care. Voluntas: International Journal Of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 13(1), 47–71.
SchervishP. G.O‘HerlihyM. A. (2002). The spiritual secret of wealth: The inner dynamics by which fortune engenders care. New directions for philanthropic fundraising, 2002(35), 23–40.
61.
SewellW. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
KeatingG.O’SullivanM.ShorrocksA.DaviesJ. B.LluberasR.KoutsoukisA. (2011). Global wealth report 2011. , Zurich, Switzerland: Credit Suisse Research Institute.
66.
SundarP. (1996). Women and philanthropy in India. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7(4), 412–427.
67.
SundarP.. (2000). Beyond business: From merchant charity to corporate citizenship: Indian business philanthropy through the ages. New Delhi: Tata Mcgraw-Hill Publishing Company.
68.
SundarP.. (2001). Women and philanthropy in India. In K. D. McCarthy (Ed.), Women, philanthropy, and civil society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
69.
TonerJ. J. (1968). The experience of love. Washington: Corpus Books.
70.
TraceyD. (2003). Giving it away: in praise of private philanthropy. Carlton North: Scribe Publications.
71.
VaradarajanD.ChananaD. (2013). A changing of the guard. In M. Cantegreil, D. Chanana & R. Kattumuri (Eds.), Revealing Indian philanthropy (pp. 69–74). London: Alliance Publishing Trust.
