IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/evk/wpaper/sua.html

The Single-Use Architecture of Philanthropic Capital: Why the Grant's Defining Feature Is Also Its Defining Constraint

Author

Listed:
  • Roshan Ghadamian

    (Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture)

Abstract

The grant is the default instrument of philanthropy, so familiar that it is rarely examined as a capital structure at all. This paper argues that its defining feature — given once and not returned — is not merely a generous design choice but a structural commitment with systematic consequences, and that those consequences explain a substantial share of philanthropy's persistent underperformance against its own goals. A grant is single-use capital: it funds an activity once and is then consumed, regardless of whether that activity created recoverable value, durable capability or returnable surplus. Three endemic failures follow, and they are not of one kind. Extraction: surplus, capability and intellectual property generated by grant-funded work pass into hands carrying no charitable obligation, and the better the work the more there is to take. âš ï¸ This one a grant agreement can close, by asset lock or background-IP condition, and the paper concedes it in order to locate what follows. Dependency by design: because capital does not return, the recipient must return to the funder — a structural property of the instrument rather than a failing of either party. The deployment-once horizon: deployed capital does not come back, so a funder's lifetime output is bounded by the size of its corpus rather than by what its deployments achieved. Any recovery rate above zero multiplies that output by 1/(1-R), and the grant uniquely chooses zero. âš ï¸ A claim about principal, not about surplus — value the recipient generated and kept is the funding working, not a loss to be recovered. The paper offers a criterion for which failures are architectural: ask whether the term that would fix one still leaves you holding a grant. An asset lock does; a claim on what comes back does not. It then names the class of cases in which single-use capital is correct, and argues that class is narrower than the sector's reliance on grants implies.

Suggested Citation

  • Roshan Ghadamian, 2026. "The Single-Use Architecture of Philanthropic Capital: Why the Grant's Defining Feature Is Also Its Defining Constraint," IRSA Working Papers sua, Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture.
  • Handle: RePEc:evk:wpaper:sua
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.7006298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.irsa.institute/papers/sua_v1.1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.7006298?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L31 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Nonprofit Institutions; NGOs; Social Entrepreneurship
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:evk:wpaper:sua. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roshan Ghadamian (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.