"Alma maters and other institutions of higher learning remain the most popular outlet for munificence (56 colleges and universities make the 2004 list) followed by private foundations (25) and hospitals and medical centers (18). Museums, libraries, and other groups dedicated to the arts are also popular."Zathras, as usual, is interesting (see the excerpt from the Fray below the article). Most of the following was posted there as a belated comment.
I suspect one factor is simply the structure of philanthropy. Having given (very modestly) to my alma mater and the Kennedy Center, I'm very aware of the fact that such institutions have a regular ladder of contribution levels. So someone who is competitive and has done well at competing has fund raisers beating at him or her to increase one's giving to the next level. And a reward for such giving is visibility--appearing on donor lists. Presumably most donors read the lists to see that they were recognized, and to see if they recognize other givers. One gets prestige by giving. And universities and such have a pre-existing community to solicit.
Mine is a circular argument--universities etc. get money by providing status and prestige to the givers. The better the university the more prestige derived by giving to it.
Helping the poor has little status, provides little prestige (except perhaps for saints like Mother Theresa, who may be highly regarded simply because they can't be a realistic role model for anyone), and there is no pre-existing community to solicit. People aren't automatically generous--the tsunami and 9/11 shows they'll respond to an event, but ongoing causes don't get money from heaven, they have to work at it. The high prestige cultural institutions have a big advantage there.
I might note that Dante needed the seven circles of hell to adequately distinguish degrees of evil. The Kennedy Center has eight circles distinguishing the different levels of giving. (Not that giving to the Kennedy Center is at all related to hell.)
No comments:
Post a Comment