Earlier this month, the publication which spawned and celebrated the birth of philanthrocapitalism in the heady days of 2006 has just renounced it eighteen years later. What took them so long?

The crossing of the Rubicon, noticed by a small band of philanthropy practitioners and chroniclers, and hopefully appreciated by a rather larger group of Economist readers, occurred in one of its carefully researched special reports. In characteristic terse, understated, prose, The Economist noted that ‘many former supporters have now accepted that making the world a better place differs greatly from the business of making money’.

Such an observation is a fair description of reality – and commonly accepted in philanthropy circles – but hardly profound insight. But journalistic super-tankers like The Economist don’t turn around overnight and not without very careful deliberation.

Philanthrocapitalism is – or was – an idea and a prediction. The idea was that those amassing great wealth could and should play a profound role in making the world a better place – so long as they applied market rigour, business acumen and management practice to their acts of philanthropy. The prediction was that elite giving would dramatically increase ushering in a golden age of philanthrocapitalism. Neither has happened.