얼마전 APPC (Asian Pacific Philanthropy Consortium) 라는 단체의 사무총장을 오래 지내다가 지금은 사임하고 캘리포니아로 이주한 Rory Francisco-Tolentino라는  필리핀 여성 자선전문가가 쓴 논문을 공유합니다. 저 역시 APPC의 이사로서 몇년간 활동해 왔습니다. 아시아의 문화와 역사가 아주 다르지만 어느 사회에서도 나눔과 협동의 공동체적 전통이 있기 마련입니다. 주로 원조를 서방국가들로부터 받아온 이 나라들에서도 최근 들어 나눔과 자선의 문화를 일으키고 확장함으로써 새로운 사회를 건설하려는 노력이 한창입니다.

Rory Tolentino 씨의 이 논문은 아직 완성된 것이 아니기 때문에 다른 글에서 인용하기 위해서는 저자의 동의를 얻어야 할 것입니다. 필요하면 제가 그분의 연락처를 드리겠습니다. 이 논문에는 저와 아름다운재단 이야기도 잠깐 언급되고 있습니다. 이 글을 통하여 아시아와 자선에 대해 좀 더 깊이 아는 좋은 계기가 되기를 바랍니다.

Asia and the Pacific: Creating the Future through Philanthropy

by:  Rory Francisco-Tolentino

 

Introduction

Asia is the world’s largest and most populous continent? containing 8.6% of earth’s total surface area or 29.9% of its land area, it has approximately 4 billion people, or 60% of the world’s current human population.

In recent years, the Asia Pacific region has had one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with countries like China and India growing at rates almost double that of the industrialized west.   

 In Capgemini’s 2009 World Wealth Report, it noted that as a result of the global financial crisis, there was a 19.5% drop in High Net Worth Individual  (HNWI) wealth to US$32.8 Trillion in 2008.  Of that amount, US$9.5 trillion, or close to 1/3, came from HNWIs from Asia Pacific. [i]

 Clearly, it is a region that the world cannot afford to ignore, both for its current as well as its potential economic strength.  It is also a region that faces tremendous challenges brought about by its population and its economic, political and cultural diversity.  What role can philanthropy play in helping the region meet its challenges? Can philanthropy help create a brighter future for Asia and the Pacific?

 In this chapter, we ask APPC’s Board members and friends, all fervent  advocates, observers or philanthropy practitioners for their thoughts on philanthropy’s impact on their countries, the effect of the current global financial crisis and the role of philanthropy in shaping the future of Asia and the Pacific.  APPC, or the Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium, is a 15- year old independent association of philanthropic institutions and organizations dedicated to promoting the flow and effectiveness of philanthropy for Asia and the Pacific.  It has 15 Board members representing 13 societies in the region.

 A Background on Asia Pacific Philanthropy

 In a 2002 publication, Investing in Ourselves-Giving and Fundraising in Asia, undertaken by the Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium, and published by the Asian Development Bank, Marianne Quebral and Nina Terol  noted:  “The history of Asian cultures has contributed much to the growth of philanthropy in the region over the last few centuries.  As the continent is home to several of the world’s major religions--Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity?much of philanthropic giving traces its roots to religious concepts of merit-making, almsgiving and performing charitable acts.  Likewise, the close-knit family structure of most traditional Asian communities has made it common for family and neighbors to help one another in times of crises. Giving in this context has thus become an extension of service to one’s family, rather than a random charitable act to a stranger.”  [ii]

 The publication notes the influence of faith on philanthropy in the region’s different cultures:

 “Giving in Islam

 For Muslims, Islamic teachings mandate that a Muslim who has reached a certain level of income must pay Zakat, an obligatory social obligation amounting to as much as 2.5% of his or her annual net savings.  In Indonesia and Pakistan, the government has set up agencies to facilitate zakat collection, which is then disbursed to religious and social service organizations.  Aside from this mandatory form of giving, Muslims are also encouraged to practice Infaq and Sadaqah.

 Giving in Hinduism

 Like Muslims, Hindus also express concepts of social contribution: Datra Datriva and Daanam Parmrarth.  More than this, however, they are encouraged to perform voluntary service, as Seva is another Hindu concept.

Giving in Buddhism

Buddhism promotes the practice of Thambun,  or giving for merit-making religious purposes, and Thamtaan or giving to those in need.  These concepts are considered the cornerstones of Buddhist philanthropy, as adherence to religious precepts is still a motivating factor for philanthropy among Buddhists.

Giving in Christianity

Christians practice religious giving through almsgiving, tithing and contributing to the Church during congregational worship and special occasions (e.g. weddings, baptisms and funerals).  This was inspired by the teaching to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”  In the Philippines, this was first operationalized through the Misericordia, a charitable institution founded by a Jesuit in 1594 for the social elite to give to the needy.

Most traditional Asian societies have developed around small, rural communities and have instilled in members a sense of kinship and willingness to help each other in times of need.  In Indonesia, a large portion of the population still lives in rural areas and practices Gotong Royong, a concept of mutual aid. This practice is supported by four themes:

·      That man does not live alone in this world, but is part of his community, the wider social environment, and the natural and spiritual universe around him.

·      Thus, man is essentially dependent in all aspects of his life on his fellows.

·      Therefore, he must always endeavor to maintain good relations with other members of the community, urged by a spirit of equality.

·      He must always endeavor as much as possible to conform, and to do the same, and be the same as his fellows in the community.

 Likewise, the Nepalese have adopted many socio-cultural concepts of giving and volunteering.  Among these are the Muthi Daan, Guthi and Parma. Muthi Daan, literally, “giving a handful”, consists mainly of separating a handful of rice or other food grain from the amount taken out for cooking the family meal, and saving it until the quantity reaches a reasonably useful amount.  This is then given to the needy in its original form or converted by the donor into money before handing over to the receiving person or organization.  Guthi, on the other hand, is the concept of extending support to the members of the clan or community to which one belongs.  Lastly, Parma is the custom of labor exchange among people of mixed age groups or families, similar to the Indonesian Gotong Royong.

 Thai society, on the other hand, draws on the relationship between kinsmen for philanthropy in a different way.  One finds that even in contemporary Thailand, persons who wish to perform an act of merit-making also solicit the support of family members through co-merit making.  This is said to strengthen family ties, as co-merit making is rationalized to be an act that binds families together in “future existence”.

 These concepts serve to demonstrate how socio-religious culture has influenced the practice and development of philanthropy and volunteerism in the region.  However, it should be noted that both religious and communal models of giving may be limiting in that they do not encourage active participation in social and charitable causes outside one’s religious belief or community,  In Indonesia, for example, it was noted that urbanization and modernization have led to the erosion of Gotong Royong, while Indians, on the other hand, lament that “despite a long and distinguished tradition of philanthropy, private giving to promote the public good is still inadequate.”

Likewise, there is a prevailing attitude among the Nepalese that only the government, foreign donors, and affluent philanthropists are responsible for providing for the less fortunate.”[iii]

 New Zealand, a small nation on the outskirts of the Asia Pacific region, has an inherent philanthropy in the culture of the Maori. New Zealand journalist Carol Archie explored Maori Concepts of Philanthropy in an article in Philanthropy New Zealand’s Newsletter in 2001.  She wrote:  “After successful days fishing or hunting in traditional Maori society the bounty was shared around with everyone.  Stories abound of the fisherman or hunter who drops off so much of his catch to his whanau (family) on the way home that he has none left for himself.  Such behaviour is admired because it is an expression of aroha (love) and by giving, one increases one’s mana (prestige)…In communal life, Maori had highly developed customs for giving and sharing with others.  However, the communal responsibility would appear to be very different from the Western tradition of an individual philanthropist giving money or goods with disinterest (and usually to strangers), preferably anonymously, for the wider public benefit…In traditional Maori society, utu (reciprocity) was the ruling principle.  Life was based on a continual shift of debt and obligation…sometimes a debt might be repaid generations later…for Maori, a special relationship was understood between the giver and the receiver.  Giving was an expression of not just aroha (love) but of mana.  Mana is the spiritual power and authority held by individuals and groups which can be increased by giving.”[iv]

 

Current State of Philanthropy in the Region

 Perhaps one of the biggest weaknesses of the field in Asia Pacific is that no philanthropy statistics exist for the region as a whole. While some countries have undertaken relatively recent studies, the studies were undertaken in different years and did not always use the same research methodologies. It is therefore not possible to say with authority what the scale of giving in the region as a whole is, and whether it is unquestionably growing.  However, most of the literature on philanthropy in the region would seem to indicate that it has, indeed, been growing, and certainly in the last decade.  The studies also indicate a growing awareness of the importance of philanthropy in the individual societies.  

The earlier cited publication,  Investing in Ourselves-Giving and Fundraising in Asia, was a comparative study of individual giving in four countries?India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.  In summarizing the major findings of the study, Susan Hockings and Dr. Mark Lyons pointed to the common findings across the four countries as follows:

·      In all four countries, almost all high to middle income households made philanthropic gifts in the preceding 12 months before the study. Households in these developing countries appear to be as committed to philanthropy as similar households in northern or developed countries.

·      There was a uniformly high rate of giving to religious organizations, suggesting that religious traditions are high even among the high and middle income households who were respondents of this study. These groups can be assumed to be the most exposed to the secularizing influences of northern culture.

·      Overall, there was a high rate of support (or philanthropic giving) for individuals in all four countries (from 40% to a little over 50%). 

·      The households’ socio-economic status has only a small effect on the giving rate, but a greater effect on the average amount given by givers.  It appears that the generosity ratio falls slightly between households in socio-economic class A and those in socio-economic class C.

·      There was a uniformly high level of importance given to “feelings of compassion” as the motive of giving for all the givers.[v]

 A 2005 APPC exploratory study of selected high net worth individuals in 6 countries in the region (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines),  noted:  “Almost without exception, the respondents viewed giving as a social and moral responsibility, a way to “give back” to society what they had been blessed, privileged or fortunate to have received.  This sense of social and moral responsibility is based to a large extent on family values and traditions, as well as on strictures of faith.  These Asian philanthropists cited the importance of “seeing” the impact of their giving on the lives of people they help.[vi]

 Research undertaken in Australia in 2005 showed that the giving of goods, money and services totaled A$11 B, with about 70% of that coming from individual Australians and the rest from business. About 87% of all adult Australians gave, and about 41% volunteered time for good causes.  This proportion seems to be on the rise.  As a proportion of GDP however, Australian giving is 0.68%, where it is 1.6% in the US and 0.46% in Canada.

 It appears that those with greater financial capacity in Australia tend to give more. Christine Edwards, CEO of The Myer Foundation and The Sidney Myer Fund, and APPC’s Deputy Chair, noted that individual wealth in Australia has been growing rapidly in the last ten years, with philanthropic contributions from the wealthy having tripled in the same time frame.  However, philanthropic giving does not appear to have risen in proportion to the rise in their income, with wealthy Australians giving at 0.45% of their taxable incomes, compared to 0.68% for the rest of the Australian population.

 

A Philanthropy New Zealand study from 2005-2006 showed philanthropic giving in New Zealand in that period at NZ$1.24-$1.46B estimated at 0.81% of GDP.[vii]  Jennifer Gill, CEO of ASB Community Trusts and APPC Board Member says that of this number, 58% came from trusts and foundations, 7% from corporations and only 35% from individuals.  New Zealand has a unique system in the region where regionally-owned savings banks and government-owned energy companies were sold and the proceeds used to set up community trusts mandated to provide income distributions to charitable causes.

 China, over the last 25 years, had averaged economic growth rates of about 9.37%, its share of global growth from 1995-2002 estimated at 25%, compared to 20% for the US. According to Hurun’s Rich List, in 2007, China had 106 USD billionaires, up from only 15 the year before, and none at all in 2002. [viii] As individual wealth has increased in China, philanthropy has also grown. An analysis of Hurun’s Philanthropy List over five years showed that in 2008, the top 100 philanthropists in China gave US$1.8 Billion.[ix] . Five years before, the top 50 philanthropists gave US $123.9 Million. [x]

 In 2008, charitable donations for China totaled roughly US$ 15 Billion, with about US$11 Billion going to the Sichuan Earthquake relief efforts.  The 2008 giving was about 3.5 times the amount of charitable donations in 2007, with 54% of 2008 donations coming from individuals. [xi] In the first quarter of 2009, only a fraction of the giving was recorded compared to the same period the year before. The Chronicle of Philanthropy attributes this to the economic downturn and perhaps also a skepticism about how the earthquake money was spent.[xii] 

 Darwin Chen, Honorary Chair of Habitat for Humanity China and past Chair of APPC, thinks that philanthropy’s value is to help maintain social stability.  By alleviating poverty, philanthropy minimizes feelings against those who have. After the Sichuan Earthquake, the Chinese central government decreed that every wealthy city give 1% of their annual revenues for rehabilitation of Sichuan. “This sent a good message, because in a country as big as China, the government sets the tone for the other sectors”.

 Ailing Zhuang, Executive Director of the Shanghai NGO Development Center and APPC Board member agrees that the Central government’s role in China is critical. When President Hu Jin Tao gave a December 2008 speech expressing the hope that different kinds of charity organizations in China would promote the culture of philanthropy, this was significant, as it was the first time the Central government acknowledged the importance of philanthropy in China.

 Barnett Baron, Executive Vice President of The Asia Foundation, APPC Founding Chair and an East Asian philanthropy scholar, agrees that the Chinese government is indeed encouraging more private philanthropy as a result of the Sichuan earthquake and the significant donations that came from the Chinese themselves, but they would like to carefully control where that philanthropy goes.  It should go where the Central government determines, not necessarily to building the infrastructure that creates a flourishing civil society.  The Chinese government is learning, however, that they should not control everything, so to a certain extent, they are able to let some things happen.  China has accomplished a lot, especially for such a huge population, and while things are changing in terms of government’s willingness to let private philanthropy play a role, it will change very slowly and very deliberately, with government always controlling the pace of that openness, so that society does not become fragmented.

 Ramon Magsaysay Awardee Won Soon Park, founder of  South Korea’s The Beautiful Foundation and APPC Board member,  noted that although the culture of philanthropy, of helping neighbors, has been rooted in Korean culture for a long time, it has never been, until the last decade, defined as such.  In addition to the traditional areas of giving, Koreans are beginning to give to such causes as human rights, corporate citizenship and the need to empower public benefit organizations, worker education and human rights, something that bodes well for social justice and social transformation.   

Hideko Katsumata, Managing Director of Japan Center for International Exchange and APPC Board member, laments a continuing lack of recognition in Japan of the role and importance of civil society organizations in the governance of society.  There is a reluctance among all sectors, including ordinary Japanese, to support nonprofit activities led by civil society organizations.  While incorporation and legal registration for civil society organizations has been somewhat  eased after the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, when civil society’s response was faster and more effective than government, it remains an uphill battle for the sector in Japan to gain recognition and support.

 Eric Teng, CEO of Tan Chin Tuan Foundation and a Board Member of the National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre (NVPC), shared that in Singapore, there is clear evidence of strong philanthropic giving, with a sharp increase in donation amounts mostly to charities that are accorded "Institutions Of A Public Character" (IPCs) [S$341Million in 2006 to S$958Million in 2008], or an increase of 180%.[xiii]  This is evident, despite a series of controversies involving some charities and despite the financial crisis. Volunteering has risen as well, from 35 million hours in 2006 to 49 million volunteer hours in 2008, a reflection of philanthropy taking root in the Singaporean psyche.

 In the Philippines, a report of the League of Corporate Foundations showed that corporate social investment contributions almost doubled between 2007 and 2008, from 2.15 Billion Pesos in 2007 to 4.13 Billion Pesos in 2008. The report also noted that corporations were focusing on long-term philanthropic investments, such as the environment and sustainable development, rather than on one-off donations. [xiv]

 Surveys conducted by the Public Interest Research and Advocacy (PIRAC) organization in Indonesia showed that close to 100% of Indonesians give donations, although the amounts of giving are affected by the country’s economic situation, with giving rates dropping when the economy is perceived to be bad. [xv]

 The significance of philanthropy is highlighted in research undertaken in Pakistan showing that in 1998, individual philanthropy resources (including volunteering and in-kind giving) was at Rs70 Billion (over US$1 Billion) while government social sector spending in that same year was at Rs83 Billion. [xvi] In a Johns Hopkins study, for the 1995-2002 period, total philanthropy (including volunteering) amounted to .36% of GDP. [xvii]

 Annual corporate giving surveys conducted by the Pakistan Centre on Philanthropy show that corporate giving increased 8 times between 2000 and 2007, from Rs228 Million to Rs 1.87 Billion.[xviii]

 

The Global Financial Crisis:  Its Impact on Philanthropy

 The Asian Development Bank, in its April 2009 publication, Global Economic Crisis, Challenges for Developing Asia and ADB’s Response, estimated that as a result of the Global Financial Crisis, the projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decline will result in 2009 with about 60 million more US$1.25/day poor and about 80 million additional vulnerable people living under US$2/day in the Asia Pacific region, compared to a scenario where high growth rates of 2007 would have continued.  In 2010, there would be around 100 million additional US$1.25/day poor and 130 million more vulnerable people.  [xix]

 

How will this affect philanthropy in the region?  Most of the philanthropy experts agree that the impact on philanthropy is already being felt worldwide.  While final numbers are not yet in, there is also some reason for hope. 

 

In the United States, long held to be the center of organized philanthropy, Rob Buchanan, Managing Director of International Programs of the Council on Foundations and APPC Board member, commented that in a March 2009 Council survey on the impact of the US economic recession on its members, nearly 3/4 of the foundations which responded reported asset declines of 25% or more in 2008, and 2/3 reported a further 10% drop in 2009.  As a result, 62% of foundation respondents are reducing their 2009 grant making, However, 32% plan to either maintain or increase their giving budgets in response to urgent needs caused by the economic downturn.  Most of these foundations have committed their 2009 budgets to directly or indirectly aid families, provide human services, assist low-income populations or support economic development.  US foundations are also finding other alternatives to stretch their grant making funds. Some are collaborating with other funders, others are assisting their grantees to improve their use of assistance and some are providing operating support for nonprofit organizations.

 

 Ian Wilhelm, in a Philanthropy Today article noted that the economic downturn has indeed affected philanthropy in the region. Asia Pacific foundations have lost, like their American counterparts, between 20-30% of their assets and people’s wealth have declined.  This has affected many non-profits, which used to rely on funding from abroad, and are now forced to tap local funding sources.  More severely impacted, however, are smaller non-profits. With the cutbacks, grant makers will more likely give to larger organizations who are better at writing proposals, managing donations and reporting results. An opportunity has opened up, however, in local fundraising.  Although often requiring more work, it has also opened the eyes of local fundraisers about its potentials and given them the chance to tell their story.[xx]

 

In India, the other economic powerhouse in the region, Priya Viswanath, former CEO of Charities Aid Foundation India and APPC Board member, notes the tremendous change in the philanthropy landscape in the last decade.  Priya thinks that while Indians have always been a giving people, the last few years have seen a more urbane India practice more organized giving. While no comprehensive research has been undertaken in India to assess the quantum and nature of philanthropic giving in many decades now, there are few sample surveys, anecdotal accounts and articles on increased giving by individuals in urban cities and towns to community based initiatives and projects. 

 

In a 2004 book on Indian philanthropy written by Viswanath and Noshir Dadrawala, CEO of the Indian Centre for the Advancement of Philanthropy and APPC Board member, they wrote:

 

“Philanthropy?as traditionally practiced by private trusts, family foundations, corporate donors and intermediary agencies, has had only a limited impact on bridging the equity divide.  While a variety of foundations and trusts have made strategic investments in the social space, the inputs and supplements provided by the private sector have been minimal.  However, the world is changing rapidly, and so too, the situation in India.

 

Many trusts established by corporate leaders are increasingly strategic in addressing societal challenges.  The information technology revolution has had a significant and positive impact on philanthropic investment trends. Diaspora philanthropy is significant, and has made particularly strategic investments in education and the digital divide.  There is the beginning of a philanthropic infrastructure to support and nurture philanthropic engagement.  Increasingly, philanthropic and social investment capital in India targets such areas as education, healthcare, population, gender issues, natural resource management, energy and enterprise development; many initiatives are focused on rural areas.”[xxi]

 

While the Global Financial Crisis has affected India as well, the predictions are that India will grow at 5-6%, so from a perceived government standpoint, there is no real recession in India, says Priya.

 

But is organized philanthropic giving widely practiced and is it addressing issues of poverty and equity?  Despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s urging corporate leaders to “eschew conspicuous consumption, save more and waste less and care for those who are less privileged and less well-off and be role models for moderation and charity”, Shankar Venkateswaran, Advisor, Sustainability Limited, thinks India’s” high net worth individuals don’t make such investments in a country where the distinction between the haves and have-nots is wide, appalling and growing.”[xxii]

 

Noshir Dadrawala thinks the government should do much more to encourage philanthropy in times of economic stress, such as providing better tax breaks or deductions.  While the non-profit sector is beginning to feel the pinch as grant making organizations become more selective about their causes and grantees, there is also a sense that in these times of crises, the non-profit sector has an even bigger and more important role to play. In fact, Dadrawala says, the Finance Minister has just declared the New Income Tax Code that would have the effect of taxing income from trade, commerce of business of those NGOs which are not exclusively engaged in the field of education, medical relief and relief of the poor. 

 

The Bangladeshi government, on the other hand, has announced a stimulus package to deal with the impact of the global economic fallout. The package lays emphasis on the agricultural sector, a move that most economists, according to Safi Rahman Khan, Executive Director of the Bangladesh Freedom Foundation and APPC Board member, think is the right thing to do, considering Bangladesh’s high rural population. Safi adds, however, a growing concern about the widening income gap in the country.  This, he adds, is what philanthropy and the civil society sector, can address, together with government.  It is particularly urgent, since the impact of the Global Financial Crisis will take its toll on the poorest of the population.

 

The crisis in Thailand, according to Sukich Udindu, currently Vice President for Corporate Social Responsibility of Minor International Company Ltd. and former APPC Board member, is more than just a financial crisis?it is also a social and a political crisis that affects the big picture of philanthropy in Thailand. The Thai government has provided an economic stimulus package that will hopefully slow down the economic downturn. Thai business companies, in coping with the crisis, have resorted to reducing working hours in order to not lay off employees immediately.  Companies are prioritizing their giving commitments and are increasing their giving ability by encouraging increased employee volunteerism. The government has launched a major philanthropy campaign called ChumChon Porpeng or Sufficiency Economy Fund, to give resources to the  80,000 communities hardest hit across the country.  By providing the funds to the communities themselves, it hopes to promote the community as the center of development, engaging all the stakeholders in contributing to the solutions.  In some ways, Sukich thinks, it is propagating the concept of community foundations in Thailand.

 

In New Zealand,  early in 2009, the government announced a new Community Response Fund, a short-term, limited (2 years) fund aimed at immediately addressing both the “cost and the demand pressures the economic downturn is placing on key community-based critical social services for families, children, young and older people. The Community Response Fund assists the providers of critical social services with additional funding to meet the increased demand for their services or to meet their operating costs because of reduced funding. This is in addition to the mid-2008 introduction of significant tax changes encouraging individual and corporate giving, moving the country from being one of the most restrictive in terms of tax credits for philanthropy to one of the most liberal.

 

Erna Witoelar, APPC Chair and former UN Special Ambassador on the Millennium Development Goals for Asia and the Pacific, thinks that Indonesia, having come through the experience of the past Asian Financial Crisis, was better able to cope with this one.  It increased funding for its poverty reduction programs and expanded temporary employment programs. Government worked with the private sector to stave off lay-offs because of the crisis.  Philanthropy leaders like Erna went on national television to appeal to corporations to maintain their workforce and use their Corporate Social Responsibility resources for this.  Philanthropic giving is not declining as much as they had anticipated, she thinks, and civil society organizations are bringing to the attention of the public the target groups that have been hardest hit.

 

Natalia Soebagjo of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies Indonesia and APPC Board member, notes that because of the crisis, the giving has been directed toward relatively short term, and basic needs.  While understandable, the need to be more strategic and longer term in philanthropy has to be addressed when the crisis is over.

 

As in Thailand and Indonesia, in the Philippines, corporations are redefining their corporate social responsibility as related to their core business operations. They are looking at more ways to incorporate communities into their supply or market chains, according to Bobby Calingo, former Executive Director of Team Energy Foundation and APPC Treasurer.  The crisis has had good effects in that it has propelled business to align their programs to the Millennium Development Goals and to measure performance against those goals.  Business is also taking a harder look at the results for the philanthropic resources they are putting in. 

 

Philanthropy and the Future

 

Can philanthropy create the future of the region? 

 

Natalia Soebagjo thinks that it is unlikely that philanthropy can play a significant role in preventing the global crisis from happening again.  It can, help cushion the impact, when it does happen.  If philanthropists make strategic investments such as in education, it will go a long way to making the country’s social capital more stable and therefore more able to weather difficult economic situations. 

 

Christine Edwards suggests that philanthropists can be significant players in change by using their many other resources to influence people, thinking, action and change.  They can do this by acting as convenor, bringing people together who may not otherwise come together, by facilitating intra-philanthropic initiatives that stimulate thinking and debate, and by creating linkages amongst government, academia, the community and business.  This influencing role must be harnessed by philanthropists if deep and sustainable change is to occur, especially in difficult economic times.

 

The role of the philanthropist in changing times is perhaps best exemplified by James Chen, Chairman of the Chen Yet Sen Family Foundation. James, a third generation heir to his family’s fortune, professionalized the family’s  philanthropy, helped Chinese yak cheese producers refine their products, improve quality and hygiene issues and establish a marketing entity to help them brand, market and distribute yak cheese. He developed a social entrepreneurial opportunity with an Oxford University Physics professor, who had developed an innovative, fluid-filled variable power lens that could be fitted into frames and adjusted by wearers to achieve enhanced vision.  The availability of such a device would be a low-cost solution for vision correction. James Chen and Dr. Silver, in developing the enterprise, developed a strategy that would develop parallel applications of the technology into products addressing commercial opportunities in the developed world. The commercial applications, they hope, will sustain the enterprise as they solve the marketing and distribution issues to make affordable vision available in developing countries.  His vision, to find ways to help others in a financially sustainable way may be a good example of what philanthropy could be, moving toward.

 

Most of the interviews touched on the importance of the role of the State in philanthropy.  Barnett Baron thinks that the question of whether philanthropy should be creating the future is part of the debate about the role of government or the State at this juncture in time. Because of what has recently happened, the US is moving toward a government that is intervening in a much stronger way in the provision of social services for its population, rather than allowing the private sector and free markets to handle that, with government just providing the regulatory framework.  Increasingly, people are cynical about the capacity of deregulated sectors and services to provide the needs of its people, particularly for poor and marginalized populations.

 

On the other hand, Asia starts with the opposite philosophy?that it is the State’s role to provide these services for its citizenry and that philanthropy can enhance and complement, but not take away from the responsibility of the State in this. “ In the US, the current movement toward a more dominant State, and in Asia, which is beginning to loosen somewhat its control of philanthropy, there might be a convergence of attitude.”

 

Certainly, there is some reason to think that this “convergence of attitude” is taking place in various countries.  In Thailand, as in Singapore, the government has set up the National Center for Giving and Volunteering, to promote the giving culture of the nation.  The Stock Market of Thailand, in 2007, established the Corporate Social Responsibility Institute to promote CSR among local and international corporations, large, medium and small.  They promote CSR principles such as the Global Compact, and a CSR Club has just been formed for the new movement of CSR and Philanthropy, much like the League of Corporate Foundations in the Philippines, according to Sukich Udindu. 

 

Pakistan is one of the countries where civil society has been able to work effectively with government in creating an enabling regulatory environment for philanthropy, including authorizing the Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy to certify non-profit organizations in its behalf. This will hopefully minimize the suspicion and lack of trust toward the sector.  

 

One bright spot in the philanthropy landscape, according to Bobby Calingo, is the interest of the ASEAN Foundation in organizing an ASEAN CSR, a movement to promote Corporate Social Responsibility practices among ASEAN nations.

 

The need for donor education was raised in many of the interviews. In South Korea, believing in the importance of developing a more sustainable and institutionalized culture of giving and sharing, the Beautiful Foundation developed Na-num-gyo-yuk, a program to teach philanthropy in elementary schools. This donor education program has several themes: definition and method of philanthropy, history and culture of philanthropy, philanthropy and community and philanthropy and individual, participation in giving and serving. Aside from classroom lessons, there is a 4-day summer camp to learn about, and experience philanthropy in everyday life.  Philanthropy education tools contain animated videos, a children’s guidebook and a sharing box--a cardboard piggy bank, with different parts on an image on the top. When put together, several sharing boxes form a complete picture.  “We want to teach children the value of working together”, says Mr. Park.  

 

One of the things that has helped philanthropy weather crises is the ability of various sectors to work together to achieve an important goal. In the Philippines, the 57-75 Movement came about, led by both corporate philanthropy groups and education advocates.  The group’s name, 57-75, was inspired by the results of the National Achievement Test at that time.  The number 57, the average test score, symbolized the current state of the Philippine public school system.  75 is the score that the government Education Ministry refers to as beginning mastery, the goal of the program.  57-75 is a reversal in numbers, a good rallying cry to try and turn things around, both in the way the education system is seen and the way issues are addressed.  The program focuses on addressing the three main issues of the Philippine educational system:  the school drop out rate, reading proficiencies and improving achievement rates in English, Science and Math.  The program provides resource holders/philanthropists with the opportunity to pick local areas which have already organized multi-sectoral education alliances and have formulated education plans to address the issues. The program implements a series of tested solutions in these local areas, with philanthropic resources that pay for specific interventions, until each area has a complete set of resources to address the needs.

 

For non-profit organizations in Asia and the Pacific, the Global Financial Crisis is a real opportunity to try new ways to raise funds, especially from within their countries.  Because of the crisis, hard questions are being asked about the impact of investments philanthropy has made in the past. Non-profit organizations need to be better governed, more transparent and more accountable, in order to survive the worst of the crisis.  Good governance is a competitive advantage, especially in a time of decreasing philanthropy funds. Non-profit organizations need to cast a wider net as well, looking beyond their own borders, to other countries, where increasingly large numbers of Asians live and work.  These diaspora populations have great potentials for philanthropy, rooted culturally and emotionally to their homeland. A study of the Pakistani diaspora in the US showed, for instance, that the Pakistani diaspora gave 3.5% of their household incomes for philanthropy as compared to 3.1% for all other US households.[xxiii]  It is yet another opportunity to “tell their story” to an audience that may have more of a desire and a stake in supporting those causes long into the future.

 

As Shamsh Kassim Lakha, former Education Minister of Pakistan and currently Board Chair of the Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy said: “The mindset and attitude of developing countries is one of poverty, that they have no resources and it is the industrialized countries that will help them. This is changing.  Wealth is being created at a faster pace in developing regions like Asia than in industrialized countries.  That wealth, if tapped directly, can be channeled into philanthropy, creating a powerful tool for social transformation.”

 

Conclusion

 

It is evident from both the experts and research that philanthropy has grown in Asia and the Pacific in the recent past.  And, despite the economic crisis, there is room for optimism that the region, and philanthropy, will bounce back and continue moving forward. 

 However, there is much scope for improvement. In particular, in

 ·      advocating with government to develop a more positive environment for philanthropy to thrive and develop deeper roots,

·      working more positively with government to make that happen,

·      working with other sectors to collectively solve what many consider intractable problems,

·      developing donor education programs so that philanthropists think not just of giving, but of giving more, and

·      thinking about how philanthropy can help bring about more longer- lasting solutions to social problems…

 

…and in the process, helping to create a better future for the peoples of the region.

  

About the Author

 

Rory Francisco-Tolentino was, until August, 2008, Chief Executive of the Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium, an independent association of grantmaking philanthropic institutions and organizations that support the growth and development of philanthropy in the Asia Pacific region. Ms. Tolentino wishes to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Ms. Alexie Ferreria-Mercado, APPC Program Officer and Ms. Tina Villadolid-Pavia, former APPC Program Officer.

 

About APPC

 

The Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium is an independent association of grantmaking philanthropic institutions and organizations that support the growth and development of philanthropy in the Asia Pacific region.  Since 1994, APPC has built up an excellent and unique platform for leaders in the philanthropy sector to exchange ideas and share best practices.

 

Its mission is to increase the quality and quantity of philanthropy for Asia by strengthening the institutional infrastructure and improving the operating environment for the philanthropy sector. To achieve this mission, APPC serves as catalyst, convener and network builder.