The connective tissue of giving: the role of intermediaries and evidence in philanthropy

Philanthropy is expanding rapidly across the world, and more of it is locally driven. In Singapore alone, the number of family offices grew from around 400 in 2020 to 2,000 in 2024. As hubs for giving grow – from India and Brazil to the Gulf, Australia, and across sub-Saharan Africa – global and local funders and stakeholders are keen to advance “more and better” giving.

For CEI, this question is relevant because evidence-informed giving is still not core practice in a good deal of philanthropy.

To explore this and understand what factors might contribute to strengthening ecosystems for giving, CEI carried out scoping research drawing on in-depth interviews with philanthropy leaders, ecosystem builders, researchers, and funders across six regions – most of whom were based in the Global Majority – alongside a review of academic, grey, and foundation sources. The work, and a subsequent deep-dive within prioritised geographies, was commissioned by a global social impact organisation. Findings from the initial phase of work can now be made public.

A new lens: what makes a philanthropic ecosystem

Our central finding is that a “mature” philanthropic ecosystem, regardless of geography, depends on three domains:

• Behaviours and norms – shared cultures of giving, open discourse about philanthropy, collaboration between funders, and a focus on addressing systems rather than symptoms.
• Enabling context – supportive regulation and tax settings, constructive engagement with government, and a visible, empowered, and capable civil society.
• Resources and infrastructure – the evidence, intermediaries, talent, and platforms that turn the intent to give into effective action.

The framework works as both system descriptor and diagnostic tool. It allows funders and local actors to see, in any given setting, where an ecosystem is strong and where it is fragmented – and thereby consider where ecosystem-oriented investment can most usefully be targeted.

A key finding: intermediaries and evidence are the missing middle

Across very different geographies, the same constraint surfaced again and again. The binding constraint for philanthropy is often not a shortage of capital, but a shortage of the connective tissue that lets capital be deployed well: independent intermediaries that provide research, data, convening, and advice, and locally relevant evidence on what works, for whom, and in what conditions.

Across geographies, funders often struggle to give beyond their immediate networks; good data on the sector is scarce; and too much evidence on what works is still imported from the Global North rather than generated locally. This is particularly acute in hubs for philanthropy that are fast-growing, such as Singapore and UAE. The shortage of locally embedded intermediaries and evidence holds back giving potential and impact.

“It was striking, for example, that in a country like India, with its rich civil society and philanthropy traditions, so many stakeholders cited the same handful of intermediaries,” said CEI’s Global Managing Director Mary Abdo, who led the study. “CEI has worked with many of these organisations, and they are indeed world-class. Yet this is a relatively small number of institutions, most of them not financially endowed, in a country of more than a billion people. We need many, many more of these strong intermediaries outside of the Global North.” 

“Another key finding was around the poor availability of research evidence outside the Global North. This is something CEI works on every day, but it’s difficult to convey just how significant this gap is. When we conducted an early childhood development (ECD) landscape study in 2023 with CHILD and 11 funders within Asia Philanthropy Circle, we saw this. For example, in Singapore, we found that just 12 of 83 mapped ECD programmes had been evaluated, and only four of those evaluations were publicly available.”

“Without locally relevant evidence that takes account of local implementation context and people’s lived reality, ideally developed by and with local organisations and communities, philanthropic giving will fall short of its potential for impact,” Mary said.

Yet investments in these public goods and institutions are precisely the investments the field tends to overlook, particularly when funders are looking for immediate, tangible proof of impact.

The other two domains show a similar pattern: real strengths, unevenly supported. Traditions of giving run deep in every region – rooted in faith, kinship, and mutual aid – but much giving stays private and unspoken, and collaboration between funders is still the exception rather than the rule. This can limit the potential for philanthropy to make an impact. Enabling conditions vary just as widely. India’s mandatory corporate social responsibility law has channelled significant new funding into development and is considered by many to be a “global exemplar”; Singapore offers some of the world’s most generous tax incentives alongside active state platforms; and Brazil’s nearly 900,000 civil society organisations testify to a vibrant civic culture. Yet, regulation can chill giving rather than encourage it, for example where the state may use tax regulation to pursue NGOs.

What this means for funders

A clear opportunity is to fund the resources within ecosystems themselves – the intermediaries, evidence, networks, public goods, and talent that make it work. These are, sector leaders recounted, inexpensive relative to their effect, rarely controversial, and – in the words of more than one interviewee consulted for the study – they “pay for themselves.” Backing this connective tissue may be one of the highest-leverage choices a global funder can make.

“A clear takeaway from this study,” Abdo said, “is the fact that funders can play a role in unlocking more and better giving. Given how quickly the sector is evolving across the world, there is real opportunity for funders to support the ecosystem for giving itself in ways that tap into local knowledge, talent, and priorities.”

The initial study was followed by a deep-dive in six global ecosystems for philanthropy, involving a further 120+ interviews. Those findings are not public, but they reinforce the findings of the first phase: the availability of strong evidence and intermediaries was a binding constraint across every geography.

Read the full report.