SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast with Roger Davis.

SPEAKER_01 0:45

I'm your host, Rodri Davis, and this is the last of our episodes before I take a well-earned summer break, coming out relatively shortly after the previous episode, because I couldn't fit it into the normal schedule, so this one's out only a week later, but obviously you've got plenty of time to catch up over the summer. And this one is another conversation and a really fascinating one. So I sat down a few weeks ago and spoke to Liv Eggholm and Pia Gerber. So Liv is an associate professor in the Department of Business, Humanities and Law at Copenhagen Business School. And Pia is the director of the Freudenberg Stiftung or the Freudenberg Foundation in Germany. And both of them are going to be appearing in September, so later on this year, at the European Research Network on Philanthropy Conference, ERNOP, in Heidelberg, talking about some of the same issues that I sat down to discuss with them. So it was a conversation really about philanthropy and its relationship to democracy, particularly from a European point of view, which I thought was really interesting because there's obviously been a lot of debate about these questions from an American perspective over recent years, and I've had some great guests on the podcast to discuss these very issues, but it was great to have an opportunity to talk about them more from that perspective of Europe and kind of how these issues are playing out in Europe. And so Peter and Liv and I talked about a lot of things. So we discussed that kind of central cult question of what the role of philanthropy within a democratic society is and what it is that differentiates it from either state or market provision and also what it is that gives it legitimacy. We also talked about that classic big question: is philanthropy sort of inherently anti-democratic if we're talking about giving people who have assets and wealth the opportunity to bypass the electoral system, or is it actually something that strengthens democracy because it rebalances the tyranny of the majority and it offers people a means of kind of engagement and participation? Um we talked about the question of dark money and its relationship to philanthropy, so sort of money coming in and uh influencing the political system, and whether that was something that we are seeing in Europe as well as in the US, where it's uh kind of a well-known problem. Talked a bit about how government attitudes towards civil society and philanthropy kind of vary um across Europe and what implications that has for democracy. We then talked about what role philanthropic funders, so foundations uh particularly could play in addressing uh questions around political polarization and division in in Europe. Um we talked about how the governance of philanthropy itself plays into its legitimacy and how it kind of affects these questions about democracy. So, you know, can the adoption of participatory methods, for instance, help to overcome some of these concerns? We also talked quite a bit about the um foundation ownership of non uh of commercial uh companies, because this is something particularly that Liv uh has done plenty of work on, and the uh the enterprise foundation structure in Denmark is particularly interesting and something that people are kind of uh starting to pay quite a lot of attention to. We also talked about the relationship between government and uh non-profits and philanthropy in terms of service provision and whether when uh non-profits end up delivering services on behalf of government, um, they sometimes do this at the cost of their ability to speak out on issues or whether it's possible to balance that. We also talked a little bit about the context in the US and that and particularly that kind of question about whether the um supposed success of American conservative philanthropy in sort of taking a very long-term approach that had resulted in genuine systems change, arguably, to the political landscape in the US was something that um others could learn lessons from, and if so, what those lessons were. Um so without further ado, let's go into the conversation. Um, it's a really interesting one. I think it's a lot of uh content and depth in there. I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Pierre Gerber and Liv Eggholm. Hello to both of you.

SPEAKER_04 5:13

Hi.

SPEAKER_01 5:14

Hi, well, great to have you on the podcast uh here for I think for a really fascinating and important, very timely conversation about philanthropy and democracy, particularly from a European perspective, which I'm really looking forward to. I think it's something we hear a lot about at the moment coming out of the US, obviously, but I think the kind of particular European perspective on it is also very important and fascinating. Um, so I'm really keen to get into it. Maybe the best place to start is just to give you both a bit of a chance to explain your background and what your perspective is on these issues. So maybe Liv, if I could come to you first, what is it that you do? How does your work kind of bring you into contact with these issues around the intersection of philanthropy and democracy?

SPEAKER_02 5:52

Well, you you can say that my my work is about the common good. So that means I'm looking at who is part of the common, who is excluded from being common, all of us. Thinking about, you know, who we who we consider to be part of an us. And then also how do we, what do we actually think is the good of society? What should we strive for? And and this the common good it changed over time. So I've been studying it since the constitution in Denmark, which is in 1849 and and forward. To get into that, I've been looking at foundation and philanthropy. So how, because inherent in in what they're doing, they have to cater for the common good. So I was I was interested in so how are they, what part uh do they play in defining or shaping who is part of the common and how do we think about the good? And that I've been studying over time, especially looking at in Denmark we have this construction about a lot of foundation-owned businesses, so they have their own money and they can decide more easily themselves. So I've been focusing especially on them from the constitution until today, and trying to trace how what kind of effect they had had and still have and maybe will have in the future on defining the common good in uh in society.

SPEAKER_01 7:19

Great, that's brilliant, thank you. Um and Pia, coming to you, you work obviously sort of within uh a foundation, a funding organization within Germany. So, what um how does that kind of inform your thinking about the role that foundations and philanthropy play within the context of a democracy?

SPEAKER_03 7:36

Um starting with the Freudenberg Foundation, I felt that foundation can play a strong role in shaping our ideas of how we can solve problems such as the integration of migrants in schools and society, and to create a culture where f where migrants and refugees and people with different cultural backgrounds can find their way and develop their potential. And coming from a foundation which started in the 80s, where the children of the so-called guest workers in Germany struggled so much to make their way through German schools and struggled so much with the growing right-wing extremism and the xenophobia in Germany. It was a core role of the foundation to strengthen social inclusion on the one hand and uh to strengthen democratic culture. And I think in general, foundation can shape role models and create in niches of innovation micro models for greater solutions.

SPEAKER_01 8:39

Yeah, absolutely. And is that to you, and just because one of the questions I guess that goes across all of this is in the context of a democracy, what is the argument for the legitimacy of allowing people or institutions that have kind of independent resources and wealth to exist and to make choices themselves about what constitutes the public good? And is it for you that that idea that they are able to do things differently and to kind of drive innovation and social change that's most important?

SPEAKER_03 9:10

When we look, for instance, um at the post-socialistic uh society in in the former GDR, then you can say um it can be a strong role for found for especially Western foundation foundations um to create alternatives for the young people growing up there. Uh, when both states came together again um after the political reunification in 91, it was a core role of the Freudenberg Foundation to create alternatives for young people because what they experienced was um an atomic situation and a dequalification of their parents and uh a lack of orientation. And in this um situation, a lot of right-wing um exonomists went to the eastern part of Germany and they tried to create um so-called um nationally freed zones. And our role was to create alternatives, to create NGOs, to strengthen civil society, to build up civil society in order to uh to have for the young people strong choices, that they don't um have only one alternative. And I think the point of legitimacy is every foundation is you can say idiosynosyncratic um will of um a kind of a bunch of wealthy people, but they have to be transparent, they have to be open about their values, they have to be open about their strategy, about their about the sources um of their income. Um and then they can can have to prove if they can solve the problem. If they can't solve, they are of the uh part of the bad side of um bonding social capital, but they can uh bring in bridging social capital and really play a role in creating alternatives, in strengthening democratic values, in showing role models, in um be it persons, be it um be it um a model project, so they have to prove it. And if if they can't, say shouldn't be given light on, um they shouldn't be seen as good players.

SPEAKER_01 11:21

Absolutely. And and Liv, on that question of the the sort of positive case for why philanthropy is not only not only perhaps legitimate within a democracy, but actively strengthens a democracy, what would you say is the kind of strongest case for that idea?

SPEAKER_02 11:34

But I think to some extent I I agree with Pia also that it's uh it has the potential to make these kind of alternative ways of doing things, testing things that cannot maybe not be on rolled out by the government uh so easily to create new innovations. And and and of course they they are the idiocratic, right? But I I don't see you know, some people have a tendency to see either philanthropy is just good or they use it to brand their goods or something else, like utilitaristic or altruistic, but I don't see it like that. It's it's a mixture, and we should avoid to insist on it being either or, then we don't understand what is actually happening. So I think you know, the possibility to have maybe also closer contact to new ideas, you know, bubbles that is coming up. Okay, let's go and try that, let's see if it can fly. And I don't think if it if it doesn't fly, it's not because you know it's on the bad side, but sometimes it was not the right solution. But there's also a problem, or has been at least uh in Denmark a problem that philanthropy was granting money to to projects. So project was coming, you know, project and then another project and then another project, even if the first one worked. So there was like you know, the need to show that this was a new project, something new to to test. And in some kind of way, you can say that there's again some of what I I can see as a quality of philanthropy because they are in it for the long haul, right? So they are like some for decades and some for centuries, so they're in it for a very, very long time and they can be patient, but there has been a tendency to have all these kinds of projects and granting money to changing projects instead of staying with it. I think there is uh an acknowledgement, and maybe P can agree with me on that, that philanthropy has become more aware of the importance of staying with the trouble and see, you know, okay, then maybe we need 10 years, maybe 15 years, not just three years and then another project.

SPEAKER_01 13:57

Yeah, I would be really interested in your view on that, Pier, because it this question of the timescales for philanthropy and and the value of philanthropy being that it can do things over a longer time period when market cycles and political cycles seem shorter, is something we hear quite a lot. And then at the same time, there's quite a lot of critique these days of philanthropy being too slow and not having enough of a sense of urgency. How do you see this debate playing out in Germany in your experience?

SPEAKER_03 14:27

I think it's a very crucial point. Um when I think of really um making a change uh by a foundation, then it needs long-term cycles of um in uh innovation. You need 20, 30 years. And for instance, the Freudenberg Foundation often stays nearly 40 years with a project from the beginning, because if you want to really change a long-term problem such as strengthening democratic culture, such as a strengthening democratic competences of young people in schools, then you have to stay until the state system has changed its culture, its um its structure and is in resonance, uh in a systemic resonance. And this kind of philanthropy was in the public discussion uh 10 years ago, 20 years ago, um, within an initiative called International Um Philanthropy, uh International Network for Strategic Philanthropy. But it it it was forgotten because sometimes foundations are also part of these marketing cycles. They want to sell news, they want to be they want to bring new projects. Um there's a little bit, I I see this intellectual uh recognition of uh yes, it needs time to make a difference. But in the practice, they often still have programs with short-term projects, three years, four or five years at least. And I think the practice is a little bit behind the awareness. But there is a change, but sometimes also foundations are closely linked to enterprises. And the reference groups um where uh they have to convince are people combined to an enterprise being used that products change every year and that markets change and their products are renewed. And sometimes it seems nearly boring to say what was a progress in the last year. So it's also a question of marketing um innovation processes to communicate in an adequate way.

SPEAKER_01 16:28

Yeah, that's that's really interesting. And I guess the point there about when they're linked to enterprises uh on the side of the enterprises wanting to fund them, and that then drives a desire to show that you're doing something new and innovative. And I wondered if this has been an interesting point actually to bring in your perspective, Liv, um, from the other the other way around, where you have non-profit structures or foundations owning enterprises, which I know you mentioned before is something that is not uncommon in Denmark and is something that actually you know the wider world of philanthropy seems to be waking up to at the moment. Does that have any impact on the time horizons of of those corporate entities? Do they actually are able to take a longer-term view because they have this non-profit ownership structure?

SPEAKER_02 17:12

Hmm, I I think so. And I think it goes two ways, and it's not to say that they have not been short-term, right? But what for instance, in in what happened was that, and I've been looking at these very old foundations as well, right? So until the 70s, it was kind of a mixture between, you know, what was deciding to don't donate to and and how you know the business was run. But then there was this kind of separation, and there was a like a trend in the 70s, also because of question of taxes and question of people misusing the model. But then they had like a separate um secretariat for the donations, so it was not like mixed in the same way. And these secretariats, along with the more money these enterprises are doing, you know, the the greater they get, and it should actually provide the possibility to go in stuff for a longer period of time and not being so attentive to the enterprise role. So, so in this kind of way, you can say, yes, they they at least they have the possibility to to do that, and also in some of the you know, foundation-owned businesses who do not like give a lot of money out, but that they are foundation-owned actually make them capable of spending long time of developing their product. So they change that, also changed that kind of logic, so the market logic. But I think also right now, what these foundations that I'm looking at are experiences is that having a separate secretariat that should, you know, provide arm length, distance, and all these kinds of things, but it also now, in some kind of way, prohibit taking in even greater sources to solve the question, because then if you have a separation between the secretariat who is donating the money, and then the enterprises do whatever they do, right? But then the enterprise is not investing in the same causes as you are doing in the foundation. So making this kind of arm length and clear distinction, I think at the moment, might also prohibit using the wealth and using their force in in society to reach even further. You know, all these catalyst um philanthropy, or you know, uh depending on how you invest your money or what you're doing. And I and I see there's a lot of concern for that in in Denmark. But what have been good to secure that the donation was not influenced, now maybe it's not so good if we really have to use them or they have to be used for the greater good kind of thing.

SPEAKER_01 19:59

Yeah, it's really interesting if there's that that separation actually, and that's limiting the the potential impact. One of the things, just to round off on this question of time horizons and the benefits of taking a long-term view, it struck me as a good point to mention that one of the examples that tends to get cited of the most successful uh example of kind of taking a long-term view in philanthropy is the success of right-wing conservative funders in the US over a very long period of time in funding think tanks and academics and shifting the terms of political debate over there, which I guess makes the important point that it's successful, but many people would say it's definitely not to the benefit of democracy, which brings us to this question of the the sort of dark side of this question. Should we be concerned that in allowing individuals and institutions to exert influence in a democracy through their wealth and through their philanthropy, we're actually in danger of subverting democracy? And is this something that we see in Europe as well as in the US? Um, Pierre, I don't know if you want to come in on that.

SPEAKER_03 21:07

I think one of the strategies of conservatives or some I would not say conservative, I would say um right-wing organizations is the cultural struggle uh alongside of Gramsci's theory. Though I think we should be aware of the political values, the strategies, and be very aware and not be na naive uh observing it. And we should describe it. For instance, I really profited from the New York Times uh article on Coeled in Israel, and I I wasn't aware about uh this think tank um directed from the um from the United States, and they really pre prepared the reform of uh of destroying the uh democratic institution in Israel. And I think it shows us that if you want to really uh To make a change, you have to be very strategic, very transparent and very long term committed to your goal, because I I we cannot blame the right wings for being so strategic. It's their organized will, their organized capacity, but it shows us that we that if we want to strengthen democracy, we have to be aware what we do. And I often think uh in the last days of Jane Baldwin's article on um in search of a majority, and there he shows if we allow moral welcomes um uh to be there, then we risk that um extremist groups cover the middle and bring their values in. And that's why uh I'm I'm convinced for the time being that we have to be very clear what's going on for the time being. I just started to read um a book, Hospicing Modernity, uh, where we have to say, okay, some promises um we gave as modern philanthropic foundation, everything will become better. We won't lose um uh wealth and social cohesion. Uh we weren't aware um in the right way about the dangers of it. We were not um strategic enough to really cope with the dangers we are facing now. We cannot blame the others for being very strategic, they just fulfill their role. And I think it's a it's a question of a political framework, um, what is allowed in kind of influence, because if if we look at our foundations, we are also um dependent on the resonance of city administrations to to make our small scale projects broader. So we are very dependent on um on what is going on, for instance, in in a city in the eastern part of Germany or uh in a rural part of Germany where there's a majority of RFD in Germany. Now we cannot say what do we there. We want to have a combination of um of a city and administration uh to combine it with um with the what we do as a foundation. And there we have to be aware that we have to go back to a kind of autonomy and to leave the embedded um autonomy track because we have to fight for our values um and and for our target groups. So I think we have to be very strategic and we need more alliances, real alliances um between foundations, between because that's also a kind of um I would ask you, Liv, but I really see that a lot of people um in the foundations, leading foundations saying cooperation is so important, it's so important. But in fact, it's very seldom that we have an operating cooperation changing a special problem together, because the ideology or uh the the what the wish to be seen as a single foundation is greater than the wish to achieve a common goal. I don't I don't know if perhaps it's it's not right, Liv, but I would be keen to know what you think about it.

SPEAKER_01 25:11

Yeah, I'd be really interested in your perspective on that, Liv. I and just to throw in as well, I guess this this question feels like it's very pertinent to what you were saying about earlier on about defining the common good, because actually what's at stake is who gets to decide that? Is it a purely majoritarian uh thing? You know, and if if in a democracy the majority decides you know one vision of the common good, to what extent are we allowed through philanthropy and through civil society to present alternatives and in what way do we do we do that? And when we are doing it, as as Pia asks there, can we genuinely work together or is there something about philanthropy that actually keeps forcing people to do things in isolation?

SPEAKER_02 25:49

Yeah, I think that is that is a valid point. And as with P, I will also emphasize it's not a question about being conservative because a lot of these foundations are conservative. So I think your question, you know, goes for the right wing, and and as P also said, well, they are part of democracy. You know, we you know they might also fight for what they think is the common good, but maybe what we can pay attention to is how they narrow down who belongs to the common instead of you know opening it up. Um that's a way to look at it. Uh because of course, philanthropy, like in Denmark, you know, after the constitution, you couldn't vote if you earned money to the state. But then the foundation gave money to these people and they were allowed to vote. So that is also like you know, constantly going on the negotiation. What is democracy, who is part of democracy, or I think also Pierce Foundation, where you you work with the concrete people who need a solution to figure out what is the problem and what should be the solution. So this very narrow democracy that is different than the constitutional democracy that we are working with. So I think philanthropy, you know, in the question about democracy, is challenging, questioning what kind of democracy do we need? And it's not to say it's very good that we are narrowing down who is part of the common, but I think, yeah, they have been super strategic. And in the US, actually, they have a right-wing majority at the moment, and that have been lost on the more left side of the democratic uh spectrum, thinking we are the good ones. We are in it for the good, we are in it for democracy, so why shouldn't people just follow along? And then I think I think P is right to to emphasize the question about the legitimacy. And I think legitimacy is is also as as Pia was pointing at, is also this legislative framework. So what is what is set up as possible in in societies, but then there is also, and this I think are you also pointing at, the legitimacy by the population. So what I can see is also every time that a foundation is doing stuff, uh you will immediately have a reaction. If it's if it's transparent, if it's visible, you will have a reaction from the population questioning is this really just in it for for their own benefit. We have you know some very, very large foundations that is at the moment earning a lot of money, you know. Are they allowed to decide in what direction society should go? Who is part of the common and what is definitely the good? So we have a lot of questions about this, and I think that is part of democracy, discussing that. Um, and of course, it's a lot of money, and it does it, they are political actors, the foundations, and we should be aware of that and we should treat them as such. I think that is also important, and this is also where the transparency comes in, and and answering um Pearce's question about you know, can they really collaborate? So I think there is a movement now, and this might be because right now we feel that the societal problems they are so complex and and so unsolvable that you know a foundation cannot do it by themselves, and of course, they're different types of foundation, you know. Early on, they were like, you know, in in the shadows, building a lot of things as a way forward for you know creating new groups in society, single mothers or uh people without means, or so they they did the buildings, but now they're putting agenda on the societal for the societal discussion, also, while they are also donating money. They talk a lot about it, much more, at least in Denmark, creating these alliances. But these alliances is not just with other foundations, it's with civil society organizations, other civil society organizations, NGOs, sometimes even some kind of enterprises or market-based uh businesses, and of course, also linking up to the government to change something. And we just had this um this interesting uh you can call it alliances about home for all. So it was about creating, you know, get rid of uh homelessness, which seemed totally impossible, right? It is like you know, a fantasy. But they the foundation have given money for a kind of a backbone secretariat to exist, and they have kept on. And they've been negotiating what to do, what is actually the problem, what should we do? They managed to get something into legislation, and now they are rolling it out, and it's not nice for everyone, you know. People are getting, you know, you know, there are some businesses who is not really experiencing good things with that, but they were part of that alliances, so now we're going to see, well, okay, they they did the legislation, but what about now, you know, using that legislation and and the cost that would come in having this kind of legislation where people it's not it's it's more easy to talk about it, right? Oh, that would be nice, and let's collaborate, even though they the long term like was like okay, we can meet and we discuss, and then each of us go away and we don't come back. But if you keep them there, there might be a possibility. That's it. When we look at the money given to traditional, you know, single foundation and then to the alliances, the alliances, you know, the number of donations for alliances is still very small.

SPEAKER_01 31:48

Yeah, absolutely. And one thing I wanted to ask actually, I'll come to you on this on this peer, is we've been talking quite a bit about the how you you do philanthropy within a democracy in a way that ensures legitimacy and you you therefore sort of strengthen democracy indirectly. But I guess the context at the moment is one in which questions are being asked about liberal democracy itself and whether it is, you know, suffering and the structures that we have are um suffering under the weight of political populism and extremism and polarization. So there's a question about I guess what philanthropy can do more directly to address those kinds of issues. What in your experience can philanthropy do if the concern is not just to operate well within a democracy, but to address some of the failings or weaknesses of current democracy itself?

SPEAKER_03 32:42

What we saw from interviews with young people in the United States states as well as in Germany is that they really see uh uh democracy sometimes as as ineffec uh inefficient. They have really critiques about the eff efficiency of institutions and especially the male ones, uh, have a tendency uh to the authoritarian ways of ruling more effective, not uh as a choice, but as an observation of efficiency. And that's uh um a thing that we have to be aware of um um of the critiques um of efficiency of democratic institutions and not to say we want to strengthen democracy as it is, but we want to um to look at the problems and to create uh better solutions and to let critiques in, and not to just to emphasis in a naive way or to create narratives in a naive way. But on the other side, I think our role is also to strengthen hope because pessimism, cultural pessimism is so dangerous, and it's always always uh cultural pessimism and cynism, um, it's the cultural basis for uh destructive values and destructive movements. So I always feel that we have to be aware um also about the role that special uh leadership persons can can play. I often see if um there are good community leaders and we can strengthen them with a good methodology, so then it it makes a difference. But perhaps Liv can come in. I'm just um I'm just thinking and not um answering organized. So I'm just thinking. I needed an uh another moment.

SPEAKER_01 34:37

Yeah, of course. And Liv, I'd I'd love to come to you and and to throw in, I mean, I'd love to pick up on that and also to add in the additional dimension. Um be really interested in your thoughts as well, uh on on this, in what importance there is in the kind of the governance structures that we have in philanthropy as well. Because I sort of wonder in terms of these questions of legitimacy, but also how you get people more engaged in democracy, is the way in which you go about doing philanthropy you know potentially part of the solution if you can make you know adopt more participatory methods or methods that sort of drive civic engagement rather than philanthropy being something that is only done by institutions that only have kind of minimal points of contact with people?

SPEAKER_02 35:24

Yeah, I think that is that is a very good point. So also now when Pierre was was talking, I was thinking one of one of the ways that I have seen um philanthropy being engaged in in a different way, in as I also said before, there's always a kind of questioning what kind of democracy do we have? Is the constitutional democracy the only kind of democracy? We wrote, you know, with Tucker Will you would say, okay, then we alliance every you know four years and then we am I the rest of the time. But but maybe to create the problem together with those who I've been very fascinated by this kind of method of saying we don't know it beforehand. We have money, we have a charger that allows us to give money in this direction, but then let's invite people in not to come up with a solution, but start with defining the problem. I think that is that is a possibility and way to do it if if you craft that very carefully to actually engage a different kind of democracy. It will never be democratic, you know, foundations or gift-giving money will never be democratic. Never. So that is that is an issue we need to know. Then what is it doing then? At least not in the constitutional way. It it's not decided by every people. Um, and very rarely you have foundations that have no charger. Like, you know, this is this is like the rule of constitution for a foundation. You can't do whatever you want. I think sometimes people think that foundations are just deciding, you know, okay, we want to give money to that, we want to, but they can't. They are like directed by this charger that is this the law they have to follow. And some of them are foundations are very open, and some of them are super, you know, tight and they are not easy to change. So it's not easy to say, you know, I often have this question well, couldn't we just do like, I don't know, there are some people out there who who have a lot of money, and then they ask, for instance, the the local community, what should we how should we use this money? But that is not a foundation, that is someone who wants to give money to a specific place. Or maybe there are foundations that have been created so openly. I don't think it could happen in Denmark that we didn't have really the purpose, but because that had to be fact-checked, right? So the purpose needs to be aligned with the common good to be calculated as a foundation. So you can't have just an open one, you need to define something in the charger. And so we can't vote, you know, in order to decide where the money is going. So there's other means to push for that. And of course, there is the problem of the dark side. Like I see I see philanthropy as part of civil society, and civil society are also dark. It's not just rosy and all for you know, the way we might think about democracy and society and the common good. It it's there is a lot of also groups that are uniting and have values that goes against what maybe we would think would be the good thing. And and that is part of it, but it's and it's not just take easy on it, because I think with the money that comes with that, just as you said before, and a strategic thinking, it can actually erode, you know, the opening of who are part of the common. And I think that is my instead of deciding what is good and what is bad, I think, you know, if we are narrowing down who is part of our common, that's a problem. It's you know, we need to open it up. And instead of saying, okay, this is right, even if you know left wing would also narrow down, but that's still a problem, right? So it's it's it's more to say how do we evaluate the good and the bad in relation to democracy, it's it's kind of widening who is part of the common and who we should take care of.

SPEAKER_01 39:29

And and this is this, I think, is one of the most crucial questions here, and it's fascinating is this question of uh pluralism within civil society and philanthropy. And the and as you say, actually, you've got to accept that the price for the benefits within a democracy of the kinds of philanthropy and civil society that you agree with and you like, is that there will be probably exactly the same on the other side of issues in the political spectrum. And it feels as though for a long time people have recognised that that bargain and been willing to accept it. But maybe more recently it's been challenged and people don't seem as as willing as as politics has become more divided and uh and there's more polarisation to accept that the other side has a right to exist as well. So when it comes to to philanthropy, should we get back to the idea that actually we need to take a very pluralistic view? And then I guess my my question would be: are there still limits to that? Uh and it are they only defined by law? So would it be the point at which somebody tips over from a view you object to to something that breaks the law? Or are there things that we might want to say are not legitimate or acceptable within civil society, even if they haven't broken any laws? Um and if so, I guess who gets to define that? Um, Pierre, I'd be really interested in your view on whether there are limits to what we should be comfortable allowing in civil society.

SPEAKER_03 40:58

What I would like to add first to um the comment of Liv and you, uh Rodri, I think it's important for a foundation with clear issues such as uh strengthening democratic culture, that the governance structure itself um reflects it, reflects it. And for us, um our um board of trustees, for instance, um, which is responsible for feedback for the whole program, it covers all kinds of different worldviews, I would say, uh from different political spectrums. So and what for us is very important is the role of science. We know the limits of evidence base, but it's it's necessary. The freedom of um science in our fields and the evidence we get from it. When we get in touch with a uh with a problem at one place, we must be sure is it a structural problem, um, is it symptomatic or is it only at this place? We need all this evidence because if you just involve target groups, then you have a limitation because from research we know target groups they don't um foresee the future. They just um they trust are aware about the present. So we need people looking in the future, seeing the trends, um, seeing um the political changes. So for us as a foundation, the basis of of really science is very important and also the freedom of art because what we learned um when it comes to perspective, um perspectives and discussions about um positions, people are nearly often in these um, I don't know, polarized times, um are struggling, uh are taking polarization polarizing positions. But when it comes to emotions, then they are together. Though we try um also with the uh transmission of art and to bring people in situations where they feel themselves and where they speak. For instance, uh it's a format called um uh freedom talks. Um it's an run by artists and it's a form of debate where people get in connection with their emotions. And what I strongly felt, even if we talk about Gaza and Israel, people can talk about their emotions and they perceive each other as human beings. And if that um is is possible, then you can start to discuss about um the future of the society. And that's why I think it's very important to have all these different views in our own um structure, in our our own um governance structures. Besides, I think it's very important for um foundations linked to enterprises that there's a freedom uh for for the knowledge, freedom of expertise, and that there is no instrumentalization of a foundation. for a special good or I don't know. Um so I think we can do something in our own way of structuring our foundations.

SPEAKER_01 44:10

Yeah, absolutely. That's a really good point um there, I think about that the ability and I I really like the point about the the power of art as a tool. Because I think this is something I've heard quite a bit in speaking to people about challenges of of uh uh around polarization is that finding these ways to allow people to connect in in ways that um politics doesn't currently is really important. Um the other thing that I I wanted to ask because I'm aware that we're sort of coming up towards the hour is we talked a lot obviously about the role of foundations and philanthropy within a democracy in terms of uh what foundations themselves do and also work that can be directed at democracy itself. I suppose the other side is that there is a relationship between governments or the state and philanthropy that is more about where there are opportunities for partnership. So often foundations or or nonprofits might be doing or funding work that is also of interest to government. So sometimes the government funds it or in other cases you know it will kind of provide a contractual relationship. I wondered what your perspective is on that and also what some of the risks are with that because again in the context of democracy where there are governments about whom there are democratic concerns or concerns about authoritarianism is there a challenge if foundations and nonprofits choose to work with them in order to deliver the outcomes they want to see but are aware that if they do so they might become part of the problem or legitimise that government is this something that we see um in Europe as well um Liv, I don't know if you have thoughts on that I can have some thoughts yeah it might be the best one to be like you know with with with her heads on hands on specific that but but I can I can I also say something about the question you were asking Pia before so so you know the limit you know to this uh pluralistic view it's and and if it should just be like what is allowed and I think it's it's super important to acknowledge that the framework set up by the state like I said before you cannot at least in Denmark create a foundation that have no charger you need to have a charger because you have to show you are in it for the common good.

SPEAKER_02 46:36

So so so I think it's very very important about the legislation that is setting the framework that that that's the first part of it. And and I do agree with um so that I think that is a part of limiting whatever could be there. And of course this kind of legislation is constantly negotiated and changed over time because we see stuff that is like okay that is not part of it. You know his butter and and is is part of civil society but they might not work against or for enlarging the common good you know or other elements the health angels they are also a civil society organization. So you know all these kind of um civil society organizations that are very closed they are still part of that. How are we going to handle that? Well there are some legislative regulations that set up what they can and what they cannot do. Or the free schools in Denmark you know can you be a school and then you know go in a direction that is very much radical or you know how to handle that. So I think that is negotiated all the time and should be and it's also happening in in the public like if there is this kind of possibility um and and I agree with with with Pia that science is super important and this is why I think we also see that with the foundation they have their engagements with science and knowledge have grew enormously you know when I see what they take in as a starting point for for defining these problems. So I agree it's not just the target group it's the combination of this knowledge but that knowledge is also pushed to the target group sometimes and that helps for them to reflect on it. Yeah I I you know when you were talking about the emotion part I do agree with the power of art but I think we should not you know politic is also emotions and I think the polarization we see is also a reaction to emotions and then maybe you know making something art could maybe be a way to bridge these emotions. It's not like it's separated at all from the politics it is is a kind of resonance with specific form of emotion that might need to be you know set into to a different tone or listen to a different tone. Coming back to the question about you know the partnership with with government and of course you know we could say yeah it's so easily to be co-opted right this is this is the problem of all civil society organizations and and I think also what we have seen is you know turn to more to become like welfare providers there's a lot of that in civil society and in that kind of way the the the the critique is that in this kind of way we're just providers but we are not voicing the critique. And I've been thinking a lot about and I don't have an answer to that but sometimes I think that welfare provision is a critique in itself. It can of course be co-opted but and I think it's a delicate balance are you taken over when you participate in you know a state structure that you don't believe in but you you make sure that there is some kind of provision for people or is it actually a form of critique that you do that so I'm I'm not you know I won't say either or that is the terrible thing you know with research is we never want to say it's this or it's that but you know it it can be both but I think of course it is a problem to be co-opted but it's also there's also the possibility of having a or creating or you know critiquing something in a different format than we used to not just listening just not shouting but in a different way by doing stuff.

SPEAKER_01 50:49

Yeah I think that's a really useful way of framing it. Pierre I'd love to to come to you on this question now um and just see you know what's your perspective on this question of whether in choosing to work with government in various different ways there are challenges as Liv said with either becoming sort of co-opted or um kind of losing sight of your values or or legitimizing governments or regimes that that might be seen as problematic.

SPEAKER_03 51:16

As a foundation um which always wanted uh to act in cooperation with uh the the public authorities in order to change the learning culture and the thinking about um new solutions we really see a very problematic situation coming not only in Germany and not only in countries where um like in Italy or Hungary. The situation is that um the public spending will be reduced enormously in the fields uh um in which we are active such as integration it's not no longer a political priority democratic culture yes okay important but we can reduce what was our achievement in the past is that that there is a public um program to to strengthen civil society to in order to promote uh democracy and uh that that's the the civil society part of um of sheltering or of protecting the constitutions but now we will see a a huge reduction of public spending on these issues on art on uh the free free art perhaps the uh the theaters will will still will still be there and in these uh situations uh um we will come in a very difficult situation to decide we cannot afford to really full to to really fill the holes for us um we are now in a in a strategic process um due to this change in order to say what can we save and what can we develop because um we cannot save our whole network to be honest we give 80% of our um income to the field but that will not change but we have to decide what are the catalyst strategies um where have uh do we have to say goodbye to our partners which is really hard and that's the crucial problem is not resonance and not the uh it's a shift of priorities with regard to militarization with regard to um our public viewing uh views on migration and integration yeah absolutely I think that's a really important point it's certainly something we're seeing at the moment in the UK and I think even more so in in the US where this debate about what role philanthropy can and should play as the government pulls back from a lot of areas is is obviously a hugely important one.

SPEAKER_01 53:49

Where we're coming up on the hour I just want to say thank you ever so much to both of you for finding the time to come on the podcast. It's been a really fascinating conversation I've really thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find uh more on the work that both of you uh do and yeah I certainly would be great to catch up at some point in the future and hear more uh about your thoughts on these issues. Thanks very much. Thank you so much thank you Rodri and Liv I enjoyed it too okay great well my thanks again to Liv and to Pia for coming on the podcast. Really really interesting conversation I'm sure you'll agree. I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can find out more about their work and also about the upcoming Earn op conference in Heidelberg if you're interested in that. If you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society um as ever check out the website whyphilanthropymatters dot com all the back episodes of this podcast which you can catch up on over the summer while we're on a break. Similarly loads of long read articles, sort of shorter guides, various updates um an archive of all of the newsletters so if you're feeling bereft uh because your favourite philanthropy podcast is not being regularly updated for a few weeks there's more than enough of uh things that vaguely involve me that you can be uh entertaining yourself with in the meantime um if you've got ideas for things that we could talk about on the podcast come the autumn or people that I could interview when we get going again do uh drop me a line. You can find the contact details at the Wi Philanthropy Matters website. Other than that just as ever like follow the podcast uh leave a nice review wherever you get your podcasts tell colleagues or friends about it if you think they would be interested uh and other than that in the meantime I hope you all have a great summer and I will see you again in the autumn bye