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

Roshan Ghadamian
Additional contact information
Roshan Ghadamian: Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture

IRSA Working Papers from 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.

Keywords: grant; single-use capital; capital extraction; philanthropic dependency; deployment-once horizon; recoverable grants; capital recycling (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D64 G23 H41 L31 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-06
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.irsa.institute/papers/sua_v1.1.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:evk:wpaper:sua

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.7006298

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in IRSA Working Papers from Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Roshan Ghadamian ().