There is no doubt that capitalism has proven to be the most efficient model for economic relationships so far. However, with the consistent focus on expansion and profit increase, which companies are expected to pursue in the capitalist environment, the opportunity to support vulnerable and marginalized communities is reduced substantially (Edwards, 2014). In “Irrational Exuberance,” a chapter in his book “Civil society,” Michael Edwards insists that the integration of philantrocapitalist principles will allow addressing the described inconsistency. Defined as the framework that seeks to employ capitalist ideas in a manner that allows for non-profit activities within the market system, the concept of philantrocapitalism is believed to be the framework that will give credibility to the notion of capitalism in the present-day socioeconomic and sociopolitical setting (Edwards, 2014). In order to convince his readers, Edwards (2014) tells a story of philantrocapitalism being deployed in the real-world context. Specifically, the narrative that Edwards (2014) introduces is that one of the smaller organizations that do not have a global reach, such as the ones of Google and Microsoft. Nonetheless, the arguments that Edwards (2014) deploys are quite convincing in his plight to promote philantrocapitalism as one of the means of minimizing the harm that capitalist activities cause.
The problem of capitalism forcing organizations to focus solely on profit and neglect the needs of vulnerable communities is undeniable. However, one will also have to admit that capitalism represents the most functional and effective model for economic operations and trade relationships within the global context (Edwards, 2014) Therefore, Edwards’ (2014) concern regarding the detrimental effects that capitalism inevitably produces on vulnerable communities is quite legitimate. In turn, the notion of philantrocapitalism as the means of compromising between the pursuit of corporate profit and the focus on the needs of vulnerable groups appears to be a logical solution to the observed situation. Arguably, one could claim that philantrocapitalism is a contradiction in itself and, therefore, a notion that is unsustainable in the context of economic relationships. Specifically, maintaining a notion of supporting others by reducing the extent of a company’s profit might seem counterproductive and, therefore, impossible by capitalist standards. However, viewing the specified change as a sensible alteration needed for organizations to retain their social status and currency, one could argue that philantrocapitalism represents a sensible compromise in the environment of the global economy (Edwards, 2014). Therefore, supporting philanthrocapitalism and encouraging its further development should be seen as a rational step to take.
Reference
Edwards, M. (2014). Irrational exuberance. In Civil society (pp. 81-89) (3rd ed.). Polity.