As the recession bites, the future for the third sector and the arts looks bleak. Much corporate funding for charities and not-for-profit organisations has disappeared down a black hole, the state is cutting back on spending, and the rest of us are cancelling our Direct Debits. The arts have been hit by the global downturn too: an Arts & Business survey in February found great nervousness amongst corporate sponsors of the arts. A&B chief executive, Colin Tweedy, predicted that arts sponsorship would slow until 2013.

In this context, attention is turning more and more to the super-rich, with hopes that ‘philanthrocapitalists’ will offer resources and business experience to transform the third sector and rescue the arts. While the economic crisis means the ranks of the rich can’t keep swelling, there are now 793 billionaires worldwide. As conspicuous consumption becomes culturally distasteful, and popular opinion rails against greedy bankers and fat-cat bonuses, will giving to worthwhile causes become a new way for corporate leaders to remake reputations? Will others follow the example of George Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, dedicating their time to thinking about how best to give their money away rather than making more? Can their business experience and vast amounts of resources transform the ailing welfare state? With the launch of the Prince of Wales Medal for Arts Philanthropy in 2008, should we look to Rockefellers and Tates to support the arts rather than the state?

Should we apply moral pressure to encourage the super rich to support good causes, or is a more influential role for millionaires at odds with democracy? And if the arts become dependent on philanthrocapitalists, will that mean they get to impose their tastes on the rest of us? Should the state increase its influence over how philanthrocapitalists spend their money?