Charity and Philanthropy

Author(s):  
Zoltan J. Acs

This chapter traces the history of philanthropy and shows the extent to which it is woven into the very fabric of the American entrepreneurial experiment. In order to understand philanthropy as a viable system for recycling wealth and creating opportunity, it is worth probing the dynamics that have sustained philanthropic giving and the conditions under which it has prospered and wavered. After providing a historical background on philanthropy in the United States, the chapter considers the Giving Pledge, an idea put forth by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that commits billionaires to give away one-half of their wealth in their lifetimes. It then looks at the origins of American generosity, along with volunteerism, associations, and self-reliance. It also discusses mass philanthropy, the welfare state and the persistence of philanthropy, political philanthropy, and the rationale behind philanthropy and charity.

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Edling

Where does the welfare state come from? On the long history of a modern key conceptThisarticle charts the history of the term the welfare state in Germany and the United States, the two countries where it was formed. It starts from the premise that political key concepts, such as the welfare state, have multiple meanings and are open to contestation. This means that the objective is to study the different and changing usages and meanings of the term from the 1860s to the 1940s.In the oldest of the four usages, der Wohlfahrtsstaat referred to pre-1789 authoritarian regimes where the welfare of the people constituted the objective and rationale of the state. Gradually during the latter half of the nineteenth century, an alternative understanding emerged in Germany where the culture and welfare state connoted a responsible state, which regulated the modernizing economy. In the early twentieth century, many texts mentioned this new Kultur- und Wohlfahrtsstaat as a fitting label for contemporary Germany. At the same time, this new regulating welfare state became a topic in the United States as well.In the Weimar Republic 1919–33, the idea of the social welfare state was highly contested from the start. This understanding centred on social policy, on the state as the driving force in social reform. Fourthly, the democratic welfare state, a state that catered for the common good and respected civil liberties, was contrasted to authoritarian power states. These four usages should not be seen as separate stages in an orderly historical sequence of conceptual development, but as co-existing layers of meaning that could be mixed in multiple and changing ways. Depending on ideological and political point of view, the modern welfare state, which emerged after 1945, could incorporate one or several of the historical layers (the authoritarian-paternalistic, the regulating, the social and the democratic welfare state). This new idea of the welfare state was a product of the Depression and the War with expanding state activity and ideological mobilization. The United States’ acquired position as global military and moral superpower constituted one prerequisite. The welfare state was in this sense part of the democratic restart after 1945. Two considerations were important for this conception: the state’s responsibility for promoting economic growth and combating unemployment and the emergence of human rights that include social security.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

Abstract Populist radical right (PRR) parties have been steadily expanding, not only in the number of supporters they gain and the seats they win in governments, but more importantly they have been increasingly elected into governmental coalitions as well as presidential offices. With the prominence of these authoritarian, nationalistic and populist parties, it is often difficult to discern what kind of policies they actually stand for. Particularly with regards to the welfare state and public health, it is not always clear what these parties stand for. At times they call for a reduction of health-related welfare provision, despite the fact that this goes against the will of the “ordinary people”, their core supporters; they often promote radical reductions of welfare benefits among socially excluded groups - usually immigrants, whom are most in need of such services; and finally they often mobilize against evidence-based policies. The purpose of this workshop is to present the PRRs actual involvement in health care and health policies across various countries. As PRR parties increase and develop within but also outside of the European continent it is necessary to keep track of their impact, particularly with regards to health and social policies. Although research surrounding PRR parties has significantly expanded over the last years, their impact on the welfare state and more specifically health policies still remains sparse. This workshop will present findings from the first comprehensive book connecting populist radical right parties with actual health and social policy effects in Europe (Eastern and Western) as well as in the United States. This workshop presents five country cases (Austria, Poland, the Netherlands, the United States) from the book Populist Radical Right and Health: National Policies and Global Trends. All five presentations will address PRR parties or leaders and their influence on health, asking the questions “How influential are PRR parties or leaders when it comes to health policy?” “Do the PRR actually have an impact on policy outcomes?” and “What is the actual impact of the health policies implemented by PRR parties or leaders?” After these five presentations, the participants of the workshop will be engaged in an interactive discussion. Key messages As the number of PRR parties increase worldwide and their involvement in national governments become inevitable, new light must be shed on the impact these political parties have on public health. Politics needs to become better integrated into public health research. The rise of PRR parties in Europe might have serious consequences for public health and needs to be further explored.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 132-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Dodge

Even before its hundredth year anniversary on 16 May 2016, the Sykes-Picot agreement had become a widely cited historical analogy both in the region itself and in Europe and the United States. In the Middle East, it is frequently deployed as an infamous example of European imperial betrayal and Western attempts more generally to keep the region divided, in conflict, and easy to dominate. In Europe and the United States, however, its role as a historical analogy is more complex—a shorthand for understanding the Middle East as irrevocably divided into mutually hostile sects and clans, destined to be mired in conflict until another external intervention imposes a new, more authentic, set of political units on the region to replace the postcolonial states left in the wake of WWI. What is notable about both these uses of the Sykes-Picot agreement is that they fundamentally misread, and thus overstate, its historical significance. The agreement reached by the British diplomat Mark Sykes and his French counterpart, François Georges-Picot, in May 1916, quickly became irrelevant as the realities on the ground in the Middle East, U.S. intervention into the war, a resurgent Turkey and the comparative weakness of the French and British states transformed international relations at the end of the First World War. Against this historical background, explaining the contemporary power of the narrative surrounding the use of the Sykes-Picot agreement becomes more intellectually interesting than its minor role in the history of European imperial interventions in the Middle East.


2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-500
Author(s):  
J. C. Herbert Emery

Some studies that address the decline of fraternal sickness insurance conclude that fraternal insurers were crowded out of the market by increasing government and commercial competition. This line of reasoning reinforces beliefs that government and commercial insurers were superior to fraternal providers and that voluntary insurance arrangements were deficient for addressing household income risks before the rise of the welfare state. This article shows that this interpretation is problematic. The largest sickness insurer in the United States, the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, dismantled its sick benefit arrangements between the 1860s and the 1920s not because of an inability to compete with the government and commercial insurers that were not in the market until well after 1920 but rather because of declining demand for the insurance within the membership.


1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (x) ◽  
pp. 263-275
Author(s):  
Richard Balme ◽  
Jeanne Becquart-Leclercq ◽  
Terry N. Clark ◽  
Vincent Hoffmann-Martinot ◽  
Jean-Yves Nevers

In 1983 we organized a conference on “Questioning the Welfare State and the Rise of the City” at the University of Paris, Nanterre. About a hundred persons attended, including many French social scientists and political activists. Significant support came from the new French Socialist government. Yet with Socialism in power since 1981, it was clear that the old Socialist ideas were being questioned inside and outside the Party and government—especially in the important decentralization reforms. There was eager interest in better ways to deliver welfare state services at the local level.


Author(s):  
Zoltan J. Acs

This chapter describes the system of opportunity creation in the United States, which has been a series of inventions and reinventions of the means by which opportunity has been provided. It begins with a historical background on efforts to suppress opportunity—or at least keep a monopoly hold on it—particularly in Britain. It then considers how opportunity has been embedded in American-style capitalism in two fundamental ways. The first is by equipping individuals with the skills they need to participate in capitalism; the second relates to the functioning of innovation and markets, and to the ability of new industries, firms, and jobs to challenge the status quo—namely, creative destruction. It also highlights the fundamental tension between wealth creation and maintaining economic opportunity. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the role played by schools and education reformers in the history of opportunity and opportunity creation in America.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document