"Lawn and Prentice explain how “as the state has retreated from its role in redistributing wealth through universal provision, charity has increasingly become the implicit model for managing the most vulnerable members of society.”178 This has allowed for wealth distribution in other ways: less funding for social issues has enabled the taxes of corporations and the ultra-rich to be slashed as well.179 It is therefore unsurprising that the corporate sector is such an enthusiastic supporter of the charitable, primarily through material and financial donations and product sponsorship, which have subsequently been advantageous in regard to brand endorsement and public image, as well as tax advantages.180 The literature reveals how, as the charity model attempts to counter the negative repercussions of neoliberal policies, in ways aligned with neoliberal principles. First and foremost, this model is the opposite of a rights-based approach: charitable justice is not one of rights claimed or enforced.181 It also fits within the neoliberal take on freedom, as explained by O’Boyle. He describes how “properly understood altruism or charity is represented in the context of interpersonal utility functions,” where a utility function is the welfare level of an individual:182 “Thus, interfering with the practice of altruism or charity is condemned not so much because it frustrates meeting the needs and satisfying the wants of others, but because it diminishes the freedom and material well-being of the individual self.”183 Therefore, in neoliberal terms, charity is not about helping the needy as much as ensuring that the individual helping acquires what they need from the interaction. Voluntarism has also been recognised as enabling an individual to be an active neoliberal citizen, deserving of citizenship through their contribution to society— although unpaid—as well as responsibilising individuals to help themselves and their communities.184 However, Fyfe contends that the main intention of volunteering is the outsourcing of state responsibilities onto civil society185—a move that is particularly obvious within a previously state-occupied space like social welfare provision, in which the role of the voluntary sector is to meet the deficiencies that came about due to entitlement reductions and the withdrawal of funding.186 The state does still play a role through, for example, the provision of charitable contracts and grants, as well as increased regulation and administrative oversight,187 which in turn has led to a surge in professionalism and the adoption of managerial logic within the third sector.188 Swyngedouw labels this “governance-beyond-the-state”: the increase in participation of non-state actors in local decision-making and the changing of roles and responsibilities of local government and civil society. 189 Although those volunteering may experience a sense of worth—and dignity—through their actions, for those who require the assistance, studies have shown that this is generally not the case: as previously outlined, poverty is in and of itself an undignified “lifestyle,” signifying one as a failure; while dependency is not desirable, to rely on charity is particularly undignified.190 In addition, through the increased professionalism of the voluntary sector, more indignity has been infused into the charity space through the increased need for justifications as to why one needs assistance and the feeling of interrogation".191