Philanthropy During COVID-19 Emergency: Towards a Postcolonial Perspective?

Abstract

Civic actors started facing an increasingly challenging context with demobilization in recent years in Brazil. In 2019, a conservative government came to power, and the beginning of the pandemic led to deepening inequalities. That was when philanthropy emerged at its strongest: over US $1 billion in private donations were mapped in only three months. This paper presents data on donations during the pandemic and contrasts selected cases with different perspectives of philanthropy. It seeks to answer whether these donations may have had an outlier content for both donors and communities. It was observed that some initiatives started to break with hegemonic models of philanthropy, however, we argue that there is still a high level of resource-dependency from elites and a coloniality of power mindset, which leaves us to the question: “To what extent is a decolonial turn in philanthropy really achievable if its origin is based on colonial thoughts?”.

1 Introduction

Civil society in Brazil experienced many achievements between the Brazilian re-democratization in the 1980s and the first decade of the 2000s. During that period of time, there was a retraction regarding the availability of international cooperation in terms of resources, emptying as well as demobilizing various social sectors along with the advance of conservative policies, which started to question the legitimacy of several organizations (Mendonça et al., 2013).

The situation was further complicated by the rise of conservative governments in all spheres of public authority, culminating in the 2018 presidency with a new and severe fiscal crisis. Brazilian civil society started a period of restrictions for its activities in respect to regulation, legal and financing dimensions. The COVID-19 pandemic arose at a time of fragility, which can be characterized as an extreme constrained setting.

The closing of many organizations; the interruptions of activities performed by others; the deepening of social inequalities and the increase of vulnerability were presented as several challenges and obstacles to be faced. Nevertheless, the country has witnessed an explosion of mobilizations and donations provided by corporations, wealthy families and individual donors. Many argue that this would mark a new trajectory in the culture of giving and grantmaking in Brazil.

Philanthropy in Brazil started out as a colonial event (in a historical sense) in which religious organizations’ missions were dedicated to charity linked to Christian values of mercy, compassion and forgiveness, and this later would become an element of socialization for economic elites (Sanglard, 2005).

In the 1990s, philanthropy started its “modern” era, becoming a professional activity and began integrating a wide field of actors: NGOs, donor families, companies, legal, technical and management advisory professionals (Paoli, 2002; Sanglard, 2005).

Meanwhile, new forms of philanthropy have emerged aiming to promote innovative ways of economic exchange, connecting social inclusion and emancipation of individuals within the framework of postcolonial perspectives (in an epistemic sense). It has come to be called philanthropy for social justice (Hopstein & Peres, 2021; Silva & Oliven, 2020), progressive or radical philanthropy (Herro & Obeng-Odoom, 2019).

In this context, in which traditional charitable philanthropy and other market-oriented model still represent mainstream forms of action, the COVID-19 pandemic made it possible to see a different scenario of philanthropy emerging, with postcolonial inspirations (in the epistemic sense), valuing local voices and capacities.

This paper aims to present data donation during the COVID-19 pandemic and select cases with different perspectives on philanthropy in Brazil. It seeks to answer whether and in which ways these donations, when responding to an emergency, may actually have had a radical content (Herro & Obeng-Odoom, 2019). This would be an example of change in civic space, even in a period of severe constrains for civil society activity. These philanthropic actions would be different from donation as an act of benevolence as well as from donation designed for outcomes, which mark traditional philanthropy and market-oriented philanthropy, respectively.

Two examples of initiatives were analyzed: a market-oriented Grantmaker initiative, the Tide Setubal Foundation, and another regarding a set of local-level initiatives that were mapped by several studies on the mobilization of collectives from urban peripheries.

This is an initial and descriptive study of what seems to be a new model of philanthropy, pointing to interesting results that can be followed up and deepened in future research.

2 Philanthropy in Brazil

Philanthropy in Brazil emerged from the perspective of the colonizer under the premise of moral superiority, often related to religiosity (Lambert & Lester, 2004). The practice of philanthropy during the colonial era was deeply linked to Christian values of mercy, compassion and forgiveness, which were converted into civilizing values in the process of colonial expansion. From the eighteenth century onwards, philanthropy goes through what Sanglard (2005) called laicization, in which doing good becomes a social virtue, an important element of social status for some members of the elite. It should be noted that the secular nature of philanthropy does not mean the absence of different religious nuances in its practices, but rather in its interpretation as a social process of exchange endowed with values (Silva & Oliven, 2020).

Several authors point out that another characteristic of Brazilian philanthropy is the ambiguity of public–private boundaries. While the State supplies philanthropic organizations with resources, economic elites maintain a liberal discourse (Rangel, 2013; Sanglard, 2005). From missionary values to the recent formation of welfare policies, the country has always experienced “[…] the symbiosis between private and public initiatives, the presence of the ruling class as civil power and the relationship between benefit/charity x beneficiary/beggar shaping the relationship between the State and subaltern classes” (Sposati, 2003: 46).

Traditional philanthropy is focused on charity, welfare, and immediacy in order to deal with social issues and, generally, without seeking lasting transformations and changes. More recently, from the 1990s onwards, under the discourse of the Third Sector, interactions with market agents started being justified by arguments linked to the “professionalization of philanthropy” (Paoli, 2002). During this period, part of Brazilian businesses and family philanthropy began to adapt themselves to incorporate a more systemic look into their own donations. As a result, the GIFE (Group of Institutes, Foundations and Companies), an association of Grantmakers aimed at systematizing and disseminating these practices, was founded.

Part of this vision of philanthropy has evolved in recent years to take an increasingly similar form to capital markets, where one invests on the social field expecting measurable returns from this investment, which has gained the names of philanthrocapitalism and millennial philanthropy (Bishop & Green, 2008; Mitchell & Sparke, 2016).

In these forms of modern philanthropy, elements incorporating market-related instruments (cost-effectiveness, metrics, incentives via competition) were found. It was considered a diversity of struggles for equality (racial, sexual, intersectional) and their tensions with elements of social protection and market/government failures, often using affirmative action strategies. Furthermore, various arrangements that could mobilize partnerships between the public and the private sectors in their actions started to come out (Mitchell & Sparke, 2016).

Nogueira and Schommer (2009), in an article analyzing 15 years of the foundation of GIFE and market-oriented forms of philanthropy in Brazil highlighted the importance to differentiate traditional philanthropy practices from the ones influenced by Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR, alongside with philanthropy, also gained ground in debates and practices since 1998, with the creation of the Ethos Institute of Social Responsibility. However, CSR involved internal and external corporate actions, with philanthropy being one of its dimensions. Philanthropy within this context took on a more professional look, mimicking planning and market management tools. The authors also mentioned the difficulty concerning collaboration between sectors and different institutional logics, which sets limits to the shared and comprehensive solutions that are required when it comes to face complex problems.

Twenty-five years later, this movement has managed to broaden dialogues with the public sector and civil society, along with improving assessment systems, with a strong focus on the idea of social impact as well making an approach to social businesses.

Nonetheless, this is not the only currently possible approach of philanthropy. Sousa Santos (2012) points out that it is necessary to rescue the concept of modernity based on solidarity, volunteering and reciprocity, which would move part of the citizenry that was excluded from the advances of globalization and the market economy.

Radical philanthropy (Herro & Obeng-Odoom, 2019) proposes an alternative vision, where the protagonist of change is not the benevolent elites exclusively, but also the grassroots groups and social movements. Some have called this philanthropy for social justice, community philanthropy (Hopstein & Peres, 2021; Silva & Oliven, 2020). In this modality, the prevalence of a non-capitalist economic diversity is often sought, with other exchange practices such as solidarity economy as well as the diversity of individuals and cultural contexts.

The transition to a fairer society sometimes requires thinking about a non-linear transition, from a Western point of view of linearity to a more dynamic understanding involving the processes of change (Silva & Oliven, 2020). This brings radical philanthropy closer to postcolonial thinking, in which academics and activists from the Global South authors from Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania, alongside with other academics and activists, seek to build an understanding about civil society and development processes from the Global South.

Authors of postcolonial studies in Latin America, linked to the indigenous movement, argue that modernity should be interpreted from the perspective of the colonized subject and elaborate a new reading on the historical process (Krenak, 2019; Mamani, 2010; Quijano, 2015).

Radical philanthropy seeks in feminism not only a way to look at inequalities, but also to practice types of care; thinking about indigenous peoples, ways of living and spirituality; dealing with injustices, ways of dealing with structural racism and with a heteronormative matrix. From a postcolonial vision, the focus of these themes is not only on striving for balance actions aimed at economic systems, but also on considering systems and possibilities of coexistence in different spectrums of diversity (Silva & Oliven, 2020).

Another important point brought up is the perspective of territory, as “the experience of a specific location with some degree of rooting, with connection to daily life, even if its identity is constructed and never fixed” (Escobar, 2005: 69). For many people, the experiences with a linear, colonial development meant a disconnection with the territory, regarding ecological aspects as well as social, cultural and identity connections. Place has become something marginal in Western thought, although globalization ultimately occurs in places, so its existence cannot be erased. As Spink (2001) rightly puts it, the international, the national, the regional and the local can have an impact at the same time, and it is in this space that their contradictions and disputes operate.

Hopstein and Peres (2021) writing about community philanthropy also highlight the centrality of the territory. That is the reason why we selected experiences of mobilizations in urban peripheries in the context of the pandemic for this work (Table 1):

It is in this scenario that civil society acts, whose organizations (CSOs, NGOs and social movements) sought not only to contest necropolitics and denial through the construction of political agendas and articulation in networks, but also to respond to the crisis. [...] Power and resistance face each other through multiple and changing tactics, and that is how the emergence of initiatives by community-based organizations and civil society can be interpreted as authentic manifestations of questioning and refusal. Thus, it is possible to understand the prominent role that organizations, movements and social groups played in confronting the pandemic. (Hopstein & Peres, 2021: 11)

Table 1 Philanthropy models

Therefore, we examined how radical philanthropy and giving were during the period of the pandemic in Brazil. Based on the selected literature (Aoqui & dos Santos, 2019; Hopstein & Peres, 2021; Silva & Oliven, 2020), we identified some practices that we consider a milestone from the traditional and market-oriented models of philanthropy, considering inspirations from postcolonial epistemologies that are summarized below (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

(Source Elaborated by the authors [2021])

Radical practices of philanthropy and giving

These practices have as overall differentiation more empathetic and horizontal approaches, respecting local knowledge and implementing bottom-up processes. They contrast with traditional and/or market-oriented philanthropy where, at its extreme, (i) focuses on either charity (instead of emancipation and empowerment) or social entrepreneurs and social businessmen (against grassroots leaders); (ii) seldom supports non-institutionalized organizations, aiming exclusively at formal (and usually the richest) ones, generating a concentration of resources and endo-inequality in social-change spaces; (iii) demands lots of paperwork (like expensive audits, challenging due diligences, impact evaluation, etc.); (iv) is based on top-down decisions, where money represents power; (v) with no flexibility since all deliverables must fit the donor’s schedule; (vi) focuses on the grantmaker’s desires; (vii) aiming at a single solution to be scaled out to all contexts; (viii) and where the privileged ones are still at the core of knowledge production and have the exclusive power to discern between what is right and what is wrong.

In terms of methodology, this work employed secondary sources, systematizing recent research that brings data on philanthropy and donations in the context of the pandemic (Herro & Obeng-Odoom, 2019; Hopstein & Peres, 2021; Silva & Oliven, 2020). In the systematization of these data (listed on Table 2, Appendix), we sought to list the initiatives that showed disruptive elements in civil society, whether they came from philanthropists or communities that organized themselves to create innovative ways of local resource mobilization together with other forms of fundraising. Table 2 reports these studies and main documents used.

Complementary field notes were made by two of the authors while participating as both mediators /consultants in events and meetings.

Two cases were selected. One of them considers a market-oriented philanthropy organization, and the other one lists a set of initiatives implemented by local collectives in urban peripheries. They present disruptive characteristics from traditional and market-oriented approaches, showing aspects of postcolonial philanthropy, corroborating our argument that new forms of philanthropy have emerged more strongly in the face of fight against COVID-19. Therefore, they were selected bearing in mind what Dyer and Wilkins (1991: 613) nominated as creating an example, “that is, a story against which researchers can compare their experiences and gain rich theoretical insights”.

The first case study revolves around a market-oriented philanthropy actor in Brazil, the Tide Setubal Foundation, and its actions in the pursuit of its declared mission as “fostering initiatives that promote social justice and sustainable development in urban peripheries and contribute to confrontation the socio-spatial inequalities of large cities, in conjunction with various agents of civil society, research institutions, the State and the market” (Fundação Tide Setubal website 2021). The foundation was responsible for launching the Enfrente fundraising campaign and the Elas Periféricas program, as well as other initiatives.

The second case is a collection of initiatives, systematized at first hand from different collectives in the urban peripheries, with emphasis on Potências Periféricas.

3 Donations During the Pandemic in Brazil

As soon as the pandemic started in 2020, there was a great mobilization for donations between March and May, when the level of BRL 5 billion was quickly reached, followed by a flattening in the donation curve, especially after reaching BRL 6 billion in two months (Donation Monitor, 2021). We can consider that raising this amount of financial resources in such short period of time is an unprecedented situation.

When analyzing the characteristics of these donations, we verified that the biggest donations were made by just a few donors, the allocation of resources were made available in few organizations and uneven geographic distribution of donations, primarily occurring in the Southeast region (the richest region in the country). ABCR (2021), on its monitoring of donations indicates over USD 6.9 billion referred to 702 thousand donors during the pandemic. Considering this amount of financial resources, more than 96% of these donations correspond to either institutional, corporate, or came from wealthy families. On that ground, just 448 donations concentrated USD 6.7 billion of the total amount of money mapped up to mid-May 2021. While donations given by individuals whose family income is up to 2 minimum wages (less than US$ 400 monthly) declined from 32 to 25% between 2015 and 2020, they grew significantly among higher income classes—from 51 to 58% (family income from 6 to 8 minimum wages) and from 55 to 59% (over 8 minimum wages), according to the Pesquisa Doação Brasil (2021). Most corporate donations came from the same sectors—financial, mining and food and beverages (Dutra et al., 2021)—that concentrated donations in pre-pandemic.

In relation to fundraising campaigns, the explosion of crowdfunding and matchfunding tools stand out. According to the Donation Monitor (2021), there were 557 campaigns that mobilized USD 3.9 billion. As far as matchfunding campaigns, initiatives supported by companies, foundations and philanthropic actors were more successful in achieving their goals: 65% of these campaigns achieved their goal by May 2020. This percentage, however, declined to 26% in campaigns of community origin (Aoqui et al., 2020).

Mapping more than 300 philanthropic initiatives (Aoqui et al., 2020) made it possible to observe that when donations were accompanied by partnerships and local mobilizations, beneficiaries were more quickly reached. This occurred mainly where civil society is historically more organized, such as in communities like Paraisópolis and Heliópolis, in the city of São Paulo, and Rocinha, in the city of Rio de Janeiro.

Another study, whose focus was on how these partnerships were being built, pointed out relevant changes in relation to the pre-pandemic period: selection processes were much more agile and less bureaucratic, and in some cases led by the communities themselves (Aoqui & Pereira, 2020). At the same time, according to Dutra et al. (2021), the transparency level of these donors was very low in terms of accountability, often neither mentioning the grantee CSOs, or specifying the amounts contributed.

In a study that analyzed 427 corporate philanthropic donations in 2020, Dutra et al. (2021) sought to understand how these donations took place within the scope of CSOs in Brazil, cataloging 166 CSOs announced as grantees. The result shows that most philanthropists donated to hospitals and research centers. Donations to CSOs were concentrated, suggesting a possible correlation with transparency level and the scope of CSO action, reinforcing a donation process guided by managerial perspectives of philanthropic donors, who sought more robust and structured CSOs, with strong media presence and/or with scalability—possibly to the detriment of community organizations operating locally. Market-oriented philanthropy was consequently highly noted during this period, mixed with colonial/traditional donations based on moral duty and charity.

Although traditional philanthropy is still mostly based on the hierarchy of financial power, with non-participatory decisions—for example, distributing food baskets disregarding the family autonomy in choosing what they want and actually need, under the premise of “those who have nothing at all cannot complain” (Aoqui et al., 2020)—especially during the pandemic we have observed that was room for other forms of action and they have emerged especially during the pandemic.

4 The Tide Setubal Foundation

The Tide Setubal Foundation, a foundation of family origin, demonstrated in its history a migration from traditional forms of philanthropy to market-oriented ones. And very recently has shifted its activities to foster social justice in peripheral urban territories (Tide Setubal Foundation, 2021). It is supported by resources indirectly linked to the Itaúsa group, which encompasses the largest private bank in Brazil, Itaú. The Setubal family together with the Villela family, another well-known family of philanthropists in the country, is the majority shareholder.

The foundation is ranked as a reference for other philanthropic institutions in the country, either mobilizing diverse networks of social actors, or through its occurrence in spaces with other corporate and/or family philanthropists. Maria Alice Setubal, the chairperson, until 2020, held the board of the aforementioned GIFE, the main association of philanthropists in Brazil. The Itaú Bank itself occupied headlines during the pandemic by announcing the biggest private donation in Brazilian history of over USD 1 billion.

Among the mobilizations led by the foundation during the pandemic, Matchfunding Enfrente stands out, which aimed to focus on urban peripheries from perspectives that at least partially escape market-oriented models. The program uses the matchfunding model, which unifies two fundraising strategies: collective funding (crowdfunding) and direct contribution from donors—in this case, Tide Setubal and other grantmakers mobilized by the Foundation.

Enfrente’s guideline aims to contemplate initiatives directly, fostering direct participation from peripheral organizations and leaders who, in common, would have the challenge of raising the financial resources for their projects on their own.

The main disruption lies in the design of their governance: it is up to these representatives from peripheral territories to demonstrate how their social action should take place. The intervention and influence of donors in the process are minimized by the selection of recipients, involving peripheral groups as curators, who point out the most relevant initiatives when receiving donations—from the perspective of race, gender and peripheral identity. Finally, the foundation itself has in its staff a majority of black and peripherally born employees leading this program and being responsible for the design, and the selection of resources and their allocation—something rare, if not unique in the field of market-oriented philanthropy in Brazil (Aoqui & dos Santos, 2019). The selected recipients would receive both financial and technical support, would also receive mentorship and would become part of a collaborative network.

An example of an initiative contemplated by Enfrente fund that seeks to break with traditional approaches to philanthropy is the Latinidades Pretas, a partnership between Feira Preta—a well-known community of black entrepreneurs in Brazil—and Instituto Afrolatinas whose goal is to minimize the impacts of COVID-19 by generating income as well as supporting black women entrepreneurs in the creative areas of economy such as music, fashion, visual arts, performing arts, audiovisual and poetry. It involved 1400 women from all over Brazil and other Latin American countries to receive up to USD 500 worth of aid and training sessions. The initiative was supported by several artists as well as it was financially supported by both the Tide Setubal Foundation and the Moreira Salles Institute. In this case, donors have delegated to Feira Preta and Instituto Afrolatinas the decisions on how to invest the resources ensuring legitimacy when acting upon these topics.

Even before the pandemic, the foundation was already questioning itself about its model of philanthropy. The entire design of one of its programs, Elas Periféricas, that took place between 2018 and 2019, was based on the demands made by dozens of leaders from São Paulo’s peripheries and in doing so the program prioritized gender, race and income as a selection bias. The rules set for selecting collectives and social movements were created together with representatives from the peripheries, promoting changes not only in criteria, also in vocabulary and forms of communication.

In 2020, the pandemic hit hard all women contemplated by the program, which had to be adapted. That meant format (face-to-face to virtual), process (with greater flexibility in the use of donations as priorities varied in the favelas) and scope (the third edition, launched in 2021 went outside the city limits of São Paulo and began to focus on the entire national territory significantly enlarging the number of organizations contemplated).

From the perspective of women and groups participating in the program, there was also a strong need to point out to donors a change in their priorities. A larger amount of donations received, either by Elas Periféricas or by Enfrente, was firstly redirected in order to strengthen organizational capacities (for example, staff compensation and general expenses, though most of these peripherical groups are not institutionalized) instead of project execution; and to implement actions related to COVID emergence, with the distribution of basic food baskets and hygiene kits. It is worth remembering that as this is a direct support for peripheral leaders, and in many cases the precariousness and increased vulnerabilities have affected the grantees, and the flexibility of using donations was relevant, including personal expenses for family survival.

It is possible to see in the Tide Setubal Foundation a set of differentiated postures that break market-oriented approaches of donors and philanthropists in Brazil, previously presented in Fig. 2: (1) with the creation of selection processes with a specific focus on peripheral leaders (including those who are not formal organizations, which are often excluded from institutional donations for compliance reasons, are excluded from institutional donations); (2) preference for simple and agile selection mechanisms (requiring documents only when and if it is really necessary); (3) receptivity to flexible projects, prioritizing the results developed autonomously by peripheral participants and adapted to the reality of the territories during the implementation period; (4) knowledge sharing from and for the peripheral leaders themselves, avoiding starting from the colonizing premise that the “center” (and the elites) holds the knowledge and the peripheries are mere apprentices (for example, local professionals were hired as mentors and chosen by the selected leaders themselves); and (5) feasibility of institutional investment and not only for activities related to a project, including resources for the leaders themselves to work on issues such as self-esteem and mental health.

Fig. 2

(Source ABCR Donation Monitor [2021]; in red, donations [in millions]; in blue, donors [in thousands])

Donation Monitor COVID-19—weekly evolution

This does not mean that there are not strong contradictions inherent not only from the origin of the Tide Setubal Foundation (the funds are linked to one of the most profitable companies in the financial sector in Brazil), but also from its historical performance and internal pressures. Among the recurrent challenges are efficiently achieving scale in the programs and of positioning itself more at the level of mutual and horizontal learning than at that of a donor, generating less and less expectations regarding the counterparts and demands of this place of power. Finally, in relation specifically to the matchfunding mechanism, several criticisms permeate this model, including making the vulnerable people responsible for receiving the resources (the match only happens to the extent that peripheral leaders are able to mobilize donations per se), scenario aggravated by the urgent context for donations to reach the most vulnerable communities. It is recommended that these criticisms be object of further in-depth research.

5 Mobilizations of Urban Peripheries

At the other end of the philanthropy spectrum, with the collapse of social and health systems in the Global South, the COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to dynamic collaborative and mutual aid initiatives led by community social movements and organizations to emerge in different territories across the country, responding to the health, humanitarian, social and economic crisis, especially for vulnerable groups.

According to an analysis carried out by Instituto Pólis (2020) in territories considered precarious, the forms of community organization that prevailed to face COVID-19 have been the most effective response to face the crisis.

Aoqui et al. (2020) highlight the importance of the role of organized civil society: in communities where there are leaders, groups, social movements and social organizations in diversity and profusion of action, “the quality and the scope of emergency actions is clearly noted, as in the favela of Paraisópolis, in the west zone of São Paulo”. On the other hand, in other regions, such as in the north of the city, like Vila Brasilândia, a neighborhood with the highest number of deaths by COVID-19 until 4/20/21, actions were still sparse and insufficient, leading to the need of strengthening mutual support networks in that territory.

The case of Paraisópolis shows the relevance of community mobilization. This community, one of the largest favelas in Brazil with more than 70,000 inhabitants, quickly organized itself through its Residents’ Association (Hopstein & Peres, 2021). Employing a system called street presidents, it instituted people responsible for identifying individuals and families with symptoms of COVID-19 and also for developing activities to raise awareness about the virus and the necessary care for prevention. The contagion and mortality rates in Paraisópolis in 2020 were much lower if compared to the rich contiguous district of Vila Andrade. Moreover, the community took part on an emergency fund and organized themselves to receive and distribute food and goods donations (Aoqui & Pereira, 2020; Hopstein & Peres, 2021).

Paraisópolis also developed communication and knowledge initiatives. They fought against fake news through sound systems installed in cars; local leaders were also trained to give correct referrals to those with symptoms. They provided information and support for individuals on how to proceed the registration for government emergency aid (registration carried out via mobile app, when the most vulnerable people do not excel or have access to digital media). They also documented collective actions within the peripheries to face the crisis, as did Agência Mural das Periferias, a collective that comprises hundreds of journalists from the peripheries, which launched the podcast “In quarantine” with the purpose of highlighting the daily life of these territories during that period.

The program reached a total of 144 episodes that were broadcast on various digital platforms, especially via WhatsApp, in which through the voice of people from impoverished territories, promoted local businesses and disseminated prevention tips. In addition, it enabled debates on inequalities in the city, showing, for example, the invisibility of small favelas when compared to large communities such as Paraisópolis, and it used this space to promote discussion as a way to contribute to the dissemination of local community campaigns, from and to the peripheries.

An outstanding case that combines lots of fundraising actions is the Potências Periféricas, a network of social movements and groups from the peripheries of São Paulo aiming to promote more inclusive distribution of resources, so that project leaders from the periphery of the city of São Paulo can effectively access financing made available by public notices, prize challenges and awards underway in Brazil. Potências proposes spaces for dialogue among peripheral leaders, collectives, entrepreneurs, social movements, social organizations and funders, seeking exchanges of knowledge in a non-hierarchical way based on empathy as well as breaking possible barriers to mutual understanding.

During the Pandemic, it held online trainings and meetings between donors and grantees and fostered initiatives in urban peripheries (GIFE, 2020; Potências Periféricas, 2020). They developed an online platform devised to be a solution co-created with, by and for the peripheral leaders themselves which resulted in an essential technology appropriation, prioritizing local suppliers. Although the network is aware that it is a more challenging process—by involving horizontality and collaboration and decisions—it made learning and technology appropriation central objectives, including the production of capacity building from and to these leaders. Lastly, they aim at engaging more local individual and business to fund themselves, so that the power and solutions of the peripheries can be shown with autonomy and independence (Potências Periféricas, 2020).

In these initiatives, it is possible to see radical elements in relation to other models of philanthropy, promoted by the grantees themselves. We can also observe the constant presence in initiatives to enhance territory, its residents, their ideas and practices. The leading role is not just with the donors in choosing what to support; they actually start with suggestions from the recipients of the resources themselves.

In Potências Periféricas, an online platform developed by suppliers located in the favelas is a way to consider other possibilities regarding economic relations, since these digital solution providers are almost always concentrated in specialized centers far from the peripheries.

Finally, the appreciation of local voices. It is very common that in training and capacity building, external consultants are hired to carry out these activities. Urban periphery collectives have shown to their funders that it is possible to strengthen ties together. During the pandemic, the context of inequalities, which already required other solutions, made local action even more needed, and in some cases the only possible alternative.

6 Final Considerations

The COVID-19 pandemic deepened existing inequalities, hitting more severely those who were already in a vulnerable situation in Brazil. It is common in situations of humanitarian emergencies that aid takes place in a hierarchical manner and under a coloniality of power approach (Quijano, 2015). This work focused on donation initiatives and local mobilization of resources in urban peripheries, which go in the opposite direction of traditional emergency actions.

Through systematization of secondary data, complemented by the author’s observations, it was possible to illustrate actions carried out by civil society that deserve to be followed up for future analysis. It is true that many actions might cease, but others may continue and generate medium and long-term developments.

Data showed that there was a rapid and unprecedented mobilization of donations in the country between March and June of 2020. Most of these resources were mobilized and donated following a more traditional route.

It was observed, however, that during the pandemic some initiatives started to break with previous dominant models of philanthropy. In different degrees, the cases embedded some radical practices, changing the premise that those with money hold all the power, placing the grantees themselves as actors in urban peripheries in terms of design, selection and operationalization of actions, with room for speech, agility and legitimacy to act upon.

These changes were noticed in a case analysis of market-oriented philanthropy. However, there were already some specific initiatives promoted by funds directed to community initiatives prior to the pandemic (Hopstein, 2018).

Initiatives of radical philanthropy increases the possibilities of relying on the leading role and decision-making power of communities in mobilizing and investing local resources in areas and initiatives considered to be priorities. It is, therefore, an approach that seeks to question and subvert the hierarchy of power and transfer it for communities, conceived as protagonists regarding decision-making processes, and for the development of actions aimed at combating inequality and in favor of social justice (Hopstein & Peres, 2021). The issue of power is placed as a key and priority theme, considering that there is no decolonial turn in the donor-grantee relationship when there is intention to “give the power” or empower groups and communities, instead of recognizing the power they already have in terms of capacity when seeking solutions autonomously, as well as the power they already have in order to act upon.

In this way, it is clear for us that radical philanthropy actions, such as Potências Periféricas and the attempt to build a platform from and to the peripheries, and the Paraisópolis system of “street presidents”, are way more disruptive in terms of decolonial approach than the ones originated by traditional philanthropists whose funds come from the elites such as the cases related to the Tide Setubal Foundation that despite recognition, evidences show a shift in power in its programs.

However, in both cases, we argue that there is still a high level of dependency of resources derived from corporations and wealthy philanthropists (who funds the Potências Periféricas’ platform? And who donates to Paraisópolis community?), not to mention a coloniality of power mindset in the processes (in Paraisópolis, the protagonism is often held by a few “social entrepreneurs” or “self-made leaders” that speak for the entire community; or when the Tide Setubal Foundation applies parameters of scaling up the initiatives supported by the Foundation). These reflections led us to a question: “To what extent is it really possible to achieve a decolonial turn in philanthropy when its very origin is based on colonial thoughts?”.

In that sense, the data and examples presented in this chapter point to the beginning of a decolonial turn, but it is important to emphasize that “the wheel” is far from having turned completely as there are many factors needed for this to happen. Starting with the entry of new social-change agents in the civic space, since the most striking cases of progressive philanthropy are still concentrated in the hands of a few actors and the mainstream of philanthropic action continues to be hierarchical and without any shift of powers.

Another critical point is the need to expand social participation and the culture of giving in Brazil, so that community initiatives can flourish regardless the country’s political-economic elites agenda. In addition, in a country with continental dimensions like ours, this entire process must be met by an agenda of public interest, with dialogue with public policies, regulatory frameworks and multi-sector partnerships that leverage what is up to now more of a paradox: the possibility of uniting the concepts of decolonial turn and philanthropy in the process of social change.

Appendix

See Table 2.

Table 2 Secondary data collection