by Didier Minot, Fondation Monde Solidaire.

This text was delivered as a speech at a round table organised by the French Centre d’Étude et de Recherche sur la Philanthropie (CerPhi, Centre for Study and Research of Philanthropy) in Paris on 7 October 2015.

The original French version is available here.

A few words of introduction.
Let me introduce myself. An Agricultural engineer, son of an entrepreneur, I started working in Agriculture and moved on to work as a civil servant in land planning – in the areas of regional planning and local development – in the French State’s central administration. Five years ago, I inherited from both of my parents some financial resources which largely exceeded my needs. This capital had been accumulated by my stepfather over the years and included the corporate executive compensations that he earned, as well as his profits from timely stock market investments and real estate purchases. My children and I felt that this windfall did not truly belong to us but came as a result of having assigned an increasing share of labour’s added value to shareholders and companies’ senior executives. So, we decided to create a foundation with part of the money received to fund meaningful actions that would bear hope for a more humane society, and be the seeds of social transformation and emancipation.

Since I am not speaking only on my behalf., let me introduce Patrick Lescure, who 20 years ago created the Foundation “Un monde par tous”, and who had been anticipated to intervene as a speaker and be among us today. I will speak on behalf of our two foundations. What we have in common is the idea that it is up to us to « give back » to serve the common good what should never have come out of it, and devote these financial resources to assist in the birthing process of a world where everyone can « be the actor of his/her own life and be the citizen of a caring world. »

With respect to our two foundations, these are the five core issues that we are constantly addressing:

• Where does the money come from?
• Where is it going?
• What will be the immediate and systemic effect of our gift?
• Who decides of its allocation, and how?
• What is the image, and the message conveyed by the foundation?

Indeed, there remains a fundamental ambiguity in our actions: it is up to us to decide who can be the beneficiaries of our donations. Of course, we believe, like all philanthropists, that we are working for a good cause. But this cause is dependent upon our subjectivity.

In addition, in the case of my foundation, the money that has been allocated to the foundation has been exempted from Inheritance tax. Such an allocation of money has enabled us to greatly reduce the Wealth tax that we would otherwise have had to pay. By subscribing shares in a « Union d’économie sociale » which is a state recognised charity, helping to provide housing for the poor, we were able to deduct 75% of the money allocated to the shares, from the Wealth tax that we had to pay, and we were given the opportunity to recover the full Wealth tax amount paid in 5 years time.

Logically some of that money should have gone back into the State Treasury to be used democratically. Although there is much to be said about how tax monies are being used today, this raises a very important issue in my opinion.

Our aim is to work for the emergence of a more cohesive, egalitarian and fraternal society in which respect for fundamental human rights, and the dignity of individuals and communities would come first over the social hierarchy that money accumulation creates. We want to see social redistribution win against Philanthropy. In other words, we hope to work toward our own demise.

What are the social challenges that we face?
The challenges we all face are considerable. They are multifaceted: economic, financial, cultural, ecological, democratic. Climate disturbances are increasing, a global financial crisis is looming again ; religious, political, cultural liberties are threatened not only by autocratic regimes but also within our democracies by infringements on our laws ; the social bond is declining ; inequality is increasing exponentially. 67 people now hold half of the world’s wealth, which is as much as what all the inhabitants of this planet hold.

In ecological terms, the climate conference held in Paris from late November 2015 is in many ways decisive, but States’ commitments remain very insufficient to avoid the worst. However, social and ecological dimensions of the crisis are inseparable. Pope Francis spoke of “the need to restore the common house”, that is to say a world where everyone can live with dignity. The same spirit can be found in the Muslims’ unprecedented declaration on climate change. Today, more and more people believe that to pursue the current unsustainable growth, to abide by a logic of accumulation of capital in a few hands is not acceptable. People realise how the lack of checks and balances over this irresponsible and immune power jeopardises the future of the world.

Faced with such prospects, systemic change is necessary, i.e. a fundamental change in the rules of the game, at a global worldwide level, at a European level and at national and local levels. We need institutions and rules, checks and balances, we need to review and to control, we need to check the controllers’ work. This implies a complete modification of the roots of the economic and political system we inherited from the 80’s. Furthermore we need to collectively and individually change our attitudes in relation to each others, to embrace our personal and collective responsibility to the world we live in. We need more simplicity, more fraternity and more respect for other’s interests.

However, we are not starting from zero. It exists within our society hundreds of thousands of actions initiated by citizens, which help strengthen social ties and cooperation, which advocate human rights, and initiate the much needed ecological transition. There are actions which promote citizen participation, actions which contribute to personal development through culture and sport, etc. Taken one by one, each action seems to have a very limited scope, but in fact it already has a global impact. Indeed, all added together, these actions outline a more humane society, which is already there. Our foundations are creating a network for these actions and help raise awareness among everyone involved so that people can measure the global scope of their particular actions.

What is Philanthropy?
Philanthropy combines very different things under the same word. There is not much in common between foundations such as ours and corporate foundations redistributing 1% of their savings or promoting corporate solutions which serve their long-term interests. Halfway between these two types of foundations, other initiatives are addressing specific issues.

The etymology of the word Philanthropy indicates that it refers to the love of human beings. “Love” within the meaning of “Philae”, also includes friendship, and respect. A Philanthropist seeks to improve the lives of his/her fellow human beings. In this sense, all activists, all men and women which are fully humane are philanthropists.

But the word has taken a special meaning in the 19th century. As evidence of this development, I will make a parallel between the evolution of philanthropy, and the political evolution of the French state and its citizens:

• After the French Revolution, until 1850, associations have multiplied to set up mutual aid funds and form, through clubs, the main venue for political debate. The main focus at the time, was to promote equality between all citizens and freedom of expression.
• With the emergence of the industrial revolution, collective organisations which contradicted the industrial organisation of labour were violently suppressed. Philanthropy replaced its fight against inequality by asserting its new focus as an expression of concerns of the rich for the poor, wishing to educate them, to relieve them of their misery, etc. This period was marked by struggles and violent clashes. Gradually, a social compromise came out, with the establishment of the welfare state;
• During the first three quarters of the twentieth century, new rights have gradually been recognised. New categories of associations have grown with the emergence of new rights. This strengthening of the State has permitted and accompanied an extraordinary growth of industrial capitalism;
• The fourth period in which we are now, has seen the decline of the welfare state and its public policy, with, in short, an information technology revolution, the globalisation of the economy, the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The social democratic model which prevailed in many countries of the world faced harsh challenges and was abandoned, letting a neoliberal discourse, confident in the self-regulating nature of the market, take its place.

Therefore it is no coincidence if today we see the resurgence of discussions about Philanthropy which incorporate19th century themes set in a very different context. As inequality increases, more foundations are created.

The issue is to know how we can meet the challenges of our societies. We are skeptical about the impact of actions which concentrate on treating consequences without addressing the causes, or which favour solutions wagering everything on the power of technology.

Some thoughts offered to our fellow philanthropists
It is useful to recall the origins of the word “fortune”. Initially Fortuna meant random draw. It then became synonymous with luck. If by lucky chance I become the recipient of a capital, does it belong to me ? If I give it away, does that make me a big and generous man ?, or is it a fortune that is not mine and which I give back to the community? The answer to this question determines two very different attitudes to Philanthropy.

If Philanthropy develops with inequality, is it not because the wealth of some is the poverty of others? We have realised that the world is a finite world. We cannot think of it as having infinite resources. We often apply ethical considerations in the selection of supported actions. Is it not necessary to apply the same thinking to the very existence of a foundation in order to ask where the money comes from, and how the action of the foundation is part of the distribution of resources?

The withdrawal of the state is presented as inevitable. Why is that? Why should this speech stay silent on large-scale frauds, tax evasions, corruption? Can we ignore the fact that large companies pay around 8% corporate tax while small and medium businesses are paying around 30%? We would like corporate foundations to publish on their budget statements the comparative amount of dividends distributed. For example, the Vinci Foundation with a budget of 2.5 million euros, distributed 1.05 billion in dividends, that is to say 422 times its budget.

If our foundations work to promote fundamental rights, to promote access to common goods and property considered inalienable rights, can we accept a system that allows the denial of these rights and makes life impossible for some people? Can we accept that our gifts are the result of an unacceptable situation?

EDGE Europe

These reflections interfere with the initiative of foundations from different countries who came together in Edge (Engaged Donors for Global Equity). Our two foundations have recently participated in the creation of Edge Europe. These foundations believe that with the challenges facing our societies, a systemic change is needed. Sharing the belief that the current course followed by our societies is coming to a dead end, they want to pool their resources to find another model. To progress in this direction, they think that a cross-sectoral approach is needed, and that it is not the elite who build the society but root organisations and communities. Therefore they think that they must rely on the social movements with which they work, to progress in equity and social justice in terms of gender, race, class, sexual orientations, etc.

Is Philanthropy necessary?
The current rise of Philanthropy is closely linked to the development of income and wealth inequality. Thomas Piketty has just published a book in which he predicts the return of a society dominated by heirs. He explains that the steady increase in wealth levels since the 1950s, has meant that inequality reached its Belle Époque’s level. The top 10% of the richest French own 60% of the country’s total wealth. The bottom 50% with the least possessions only own 5% of the country’s assets. Between the two, the middle class is threatened. The largest fortunes have increased by 7 to 8% per year against a global growth of 2%. Mr. Piketty’s proposal is to reduce Income tax while increasing Wealth and Inheritance Taxes. In this view, public money which is democratically controlled and allocated, can resume a more important role, which would be more coherent and comprehensive than the actions of multiple scattered philanthropists.

However, even if such thesis grows rapidly in the public consciousness and awareness, it is unlikely that this prospect could apply within the next 3 years. This is why some forms of private initiatives remain relevant to promote awareness and the progress of conscience, provided that all their actions are mindful and clearly guided by conscience.