APF

Individual and collective work in the formal and informal sectors are the basis for human well-being and development of the world. Private sector investments and public expenditures are two key sources for funding such development, the third being donation-based input for programmes and projects.

More than 260,000 foundations in 39 countries have been identified by the Global Philanthropy Report, however, there are certainly more.  Most foundations exist in Europe (60%) and North America (35%), but the foundation sector in Africa, China and India is fast growing. The trends heavily depend on philanthropy and NGO legislation, tax deductibility, encouragement or limitation of private initiatives and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) legislation. For instance, in India the two percent law obliges large companies to spend two percent of net income on CSR programs.

Foundation assets globally exceeded 1,5 trillion USD in 2018 which corresponds to 5% of the U.S.’ GDP. Of these assets, an average percent of 10% (150 billion USD) is spent annually.  The ownership of foundations varies drastically. In Europe and America, the majority of foundations are independent though monitored by governmental supervisory authorities. In Latin America, corporate foundations represent half of all foundations. In China, Russia and some Arab countries, government led or linked foundations make up the majority; whereas in Africa, family foundations represent over one third of all foundations. Notably, not all philanthropy goes through foundations. There are various forms of legal structures for philanthropy.

Statistics on giving and charity globally and by country are important to recognize the different giving cultures.  The World Giving Index is based on three criteria: “helping a stranger, donating money, volunteer time”.  Yet such figures can be misleading and need contextualisation: in countries like Europe, which has a strong social welfare state, much of the social needs are covered by state expenditures based on tax collection. Therefore, taxes are part of “social giving” in terms of institutionalized solidarity. Education is primarily done in public schools, funded again by tax income from companies and citizens. The US has a comparable weak health care system, poor public schools and strong private education system. Therefore, supporting a public school or public university is seen as philanthropy, but the benefit for the population may not be better than in Europe, where these expenses are covered by taxes. In Africa, where many countries have fragile social welfare programs, the largest contribution to “charity” and solidarity is done by unspectacular daily and intense support of the enlarged families. This is performed in various forms including hosting children of brothers and sisters in the own family, paying scholarships or medical bills for relatives etc.

Volunteering in many countries is described as voluntary contribution of time to society outside of one’s job and without remuneration. But then again if the family is not defined as the small core family of 3-5 people as in Western countries but as the enlarged clan of 10-30 people with mutual responsibilities of caring, and if work is not defined by formal employment, in societies where 50%-80% are active in the informal sector, what does volunteering then mean? For hundreds of millions of people, the daily survival struggle is a mixture of small business, helping, caring which is not counted in statistics. Even in countries like Switzerland, with highly developed social security schemes and one of the highest number of philanthropic foundations per capita worldwide (over 20,000 foundations with a population of 8 million people), domestic labour is still not counted as work in official labour statistics and all the work of women, children, grandparents at home is still almost invisible. As such, extensive “philanthropy” and “charity” is not counted in international statistics.

I dare the hypothesis: Africans may be the most generous people in the world. Exhibiting “natural” support without speaking about it or publishing it, Africans tend to give as an obvious cultural, religious and human obligation. In addition, a large part of the capital of African High Net-Worth Individuals (HNIs) is in foundations in Europe and U.S., therefore counted as “European” or “American” philanthropy even though coming from Africans.

Quite a large percentage of African giving errs on the side of indigenous perspectives of philanthropy, this includes a complete continuum of remittances to extended family, hometown projects, grassroot practices such as grassroot practices, volunteer support, knowledge exchange networks as well as institutionalized giving. African giving practices do not fit neatly into established philanthropy definitions and theories and instead of retrofitting these giving patterns into these approaches, it is my suggestion that we work collaboratively in refining models to accommodate these practices. Although the inequitable distribution and development impact are recognized, these practices such as remittances are thought to be more effective than either international aid or foundation grants in lifting people out of poverty. Dismissing them as “un-philanthropic” discounts African perspectives and inhibits our ability to promote their role in equitable development. The time for the action is now because it’s the little things citizens do that will make the difference. To help fully unleash African diaspora giving’s potential, we must remove the blinders created by narrow, ethnocentric approaches that underestimate or dismiss remittances or non-institutional forms, realizing that almost by definition, philanthropy in a global age knows few boundaries.