This provides a revealing insight into the Conservative philosophy behind the ‘big society’ and how it differs fundamentally from Labour’s approach.
American philanthrocapitalism has emerged as a powerful force partly as a result of low taxation on the rich but also because of a lack of public provision of essential services for those who cannot afford to pay privately. In America wealthy individuals and not-for-profit organisations have stepped in to try and fill the yawning gap left by a patchwork of poor services and a postcode lottery the like of which we have not seen in Britain for many decades.
Philanthropy and private patronage creates a hierarchical power relationship between the donor and the beneficiary which may allow rich and powerful patrons to dictate the nature of the service provided. We are all aware of the powerful king commissioning the artist to create a flattering portrait of himself to impress a potential wife. This may be less worrying in art – and in recent weeks we have seen a generous £10 million gift to the National by Lloyd Dorfman and the largest donation in the Serpentine Gallery’s history from the Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation.
All credit to those donors whose money will add to the richness of our artistic life. But where private philanthropy is a substitute for essential public provision of health and education the situation is more worrying.
Labour’s way of building strong and vibrant communities has always been based on mutual relationships of equality where people with few resources have come together in collective self-help groups like the co-op movement, trade unions and voluntary organisations to work together to improve conditions for everyone. This is a relationship between equals of mutual respect. It is very different from private patronage.
I welcome the Dorfman Theatre and the Sackler Serpentine, but a New Philanthropy Capital report has made it clear that philanthropy and charities cannot fill the estimated £5 billion, for voluntary and community organisations which will result from the 30 per cent cuts to local authority funding.
Perhaps a more powerful way of funding a ‘fair society’ would be to create a mechanism allowing banks, building societies and other financial service providers to voluntarily contribute a proportion of their profits to be reinvested in community projects. This could extend to support in kind such as mentoring, providing advice and helping with the development of skills, creating a long-term relationship between communities and the financial sector. That would at least give the mantra of ‘we’re all in this together’ some credibility.
So Mr Cameron – be brave – it would be the most popular step you could take. It would prove that your ‘big society’ really is a governing philosophy and not, what many think, simply an exercise in political rebranding.
You do see the difference in arts funding when in America. They have lots of small private galleries open to the public, while we have big national galleries. However, you also see the gap in social provision that isn’t filled by the altruism of the rich. I’ve always wondered if there could be a state-owned fund on the stock market dedicated to buying art, so that private individuals could buy shares in public art collections, as an investment. After all masters don’t tend to go down in price even during a recession, so maybe it would be a good investment, while giving the nation a new fund to save great works to the nation. Mad idea or good?
well I don’t know,don’t ‘ they ‘ get considerable Tax Relief for charitable donations,and to the arts too? Also in fine arts certainly there is a symbiotic relationship between the Public Galleries and art investment ,ie. artists well represented promotes status and therefore investment value, for private collectors,c’mon it’s just another business .Opera has always been the big thing being ‘carried’ hasn’t it? Also, surely any mentoring or community work carried out by business people would have to be screened for indoctrination and ‘streaming’ towards their profit at all costs mentality .Surely better to Tax business and have professionals promote ‘untainted’ development initiatives. (I guess I’m thinking of something like the big philanthropic Welcome Trust which still has a relationship with GSK no? (£91m.Seeding,Computational Drug Discovery)
sp. Wellcome.
To get a better understanding of American views of philanthropy and it’s comparison to Europe, you should read Arthur Brooks’ “Who Really Gives”. A couple points gleaned from tax records that refute the points raised in this piece: 1. As a percentage of income, the middle and lower middle classes give more than the wealthy. This is “equals” giving to similar or slightly lower economic classes than themselves. 2. Those self-describing as “conservative” give more than “liberals” 3. Those self-describing as “religious” give more than “atheists”…Christians rates highest You’d also do well to read Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”. To wit, “A government can no more suffice on its own to maintain and renew the circulations of [associative] sentiments and ideas in a great people than to conduct all its industrial undertakings. As soon as it tries to leave the political sphere to project itself on this new track, it will exercise an insupportable tyranny even without wishing to; for a government knows only how to dictate precise rules; it imposes the sentiments and the ideas that it favors, and it is always hard to distinguish its counsels from its orders (ital. mine).” He wrote this in 1833. Our philanthropic/civil society mores were formed during the time of great equality…not inequality. This is what Americans do…this is what we’ve always done.
yeah but no but, “precise mores” that’s never England mate ,no fear of that here ,that’s not OUR way. We’ve got a built in fail safe ; we’re all busy stumbling around in garden sheds inventing things that run the world,then we give them away of course ‘cos were nice ! Happy Crimbo.
And more on the same…with numbers and data you Progs supposedly like: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036010174911064.html