University of California International and Area Studies

This paper concerns the relationship between private philanthropy and social movements. At a time when the unions, social service and legal aide agencies, and other structures that supported social movements of the past are suffering declining resources and public legitimacy or are failing to move with the needs of the new working poor, privately funded non-profit organizations have become the primary vehicle for organizing poor and marginalized communities. Relatively few scholars have investigated the opportunities and consequences of the new model of philanthropic organizing. Drawing on post-Marxist Gramscian theory, studies in governmentality, and feminist materialism this paper outlines a theoretical framework and research agenda for investigating large philanthropic initiatives. It is proposed that California’s Central Valley, a place sharply defined by the production of poverty through industrial agriculture, provides a useful lens for looking at how philanthropic initiatives reorganize and depoliticize the work of groups originally founded to address issues such as unfair labor practices, pesticide waste, and other abuses by large-scale farmers. It is argued, based on preliminary research1, that private foundations manage the work of granted organizations through program frameworks that put poor people at the center of their own salvation while excluding reference to the power structures and economic relationships that created the situations they seek to ameliorate. Ultimately, this project is concerned with what the rise of largescale private philanthropic initiatives has to do with the current moment in which political, social, and economic agendas are overwhelmingly dominated by alliances of global capital.

Policy relevant scientific information is increasingly sought after in the climate regime. Yet little analysis has been done exploring what this phrase means. Implicit in the policy demand for both an objective and relevant science, lies a paradox. In this paradox is the suggestion that scientific experts make judgments about what is objective but judgments about what is relevant lie with policy ‘users’. The implication here is that science policy interaction is required in order to produce information that is neither entirely science nor policy but is a hybrid of the two. Yet interaction between these two communities is generally perceived as a blurring of boundaries that results in the politicization of science.

The mandate of the IPCC to remain ‘policy relevant but not policy prescriptive’ has resulted in two hybrid products – the IPCC Working Group Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and the Synthesis report (SYR). Using a constructivist approach to examine the formal and informal processes that produce the former, the final SPM document, provides a more nuanced account of what it means to produce policy relevant scientific information.