LAUSR

Digital technologies that allow large numbers of laypeople to contribute to humanitarian action facilitate the deepening adoption and adaptation of private-sector logics and rationalities in humanitarianism. This is increasingly taking place through philanthro-capitalism, a process in which philanthropy and humanitarianism are made central to business models. Key to this transformation is the way private businesses find supporting “digital humanitarian” organizations such as Standby Task Force to be amenable to their capital accumulation imperatives. Privatesector institutions channel feelings of closeness to aid recipients that digital humanitarian technologies enable, in order to legitimize their claims to “help” the recipients. This has ultimately led to humanitarian and state institutions re-articulating capitalist logics in ways that reflect the new digital humanitarian avenues of entry. In this article, I characterize this process by drawing out three capitalist logics that humanitarian and state institutions re-articulate in the context of digital humanitarianism, in an emergent form of philanthro-capitalism. Specifically, I argue that branding, efficiency, and bottom lines take altered forms in this context, in part being de-politicized as a necessary condition for their adoption. This de-politicization involves normalizing these logics by framing social and political problems as technical in nature and thus both beyond critique and amenable to digital humanitarian “solutions”. I take this line of argumentation to then re-politicize each of these logics and the capitalist relations that they entail. Introduction New data production and digital labor arrangements are playing a key role in humanitarianism’s becoming more capitalist. Over the last 15 years, crowdsourcing, social media, and mass collaboration have been impacting the ways humanitarian agencies address crises, in the phenomenon many are calling “digital humanitarianism” (Meier 2015). Concurrently, private, for-profit businesses are increasingly making philanthropy and humanitarianism central to their business models while humanitarian agencies rely more strongly on contracting work to these companies. This marriage between philanthropy and capitalist relations has been called “philanthro-capitalism”, and has made philanthropy a new site for capital accumulation. The form of philanthro-capitalism that is enabled by digital humanitarianism newly de-politicizes the exploitation of marginalized communities, with implications for how we understand the shifting relations between private business and humanitarian action. New Frontiers of Philanthro-capitalism 2 Digital humanitarianism is exemplified in the volunteer-generated global basemap OpenStreetMap, the crowdsourcing data collection and mapping platform Ushahidi, and the loosely-coordinated group of contributors emerging in crises under the banner of the Standby Task Force. It has generally been discussed in academic and practitioners’ circles as a primarily technological advance in data production, gathering, and processing capacities. Claiming to “revolutionize” humanitarianism and emergency management (Meier 2011, 2012), digital humanitarians often crowdsource mapping responsibilities (Haklay and Weber 2008), develop algorithms to process social media datasets (Pohl, Bouchachia, and Hellwagner 2013), and have recently begun using robotics such as unmanned aerial vehicles (Sandvik and Lohne 2014; Kerasidou et al 2015; Hunt et al. 2016; TEDxTalks 2016). However, some recent engagements with digital humanitarianism have expanded the breadth of the concept, rethinking it as a phenomenon that is co-constituted with social and political processes. This nascent scholarship asks us to question the practices, assumptions, and politics of knowledge representation that digital humanitarianism adopts, and which it in turn comes to impact (Burns 2019; Duffield 2016). Building on a decades-old trend of turning crises and disasters into sites of private business and capital accumulation (Klein 2007; Adams 2013; Loewenstein 2015), private, forprofit businesses have recently been making philanthropy and humanitarianism core to their business models. Through this shift, companies now leverage charity to sell goods and services, increase profits, and thereby accumulate capital. For example, Toms Shoes and Warby Parker promise to donate one of their products – shoes and eyeglasses, respectively -to a “person in need” for every such product someone purchases from them. For every purchase of a bottle of Ethos Water, its parent company Starbucks donates $0.05 to water-related charities. In each of these cases, businesses recruit customers with the attractive proposal that their consumption will help others. The businesses, in turn, expect that this charity will help them sell more of their products. At the same time, the figureheads of contemporary capitalism have discovered that by donating large sums to charitable organizations, they channel their strengthened social and political influence through non-profit organizations and philanthropic initiatives. Calling this the “charitable-industrial complex”, Buffet (2014) describes his observations of the tensions this creates: “Inside any important philanthropy meeting, you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left.” While research paints a more complex picture of these tensions, Buffet brings to our attention the uncomfortable coming-together of philanthropy and contemporary capitalism. Philanthro-capitalism and digital humanitarianism are merging as private businesses become more involved in providing digital technologies to humanitarian organizations. This raises important questions about what philanthro-capitalism “looks like” when it occurs in digital humanitarianism, as well as the geographies and variegated implications of this convergence. I have argued elsewhere that these two trends are actually part-in-parcel of the same process, the privatization and neoliberalization of humanitarianism (Burns 2019). Importantly, while exemplifying broadly identifiable similarities, these emergent practices take a variety of forms and severity. On the one hand are organizations that engage digital technologies with hopes of reducing resource expenditure; on the other hand are those such as UNICEF’s Innovation Fund which uses “models of financing and methodologies used by venture capital funds”; still others engage privately-funded map-a-thons and datathons in response to a