This is the season of goodwill and giving, when the UK’s charitable sector comes to the fore. As someone who has been active as a philanthropist in the UK for more than 40 years, I know what a difference philanthropy can make, particularly to the arts and cultural sector. It is a lot more than just giving money or one’s treasures. It is also about the other “Ts” of time and talent. Inspired by The Twelve Days of Christmas, I have identified 12 bold measures we can take to strengthen and expand philanthropy in the UK.
Establish a government-backed match fund for philanthropy: People are 84 percent more likely to give to a charitable cause if match funding is offered. The UK should build on successful models such as the Big Give to create a dedicated match fund for targeted sectors such as culture. By doubling individual and corporate contributions, that government backing could foster local and national cultural growth. Match funding is a proven catalyst for philanthropic giving and would provide a significant boost to underfunded cultural initiatives.
Create a strong presence for philanthropy in government: A permanent, dedicated government policy unit for philanthropy would embed giving at the heart of policy decisions. Led by a philanthropy champion, that unit could collaborate across departments to promote localized giving initiatives and ensure cultural philanthropy is a key focus of public policy.
Amplify national giving initiatives and a philanthropy ambassadors program: The UK does not have the same celebratory culture of giving as other countries (particularly the US). We need to encourage people to celebrate their generosity and inspire others, so raising awareness of national initiatives such as Giving Tuesday and Volunteers’ Week is essential. Appointing high-profile cultural philanthropists as ambassadors to inspire public and private donations would help to amplify the impact of these campaigns.
Incentivize corporate match funding for employee “give as you earn” initiatives: Workplace giving programs are a powerful yet underutilized tool. Encouraging employees to make tax-efficient donations directly from their salaries, coupled with employers matching contributions, could significantly boost charitable funding. The government could offer incentives to businesses to participate in these programs.
Simplify and promote Gift Aid and other tax incentives for giving: Gift Aid has immense potential, but about ￡560 million (US$704 million) of tax relief goes unclaimed each year, because of complexities in the claiming process. Simplifying Gift Aid, particularly for small and medium-sized charities, is an obvious way to unlock millions annually. Public campaigns to raise awareness about Gift Aid and other tax incentives, such as credits for donations to underfunded cultural causes, would further encourage giving.
Work with local leaders to stimulate regional philanthropy: Regional initiatives such as Leeds Community Foundation’s One for the City, where businesses commit a percentage of their profit to local charities, provide a blueprint for place-based philanthropy. Convening roundtables with regional business leaders and philanthropists can replicate and scale such efforts across the UK.
Establish “Charitable Action Zones” to localize philanthropy: That initiative could target areas with high need and low levels of giving. By providing targeted matched funding, these zones would attract private investment and drive regional social impact. Similar to the US Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, that approach leverages public backing to deliver greater social impact.
Introduce “everyday philanthropy” campaigns to promote a positive national narrative: Philanthropy is not just for ultra-high net worth individuals. Government-led campaigns could champion accessible ways for people to support arts and culture, from volunteering to monthly micro-donations. By celebrating everyday acts of generosity, those initiatives would foster a more inclusive culture of giving.
Collaborate with trusts and foundations to expand support: Trusts and foundations are vital to the UK’s cultural landscape. By identifying funding gaps and cofunding opportunities, the government can align public and private resources for maximum impact. Long-standing collaborations, such as the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund, are a testament to the power of partnership.
Standardize and encourage philanthropy training for wealth advisers: Wealth advisers are gatekeepers to significant potential giving. Yet, philanthropy advice remains fragmented. By working with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority to make philanthropy a standard part of adviser training, the government can unlock new funding streams for cultural organizations.
Share and use local data: Data is playing an increasingly important role in philanthropy. Government-supported platforms that integrate local needs with charity services could revolutionize how resources are allocated. By combining information from charities, funders and local authorities, we can direct funding to where it is needed most.
Introduce an optional donation from lottery winners: Providing a choice to donate a portion of their winnings to cultural organizations could unlock a significant new funding stream, allowing them to contribute while celebrating their good fortune.
Together, these measures form a road map to transform philanthropy in the UK. Philanthropy has the power to drive change, unite communities and address social challenges in ways that public and private sectors alone cannot. By embracing bold initiatives and fostering a culture of generosity in this coming year, the UK can unleash the full potential of philanthropy to enrich lives and build a better future for all.
John Studzinski is a philanthropist, and the founder and chairman of the Genesis Foundation. He has been managing director and vice chairman of Pacific Investment Management Co since 2018.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS