ERNOP

Third ERNOP meeting, February 1, 2010 at the Budapest College of Management, Budapest, Hungary

The third meeting of the European Research Network on Philanthropy was a great success. With sixteen researchers from all over Europe we made much progress, both with respect to the development of ERNOP itself, as well as with respect to advancing philanthropic research in Europe.

During the morning sessions, the strategic development of ERNOP was the topic of two workshops. Outcomes of these two workshops were discussed during the plenary session at lunch. During the afternoon sessions we focused on philanthropic research, which lead to many very interesting and insightful discussions. After the plenary discussion of these two academic workshops, David Carrington presented the report of the European Philanthropy Learning and Research Initiative. We ended the meeting with a very nice diner in the ‘Architect’s cellars’ of Budapest. On behalf of all ERNOP members, I like to thank Eva Kuti and the Budapest College of Management for hosting this third ERNOP meeting, and Sarah Borgloh for helping with the organization.

Notes from Academic workshop A2 The streamlining of methodologies for international comparative research on philanthropy as well as the development of strategies for European-wide longitudinal data gathering

Participants: Marta Rey Garcia (convenor and notes), Lesley Hustinx, Eva Kuti, Pamala Wiepking, René Bekkers, Jan Smit

Organized philanthropy is only part of the picture.

• Bottom-up approach is ok for countries, not for comparable data.
• Up-bottom approach (Johns Hopkins) based on old surveys. Data are not public.

Data from population surveys and institution surveys. First inventory institutions.

• Eva: problem with individual/household giving. Informal, church-based philanthropy.

René, two options:

• Measure public goods produced: income.
• Look at the action. Impossible to get sample frames that are comparable. Some countries do not have nonprofit registries.

ERNOP niche

• Use the same sample frame and include the same questions on philanthropy in population-based surveys across Europe. Similar to Johns Hopkins approach to organized philanthropy: including satellite accounts in each national accounting system.

Population based

• Country approach: “Giving” projects.
• Develop some standard questions repertoire: giving France questionnaire send by Pamala. Put it on the web site. Use a sample of convenience in the first phase (i.e. students, university employees) to test the questionnaires.
• Develop some standard classification system for areas of nonprofit activity.
• Database coming from UK, Netherlands, Finland, UK, Hungary for the “Giving” projects data. For non-commmercial use in four years time.

European approach

• Getting questions on philanthropy in existing surveys and opinion polls: in the European Social Survey. Networking process
• Access to people responsible for Eurobarometer. Including new modules of questions depends on the EC.
• EC Household Pannel.
• Best practice in Europe: United Kingdom, European Social Survey by a German research group

Organization based

• Country approach: combine inventory organizations, bottom-up, with the furthering of the Johns Hopkins satellite accounts, up-bottom.
• Comparability of organizational data (institutional surveys) depends on survey design and cultural-legal environments.

Notes from Academic Workshop A3 National policies and the role of the philanthropic sector in different countries, among which the relation between philanthropy, the state and private companies.

Participants: David Carrington, Michaela Neumayr, Theo Schuyt, Edith Bruder, Friedrich Heineman, Ilana Friedrich Silber, Gojko Bezovan, Gerhard Bittner, Katarina Svitkova, Alexander Livshin (covenor) and Johan Vamstad (notes).

2. Secretary: Johan Vamstad volunteered to take notes

3. Introduction. Alexander presents the four questions that the country presentations would focus on and the rationale behind them. The four questions were:

1. The role and place of the philanthropic sector in public policy agenda: national and international experience.
2. Government – NPOs – Business: philanthropy and the interaction across the sectors.
3. The role of social capital in developing charitable giving. How should governments act in order to increase social capital?
4. What could be done in terms of public policy in order to create more incentives for philanthropic giving. The role of taxation as a tool for developing philanthropic sector

Alexander Livshin points out that these topics might be more or less relevant in the different countries and that the participants should feel free to choose what to focus on. 

4. The country presentations (for fuller descriptions, see the different country papers)

4.1 Russia: Alexander brings up the particularly low levels of trust in Russia and the significance of this on charitable giving. The tax system I Russia does not give any real additional incentives for giving in its present design. There is, however, several policy initiatives under way in Russia that might alter this.

4.2 Austria: The Austrian team (Gerhard Bittner and Michaela Neumayr) declares that philanthropic giving lacks recent tradition in Austria. There are three related issues: Giving of time, giving of money, giving of goods, where giving of time is the most important in Austria. The Austrian team brings up the importance of ethical investments and its predicted importance in the future. Austria has recently introduced tax deductions for individuals and companies. The importance of that philanthropy is developed as a research topic is also brought up, there are presently very little books on this topic in academic libraries. There are no donations for culture institutions in Austria, which might be typical of the welfare regime in which Austria resides. 

4.3 Sweden. Sweden was presented as a typical example of a social democratic welfare state which is relevant since it was to some extent created to pre-empt the need for philanthropy. Sweden still has a lot of philanthropic giving to certain causes, especially international aid. The Swedish civil society is based on unpaid voluntary work and membership fees but there is also a larger proportion private donations than the EU average. Sweden has no tax incentives in spite of three attempts to introduce them. The most recent attempt seems to fail as well.

4.3 Czech Republic: The Czech Republic used to have a great deal of philanthropy before the communist decades. In the civil society, only sports survived the communism era. The civil society is therefore young and turbulent. Legislation in the area is lagging behind. The non-profits are hurt from low trust in society. The Czech Republic is only now starting to build a new relationship between state and organisations.

4.4 Croatia: As in the case of the Czech Republic, Croatia is faced with the task of rebuilding a civil society after the fall of communism. This has been made more difficult by a “colonisation” of the public space according to an Anglo-American model that does not fit the national context very well. The organisations that entered Croatia in the early 1990's had no real tie to the actual population. In the pre-communist times, the civil society was a normal part of life, which is why they are trying to re-introduce the  principles of the pre-communist foundations. Corporate Social Responsibility has become an important factor with a growing awareness of how much money foreign companies are making without contributing to the Croatian society. As in the other transition countries, trust is also an important issue.

4.5 Israel: Israel is in a way also a transition country, there is an transition from socialist welfare state to a more conservative state. Jewish diaspora is important when discussion philanthropy, Israel has received support but little philanthropy is actually performed within Israel. This is changing, philanthropy is growing, but the financial crisis has stopped the growth. As for policy, new ways of cooperation between state, companies and NPO:s and more policies towards philanthropy are emerging. 

4.6 Germany: Germany has a large non-profit sector but little giving. There are historical reasons for this. The large care-giving organisations dominate much of the civil society. Churches collect church taxes, which could reduce voluntary giving to them but the taxed people actually seem to give more. Germany is experiencing a growing amount of Anglo-American practices like fund raising and "giving back to the (local) community".

4.7 France: In France, the public sector is dominant, much of society relies on taxes and public responsibility. There are, however, many NGOs, since it is easy to start one. There is all in all 1,1 million NGO:s. Donations are gaining importance in France. A new policy measure is a special tax on high salaries that can be substituted for donations to charitable causes, which has proven very efficient. Private companies has also been given new and efficient tax incentives, charitable giving from companies is growing and is already considerable. All kinds of companies give in France. The number of foundations has been growing drastically in recent years. A new policy measure in 2008: endowment style incentive. The charitable landscape has developed a lot in recent years due to public policy. Behaviour is changing as well. It has opened up giving for the less wealthy.

4.8 The United Kingdom: David Carrington offered to say a few words about the United Kingdom. Philanthropy is not a new phenomenon in the UK, the English charity law is from the 17th century. The UK should not be lumped together with the US as being “Anglo-American”. The UK has a greater level of hybridity in an active relationship between sectors. Philanthropy is only now becoming an acceptable term in the UK.

5. General discussion: There is very little time for a general discussion, even though many matters were discussed lively during the country presentations. One issue was whether or not we should move towards a more “American” model of philanthropy. It was argued that philanthropy is not at all American per se, it has a European history. The connection between taxes and giving was discussed and it was settled that there is no certain connection between taxes, tax incentives and giving. Taxes might “crowd out” giving in some areas but also “crowd in” in other. Tax incentives might cause givers to give more than otherwise intended.

6. The workshop is concluded.