Money can mean a lot of things for those who have it. It can feed us, open doors, and keep us safe and warm. For those who have a lot of it -- we call that "wealth" -- it also provides influence and power. Those who make policy are those in power and most of those in positions of power are making enough money to do more than survive. In fact, onceyou have a certain amount of money and influence, one can use both to create more wealth and power.
It's what we all want, isn't it? Our friends south of the border still believe in the American Dream, which is invariably tied to financial success, albeit of various degrees. We don't really have a Canadian Dream that all of us hold up like a shrine. But if we are paying attention, success in Canada is more times than not
tied to personal financial gains.
Most of us would admit that we would welcome wealth in our lives. Most of us are satisfied with making enough to buy a home, save for retirement, and escape to the Caribbean now and again. Some of us aspire for more than that and undertake actions to achieve wealth and the comforts and security it provides us and those we love. None of us, however, would say that we would be satisfied with having less than we need to scrape by. Scraping by is not an aspiration. There are no best sellers about that, I imagine.
Wealth is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is true that wealth can create jobs (although what kind of jobs is the real question) and fuel innovation and learning. It can be used to support needed research into disease or to support efforts to help those who are disadvantaged. And we do see how billionaires like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates use their wealth for good. In my community, wealthy individuals and families contribute to causes they believe in. I admire people who share their wealth.
Just as wealth provides the wealthy positions of economic and social influence and power in the market place and in community, the same rings true when it comes to philanthropy. I believe there is ample evidence of good things happening because of philanthropy, but the question I wonder about – and perhaps this is a wicked question – is this: are the good things being done via philanthropy the right things and to what extent does our current approach to philanthropy harm people and communities or at least slow down their progress toward a better life?
I am inclined to think that many if not most philanthropists understand this question to be a reasonable one, but the question only has weight if something is being done to address it. We must have good intentions to help people and change what isn’t working for communities, but good intentions do not guarantee right thinking, understanding, and actions that produce desired results.
One of the fundamental principles of a democracy is that the people have both an obligation and a right to participate in community life. In democratic terms, by “people” I mean the “common people.” My view is that “common people” means the large majority of people, not a minority who make most of the big decisions that everybody else is affected by.
As critical decisions become increasingly reserved for those with power and wealth, one has to wonder to what extent this becomes an experience of disenfranchisement from community life for most everyone else, as well as that unfortunate minority.
A while back I came across an article written by Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jane Addams, in the Atlantic Monthly way back in 1899. Her article was entitled, “The Subtle Problems of Charity,” and it made me think, in particular the following:
“Many of the difficulties in philanthropy come from an unconscious division of the world into the philanthropists and those to be helped. It is all assumption of two classes, and against this class assumption our democratic training revolts as soon as we begin to act upon it.” (1)
What made me think was her proposition that the very existence of philanthropy in society says something about the failures of democracy in action. Common understanding of “democracy” tends to be focused on the rights of the people to determine their collective future through voting for their political leaders. This viewpoint is not incorrect but it is more of a sub-point about what democracy is and is supposed to be, which I offer as “a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.” (3)
Other definitions of “democracy” are:
Based on Addams’ perspective, one could argue that formalized charity is in effect a systemic, band-aid solution to dysfunctional democracy. I am not inclined to hold such an extreme view because I believe that people’s internal charitable impulses will always motivate them to organize with others who share similar charitable values and aspirations. Sometimes, perhaps often, such motivation to combine charitable aspirations into joint actions will result in the creation of formal structures, which we call non-profit and charitable organizations.
Even in a vibrant democracy that is working well for the majority of people, there is still the need for charitable expression, individually and through organizations and systems. That said, while we need philanthropy and, in particular, effective philanthropy, I want to understand why and when we need it, and how it fits into a democratic society, and if how we are doing it should be how we do it.
Is there a point when charity becomes the means by which we delegate responsibilities to a sector or to a handful of philanthropists in order to ameliorate democratic dysfunction? That’s another wicked question worth taking a look at.
We need to do some radical shifting in how we see and practice philanthropy. The shift is about how individuals think, how communities think, what gets funded and how, and how philanthropy can fuel community action and development based on community-identified priorities.
In July of 2013, Peter Buffet wrote an Op Ed piece for the New York Times called “The Charitable-Industrial Complex.” No doubt it annoyed more than a few, though in an interview Buffet stated he was surprised by the support he received). In his article he reminds us of Albert Einstein’s famous advice about not being able to solve a problem with the same mind-set that created it. Clearly many of our business, community, and philanthropic leaders are talking about the need for big change, but I am not sure to what extent we are seeing profound and large-scale reform, if not transformation, of how philanthropy is practiced.
Because philanthropy has become increasingly tied to the business mindset that created wealth for those we call philanthropists, we have expectations that limit doing good by subjecting charitable actions to the proverbial ROI requirements we invoke when assessing businesses. This tendency to lift what works in the private sector and apply it to the non-profit or community sector is at best facile and misguided. As I reflect on Buffet’s words, are we really serious when we ask what the ROI is for “ending human suffering?”
Buffet’s criticism is strong and perhaps a tad irreverent as well.
“As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.
“But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else is further locked into a system that will not allow the true flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful and fulfilled life.” (2)
Democratic philanthropy is not a new term just like transformation isn’t, but like many words and phrases that we nod our heads to, the proof is in the pudding. The socio-economic problems in Canada and beyond are creating a disproportionate number of Haves and Have-Nots.
When 86 Canadians have more assets than 11 million of the poorest Canadians or more assets that everyone and every institution and business in the Province of New Brunswick, we have to wonder about what that really means, don’t we? Isn't there a tipping point we need to be concerned about?
When a few people end up with most the money, won’t this eventually create more problems than we have today, perhaps even lead to civil unrest?
Wendell Berry, novelist and poet, wrote that “the freedom of affluence opposes and contradicts the freedom of community life.” Strong words and perhaps subject to some misunderstanding about his intent, which I believe is not about casting dispersion's on affluence, but rather about the overpowering freedom that seems to accompany it.
The other day I spoke to a group of people from around the country, which included a few from Cuba. These were people of faith who were a part of a "social justice" camp. There were three of us speaking about poverty and what Edmonton is doing to address it. During my time, I mentioned the aforementioned statistic about the extreme wealth of 86 Canadians. Here is the example, somewhat embellished from what I said at the gathering.
Imagine there are 1,000 people in the community and ten million dollars in the economy for everyone.Now imagine that one of the 1,000 has the same wealth as the remaining 999 people. In other words, one person has $5 million in wealth. What's left for everyone else? Just over $5,000 each. We know that the $5,000 is not distributed evenly, but the point is made, isn't it? There is only so much money in the community and if very few have most of it, how will that impact everybody else?
It is well documented that those countries where the Income Gap between the wealthiest and poorest citizens tend to have a higher degree of crime, incarceration, mental illness, and health problems. Both the United States and Canada have wide gaps between the wealthy and the poor and both have higher incidents of social, economic, and health problems than other nations with smaller more realistic gaps
The growing chasm between rich and poor contributes to isolation, insensitivity, and intolerance. Systems and public institutions are designed and operated by those with power and the large majority of those in charge have higher incomes. Frequently the policies and systems they put into place appear to benefit those with means far more than those without.
In the Province of Alberta and in its capital city, Edmonton, where I live, the economy is quite strong. Many large scale capital development projects are underway. I heard Edmonton alone has about $20 billion in major development lined up over the next several years. That’s $20,000,000,000! At the same time there is a two to three year wait for Edmonton’s public housing. Much, if not most, of that $20 billion in development won’t benefit the poor, the homeless, or the mentally ill and I have a feeling that the hundreds of thousands living pay cheque to pay cheque in Edmonton won’t either.
Despite the various indicators economists and business leaders use to gauge economic progress, our economies locally, provincially, and nationally are not working for the majority of citizens. Celebrations about how many jobs have been created are ipso facto celebrations of reductions in good paying, full time jobs and increases in part-time, low paying jobs (and too often insecure jobs). Trust me. Those working those jobs are not popping champagne bottles to sip while they dine on macaroni and cheese.
Those that celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down seem to forget or ignore that the unemployment rates for the disabled, single mothers, Aboriginal people, and newcomers are well into double digits. None of those people in those categories are throwing a party when the overall unemployment rate dips a bit. And God help those who become unemployed because current trends suggest that the government won’t.
“At the same time that EI premiums have risen and surpluses in the EI fund have occurred in each year for the past 30 years, EI benefits have become much harder to get for people out of work. How benefits are determined has become increasingly complex and for the last 20 years it has become increasing difficult to receive benefits. Today, far less than half of those who apply receive benefits. ‘Only 38% of unemployed Canadians received EI benefits (i.e. 523,700 beneficiaries out of 1,374,700 unemployed workers)” in March 2013.’” (4)
Not only are the majority of unemployed Canadians not receiving EI benefits, the program itself has been taking in significantly more revenues than it has shared with workers. In fact, it has operated with a surplus each and every year since the mid-1990s. If that doesn't make you scratch your head vigorously, then perhaps this will. EI premiums are actually a type of regressive tax. Workers will max out on the premiums they are required to pay at around the $47,000 mark. The premium they pay to EI is just over $4,200. That's a 9% tax on that amount of income for a decreasing chance of receiving benefits.
There was a time not too long ago when the poverty rate and the unemployment rate had a symbiotic relationship. If the latter decreased, the poverty rate decreased and vice versa. Not anymore. That’s because of the steady loss of good paying jobs and the aggressive drive to cut wages to boost the bottom line. This addiction to low wages is one reason why recently we have had such controversy around temporary foreign workers replacing Canadian workers at lower wages.
Everywhere we look, we see the incredible challenges faced by people of low and modest income. Renters across the country experience a trend in rental increases and food costs that have grown at a far steeper rate than wages. While I understand the complexities of setting a minimum wage that helps workers while not unduly weighing down the economy, I also see how a single mom making minimum wage would have to work one whole day to pay for her bus pass; if she has two school age kids, then it’s about 2 ½ days. As I have reported elsewhere on my blog, the Canadian Payroll Association (CPA) estimates, based on research it does, that 47% of Canadians are living pay cheque to pay cheque. This should cause us to expand our thinking about poverty behind antiquated measures like LICO or even "Double LICO." The CPA's findings indicate that there are millions of Canadians who, while not yet living in poverty, are on the edge of losing everything.
This growing economic vulnerability of nearly half the population is not being taken seriously by governments, the private sector, funders, not to mention the population as a whole. While a small percentage of Canadians might point to record profits, large scale capital developments, housing starts, and other long standing economic indicators as cause for confidence in the future of our economy, other indicators such as those mentioned above and the continued and increasing marginalization of the poor, the mentally ill, the disabled, newcomers, and Aboriginal people beg the question, "Whose economy are we talking about?"
Despite my occasional dip in heretical (and sarcastic) waters, I have to say that I do believe in the fundamental goodness of people, no matter what sector they frequent, what job they hold, or how much money they have or don’t have. How to be a good person in a complex world where often there are competing interests, varying perspectives and ideologies, and often seemingly disparate values is, to sound trite, challenging.
In every sector, every organization and every government, there are good people trying to go good things, and it is important to remember that. While I dislike remarks by private sector pundits who claim non-profit executives like me are inefficient or providing subpar management of their organizations, I need him them and their colleagues as much as I believe they need me and folks like me. Together, we make up community and what is wrong in our communities is something we share, feel, and want to do something about.
Political parties may not see eye to eye and while I do grow weary of the incessant back and forth attacks that tend to be the norm, I also know, as you do, that many of our political leaders (perhaps most?) are interested in the public good and making positive changes in policies and programs; they just disagree on how to get that done.
The challenge – indeed our challenge – is about not being satisfied with our disagreements or content with letting our differences just co-exist. All of us know, don’t we, that governments, business, educational institutions, our health organizations, funders, and non-profit organizations can and should do better? But not do better in our respective sectors. We need to do better together.
I suggest our history has been to focus more on sectorial improvements than on making changes together that improve the lives of people and communities. Yes, of course, we don’t work in isolation, but to what extent do our various sectors truly aim for our collective aspirations for the community as a whole?
Our tendencies to view life in segments fosters positional stances and often we take those stances without all of the information we need and consequently make decisions that will impact many if not everyone. One of the questions we face is to what extent do we believe that the decisions and actions we all take should consider and be influenced by those outside of the specific context or sector we are working within?
References
1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?_r=1& August 18, 2014.
2.From The Subtle Problems of Charity, retrieved from “http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1899/02/the-subtle-problems-of-charity/306217/,” June 6 2014
3. See Dictionary.com’s definitions of “democracy” here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
4. From the Progressive Economics Forum, retrieved from “http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2013/05/23/falling-ei-benefits-amid-rising-unemployment/” August 16, 2014.
