By Bongiwe Tutu, Operations Manager to fraymedia Foundation
The global funding landscape has seen significant shifts in the recent years, bringing about heightened pressure on resources and increased demand for funding. Impacts by global geopolitical events from the past decades have played a significant role in shaping the funding landscape, influencing the priorities of both private philanthropy organisations, and government donors.
The return of U.S. President Donald Trump to the White House this year, has had significant consequences for philanthropic organizations, federal grant programs, and social services, with billions in funding reportedly cut and critical institutions disrupted. Republican slogans such as ‘Make America Great Again,’ ‘drain the swamp,’ ‘eliminate waste,’ and ‘defund the left’ have been associated with policies perceived as undermining diversity, equity, and inclusive social progress; values which were upheld by previous administrations. While some of Trump’s rhetoric echoes themes introduced during the Reagan era, critics argue that his approach departs sharply from established norms and legal frameworks, often leading unpredictable and dismissive of institutional continuity.
This article explores the evolution of the funding landscape and global geopolitical factors that have shaped it before and into the presidency of U.S. President Donald Trump. It examines key global and African events that have driven shifts in funding patterns, provides context for the current philanthropic environment, highlights the rise of participatory philanthropy, and offers strategic recommendations for achieving sustainable funding for individuals, businesses, non-profit and civil society organisations.
Historical global context of events impacting funding landscape
The historical global context has played a critical role in shaping today’s funding landscape. One notable turning point was the 2008 global financial crisis, which led to a significant drop in endowments and reduced the giving capacity of many foundations. In response, philanthropic efforts began to prioritize financial resilience, greater accountability, and a stronger emphasis on sustainable development.
Amid these global shifts, 2009 marked a turning point in Africa’s economic relationships, as the East, particularly China, emerged as a major investment and trade partner. That year, China overtook the United States as Africa’s largest trading partner, having signed agreements with 40 African nations. Emerging from decades of poverty and colonial legacy, China had lifted billions of its population out of poverty and was rapidly becoming a global economic force.
Its rise significantly influenced the global economy, driving up exports and stimulating industrial markets across Africa. Concurrently, a global commodity boom saw soaring prices of iron ore, gold, platinum, coal, and manganese, fuelling economic growth in many resource-rich African countries. Although this boom was largely driven by the exploitative extraction and export of raw materials, with minimal local processing and finished products, it drew increased philanthropic attention to ethical mining practices, fair labour and mining employment conditions, and the impacts of extractive industries on the health and livelihoods of mining communities. Countries such as Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, the U.S., and China faced mounting scrutiny for their roles in Africa’s mineral exploitation.
Conversely, the formation of the BRIC alliance in 2009, which expanded to BRICS with South Africa’s admission in 2010, marked a strategic shift in global power dynamics. South Africa’s inclusion, which coincided with its hosting of the FIFA World Cup that same year, symbolized a growing recognition of the Global South in international affairs. This period not only attracted increased funding for arts, cultural exchange, sports, and infrastructure development and corporate social responsibility, but also elevated the role of emerging economies in shaping global policy and development priorities. The BRICS platform positioned South Africa as a key interlocutor between Africa and major emerging powers such as China, India, and Brazil, driving new channels for South–South cooperation, investment, and philanthropic engagement rooted in mutual interest rather than traditional donor–recipient dynamics.
Some ten years later, the COVD-19 pandemic from 2020-2022, exposed global inequalities and overwhelmed weak public health and social support systems. This influenced a shift in funding towards emergency funding frameworks, flexible grantmaking and bottom-up approaches, and a stronger focus on public health, digital inclusion, and local community-based responses.
Amid this fragile period of heightened socio-economic inequality, the deep-rooted systemic racism and inequality that persisted was exposed. As a result, global racial justice movements, such as the Black Lives Matter campaigns, gained prominence. This influenced donor priorities towards initiatives for racial equity, with increased funding directed to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color-led (BIPC) organizations, alongside a reassessment of internal power structures.
The pandemic further highlighted the Western-centric ideals within global supply chains and geopolitics, particularly as Western nations restricted access to vaccines. This triggered a shift in philanthropy, with a stronger emphasis on local leadership, South-South collaboration and empowerment, and reduced reliance on traditional Western donors. At the same time, the rise of populism and political polarization, as exemplified by Trump 1.0 and Brexit, drove a shift towards greater funding for democratic resilience, media freedom, and social justice initiatives.
Meanwhile, embracing and developing advancements in technology meant a surge in digital transformation and misinformation was erupting, resulting in increased funding for digital literacy, digital identities and data reporting, good technology and its governance, cybersecurity for civil society organizations.
A sore rise in environmental disasters, became increasingly apparent across the globe, bringing about more displacement and highlighting impacts of climate change injustice. This influenced a consistent funding focus on climate efforts, climate justice, just transitions, renewable energies, decarbonisation technologies, and indigenous-led environmental initiatives, influenced by the landmark international treaty on climate change; The Paris Agreement, adopted at the COP21 Summit in Paris, 2015.
Presently and a decade later, the Trump.2.0 administration having been officiated at the beginning of 2025, has crippled eight decades of American government support for research, science, education and skills development. US President Donald Trump’s administration has cut billions of funding from US universities, and has further terminated over 1,000 grants in crucial areas such as climate change, cancer treatment research, HIV prevention, among others. One of the resulting impact of the funding cuts has left some internation researchers and students in detention centres in the US, fuelling fears that are said to spur researchers to look for opportunities outside of the United States. While some reports are of the view that the US’s global retreat will pave China’s world leadership position, growing concerns have emerged of the long term consequences of the cuts towards structures meant to advance and support humanity.
Contextualising the current funding landscape
Understanding the current funding landscape, four key factors can be attributed to the funding environment both in Africa and globally: the polarized political climate, shifting donor priorities, the rise of digital transformation and crowdfunding, and a greater emphasis on accountability and transparency.
The political climate is currently characterized by heightened polarization, where funding sources have increased scrutiny in their supported initiatives, and the agendas which they may promote. Funders have been cautious about the political implications of their donations, which influences which organisations come to benefit and which do not.
Major donors and philanthropic entities are evolving in their priorities and, re-evaluating their frameworks. There has been a noticeable shift towards supporting intersectional issues such as racial equity, climate change, and social justice. Other more prominent issues receiving donor support include Artificial Intelligence and technology; renewable energy transitions and technologies; impacts in mining and resources; rural transformation and sustainable (in)tangible cultural heritage, and gendered perspectives and initiatives. Organisations that align closely with these priorities may find new avenues for funding, while others may face challenges in adapting.
Thirdly, digital transformation and crowdfunding has played a key factor in the current funding landscape. The rise in digital technology has influenced digital transformation in fundraising, this has altered the traditional funding landscape, allowing non-profits and independent media companies, as well as individuals, to access smaller and even larger donors. Media advocacy and grassroots organizations, in particular, can leverage social media to engage audiences and drive funding campaigns.
The final key factor to the context to the current funding landscape is the increased requirement for accountability and transparency. Funders are calling for more accountability and transparency from the organisations they support. Non-profit organisations are increasingly under great pressure to demonstrate their impact and governance structures, which has led to a more competitive funding environment, where clear metrics and success stories are required and critical in attracting and sustaining donor support.
The Emergence of Participatory Philanthropy
Philanthropy has seen significant shifts to its practice from traditional to more modern methods, these are influenced by emerging trends in socio-economic dynamics. As a result, Participatory Philanthropy has grown with more appeal to the status quo. Foundations, with the specific example of Ford Foundation (2017; 2020) have explored this premise. In its initial report by Cynthia Gibson (2017), Ford Foundation gave context to six emerging trends in society, which called for a more participatory form of philanthropy, namely; people power on the rise through new technologies; traditional closed-door donor practices under fire; changing organisational structures; new attitudes by new generations; impact of more voices by diverse populations; public problems too complex for experts and institutions alone.
One of the factors which gave rise to the emergence of Participatory Philanthropy is the rise of people power through new technologies. Digital transformation has given people access to systems and institutions, and new opportunities which were previously unavailable and/or controlled by a certain group of experts and gatekeepers. The emergence of online platforms such as SnapChat, YouTube, Tik Tok among others, have allowed effective engagements in collective action and collaboration, particularly from previously marginalised groups such as LGBTQ communities, youth, women in traditionally male-dominated environments and other groups.
The second element which has given rise to Participatory Philanthropy is the shift from traditional closed-door donor practices of previous years, which have come under fire in recent years. Phil Buchanan of the Center for Effective Philanthropy has noted that donors have at times behaved more like oligarchs than partners in social progress, fuelling calls to democratize philanthropy. In addition, historian Benjamin Soskis echoes this view, describing the previous era of minimal scrutiny for foundations as a brief and unusual historical moment. Increasingly, questions are being raised about whether philanthropic foundations are fundamentally at odds with democratic values, a discussion which requires its own stage.
In No Such Thing as a Free Gift, Linsey McGoey critiques the motivations and effectiveness of major foundations, highlighting their significant influence over public institutions. Of a similar assessment, Stanford University’s Rob Reich argues that foundations are ‘plutocratic by nature,’ a sentiment shared by journalist Joanne Barkin, who points out that large-scale philanthropy often defines both the problems and their solutions according to the priorities of unelected trustees. These critiques reflect a broader erosion of public trust in institutions and a growing backlash against establishment power structures across sectors like media, education, and politics. In this context, many foundations are being challenged to justify the traditional top-down, expert-led models that have long shaped their philanthropic strategies, and that is how they have come to adopt bottom-up approaches such as the Participatory Philanthropic model.
The changing organisational structures, which particularly emerged during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, is another factor that influenced the rise of Participatory Philanthropy. The shift from rigid department office structures which are hierarchical, into the work environment that is collaborative, open and operates horizontally in decision-making, the departure from physical working spaces to virtual and hybrid structures, all of which are contributing to structural changes, which are drawing the requirement of a shifted approach by philanthropy, which can appreciate and uphold the emerging realities.
As society continuously advances and changes, this creates an emergence of new attitudes and approaches, particularly from new and younger generations, who have challenged conventional leadership models, and pushed for platforms of crowdfunding, and public advocacy. Commonly unlike older generations, younger generations are more transparent in their approaches, rather than holding them in private. This has enhanced the need to include diverse populations and voices. Funding organisations are embracing studies on how diversity can assist in problem-solving and are being urged to take steps in ensuring more diversity, equity and inclusion in their structures.
The final aspect which has contributed to the rise of Participatory Philanthropy is the understanding that problems are far too complex for a select group of experts and institutions to attempt to resolve alone. This has influenced engagement with members of the public in the face of complexities, and community engagement in finding solutions and making decisions, particularly grassroots and ground-level community groups and organizations.
Participatory Philanthropy is thus expected to lead to specific outcomes and impacts from four causal theories of change which are also not without caveats. Firstly, it is held to democratise philanthropy; to lead to better decisions and outcomes; to promote social justice and equity; and to promotes community engagement.
In the Philanthropy in a Shifting African and Global Landscape seminar held at the Wits Business School on March 11, 2025, President of Open Society Foundation, Binaifer Nowrojee gave keynote reflections on the shifting philanthropic landscape in Africa and across the globe. In response to the recent events in the West and cuts to foreign aid, the president held that, “if we are moving into a new reality where international aid is not coming back, then we need to start thinking of new models – looking not just at what’s needed in this moment, but also what will be sustainable in the future”. This is a call which has become prominently urgent in this current era as organisations and communities find solutions to the paving circumstances. The below are funding strategies which can be adopted in order to advance in the changing philanthropic landscape affected by recent geopolitical events.
Funding strategies for organisations in Africa and globally
Non-profit and community organisations can adopt alternative funding strategies to sustain their operations in society. The strategies are also applicable to other organisations sourcing funding and sustainable revenue avenues. The five strategies are Adaptation and innovation; Collaboration and partnerships; Agility in programming; Focus on localised ground level results; and Engagement in policy advocacy.
Adaptation and innovation include developing hybrid models of funding which combine traditional grants with earned incomes, sponsorships, and crowdfunding. Collaboration and partnerships respond to weight in accessing resources and broadening reach and impacts of the organization. In remaining agile in programming, organizations must continue to hold an equipped stance to pivot to align with emerging issues which resonate with society and funding requirements, without shifting from their core objectives. Adopting a focus on localised solutions enhances community voices, perspectives and relevance to securing appropriate funding and support. Lastly, and most importantly, engagement in policy advocacy by ogranisations is necessary not only to inform the public but to be at the heap of developments in policy changes. This role can attract funding from diverse sources, particularly those which uphold and promote democratic engagement and civic participation.
The funding landscape globally is navigating a complex environment marked by evolving priorities, heightened scrutiny, and new opportunities. By understanding and adapting to these current realities, organizations and civil society groups can position themselves to secure the support they need to continue their vital work in advocating for social change and public good and awareness. Embracing innovation, collaboration, and local engagement will be key strategies in sustaining impact and securing funding in this increasingly dynamic landscape.
