The Role of Foundations in Public Debates in Germany

• Published date: 01 September 2015
• Date: 01 September 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12111
• Author: Rupert Strachwitz

The Role of Foundations in Public Debates

in Germany

By RUPERT STRACHWITZ*

ABSTRACT. Why is the German foundations model different from the

U.S. model? Does it haveto do with the long and surprisingly unbroken

history of foundations in Germany or rather with differences in the role

of the state? Whatever the answer, this has enormous repercussions on

what foundations may achieve in helping to shape public debates.

Using Hirschman’s model of loyalty, voice, and exit, and a definition of

foundations based on seven different functions, the article explores the

history of foundations in Germany and assesses their public role, both

as contributors of arguments and policy papers, and as objects of

public debate. It describes the amazing revival the concept of

philanthropy has encountered over the last 15 years, and discusses

whether this is due to long-term political convictions or rather to short-

term political needs. Using examples taken from the 19

th

and 20

th

centuries, the article highlights a number of aspects that serve to

illustrate the theoretical dilemma as to whether and to what extent

highly hierarchical organisms may legitimately exist in an open

heterarchical society.

Introduction

From the days of the earliest organized communities in history, two

very basic models of institutionalized action have been followed. One

of these relies on the will of one or several individuals as pronounced

at the time of its formation for the whole, possibly very lengthy, period

of its existence, to be followed from will or force by every other person

involved. The second model entails an ongoing evolution of the

*Rupert Graf Strachwitz graduated in Political Science and History in 1974, and

holds a Ph.D. from Muenster University. After having been engaged in civil society all

his professional life, he is presently the director of the Maecenata Institute for Philan-

thropy and Civil Society in Berlin, Germany. He teaches at several universities, and

has published widely on these subjects. Web: www.strachwitz.info

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 4 (September, 2015).

DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12111

V

C2015 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

collective will of a community of members or stakeholders, who will

continually participate in shaping and indeed reshaping it. Broadly

speaking, the first may be described as hierarchy, the second as heter-

archy or polyarchy, and while neither of these will commonly exist in

their pure form, one will always be able to tell which of the two any

given organization basically belongs to (Dahl 1971: 7).

Monarchies, for instance, can be seen as hierarchies, while democra-

cies are heterarchies. Family businesses are commonly ruled hierarchi-

cally, while public corporations, at least in theory, are subject to a

heterarchy of stockholders. In practical terms, no democratically (heter-

archically) organized society today would think of introducing the rules

of democracy in every organized collective action. While decisions

made to be universally enforced obviously are required to have the

support of the majority of decisionmakers, minorities enjoy protection

under the rule of law. If this were not so, religious communities, nota-

bly the highly hierarchical Roman Catholic Church, like foundations,

would find it difficult to exist in 21

st

-century North America or Europe.

Issues of overall publicconcern may be determined by individuals or

organizations not subjected to a decision-making procedure involving

affected parties or those who wish to participate in its evolution. But

the extent to which that is true has been under discussion ever since

the dichotomy between hierarchies and heterarchies was first analyzed,

and preference was accorded to the latter. Indeed, hierarchies, too,

grappled with the problem of competing hierarchies, while heterar-

chies in a real world have not always displayed a pluralist attitude.

Naturally, this issue becomes all the more relevant, as individual

organizations have the power and resources to influence decision-

makers (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). In the modern world, unlike other

phases in history, nobody would seriously worry about an individual

citizen voicing his or her concerns, suggestions, and plans about some

issue of general interest in the public arena, let alone putting forward a

grand idea for a world order. However, many people, and not only

those who may feel pressured or annoyed by the interference intowhat

they consider their very own domain, will and indeed do reflect more

critically on contributions to a public agenda when they are brought

forward with the help of a media campaign, publications distributed to

decisionmakers, invitations to key players, and other measures that

The Role of Foundations in Public Debates in Germany 827