Social capital in Germany

Voluntary associations in Germany are far from stagnant and indeed have changed markedly in recent decades.Footnote ² It is estimated that there are around 500,000 clubs and societies in Germany. Just under 60 per cent of the population of western Germany aged 15 or more years belongs to one or more associations (Klein Reference Klein, Schäfers and Zapf1998: 678). The equivalent percentage in eastern Germany was 25 in 1990, since when it has risen closer to the western figure. The upper-middle classes with higher educational qualifications are far more strongly represented in associations than people of lower income and education (Offe and Fuchs Reference Offe, Fuchs and Putnam2001). The latter are especially under-represented in the new forms of civil associations, such as social movements or self-help groups, and are accordingly less equipped with social capital. In the past, many such groups were integrated into associations with broader aims that were the bedrock of the socio-moral milieu, such as labour unions or the Catholic Church.

The available data also reveals an average increase in voluntary engagement in Germany over the past 30 years. The Freiwilligensurvey [Survey of Volunteers], for example, has recorded an increase in activism in recent years (Rosenbladt Reference Rosenbladt2000; Gensicke, Picot and Geiss Reference Gensicke, Picot and Geiss2005). The Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend [Ministry for the Family, Older People, Women and Youth] initiated the Survey of Volunteers in 1999 and the results of the 2004 wave have recently been issued. It reports higher rates of volunteering than other sources. Since the survey focuses extensively on all areas of voluntary action (community action was also measured but distinguished from voluntary action), it might be more accurate than studies that touch these areas only superficially. On the other hand, it might be true that people who are engaged in voluntary organisations are motivated to respond and were over-represented in the survey.

In 1999 throughout Germany, 34 per cent of the population aged 14 or more years were involved in volunteer work, and in 2004 the figure was 36 per cent. The equivalent figures for West Germany were 36 and 37 per cent, while in the former East German Länder (states), the figures were 28 and 31 per cent (Gensicke Reference Gensicke and Rosenbladt2000: 176; Gensicke, Picot and Geiss Reference Gensicke, Picot and Geiss2005). The highest growth was among people aged 60 or more years (from 26 to 30%). If one looks only at those aged 60–69 years, the rate of participation rose from 31 to 37 per cent (Gensicke, Picot and Geiss Reference Gensicke, Picot and Geiss2005: 16). This difference shows that those aged 70 or more years volunteer less often, e.g. in 2004, 18 per cent of 76-year-olds were volunteers. The decrease in volunteering with increasing age can be explained by the associated increases in health problems and needs for care and support.

A regression analysis in the latest Survey of Volunteers report identified the independent variables that were the strongest predictors of volunteering. In general, level of education was one of the most influential socio-demographic variables, and for those aged 14–24 years it was the most important variable. Among elderly people, participation in voluntary work was less strongly influenced by educational background and the number of friends and acquaintances was the most important predictor (Gensicke, Picot and Geiss Reference Gensicke, Picot and Geiss2005: 328). Religious commitment is also more influential among older than younger people. Unfortunately, the Survey of Volunteers did not distinguish childless older people from those with children, and collected information about children only if they were living in the household of the interviewee.

Social capital in the United States

The state of civic engagement in the United States is much more difficult to describe than Putnam's diagnosis of the erosion of social capital suggests. The number of associations has risen during the last 25 years although the total membership, and therefore the share of the American population that is active in associations, have both decreased (Wuthnow Reference Wuthnow and Putnam2001: 666–72). At the same time, participation in elections has fallen significantly. Nonetheless, civic engagement in general has remained quite stable. Around 45 to 50 per cent of the adult population has been involved in some form of voluntary action throughout the past 20 years, a much higher share than in the mid-1970s when less than 30 per cent of the adult population was actively involved. The rates vary with educational background: 40 per cent of those with a high school degree volunteer, whereas 60 to 65 per cent of those with a college degree do so. There is a similar differential by income, and there are differences by ethnic group: Whites have higher volunteering rates than African-Americans or Hispanics. Most importantly, people who regularly go to church have volunteering rates above 60 per cent, whereas the rate among those who do not go to church is 38 per cent (Hodgkinson, Nelson and Sivak Reference Hodgkinson, Nelson, Sivak and Salamon2002: 391).

While a general decline of social capital is not apparent, there is increasing evidence of growing inequality in the possession of social capital. Robert Wuthnow concluded that social capital had not eroded evenly, but rather had become more unequally distributed. Instead of erosion, there has been exclusion: ‘the fall in the membership of associations has always been higher among the socio-economically less privileged than among people who are already more privileged’ (1999: 695). The encompassing study of Verba, Schlozman and Brady (Reference Verba, Schlozman and Brady1995) reached similar conclusions. More often than in the past, members of the lower classes escape the networks of civic recruitment. It is such networks, at workplaces and in trades unions or religious congregations, that ask people to participate and volunteer. Verba and colleagues stressed that, with the unions in decline, churches represent the only places where under-privileged groups are recruited for civic action and can learn civic skills.

The United States

Charitable giving in the United States is deeply influenced by religious affiliation: those who go to church (at least once a month) give a share of their income that is three times higher than that given by people with weaker ties to a church (O'Herlihy, Havens and Schervish Reference O'Herlihy, Havens, Schervish, Powell and Steinberg2006: 16). Religious congregations receive the greatest share of charitable donations, which amount to around 40 per cent of the total. If transfers only from private households are included and institutional donors excluded, in 2002 the share given to religious congregations was 53 per cent (p. 34). Furthermore, members of religious congregations give more to non-religious causes than people with no religious affiliation (Bielefeld, Rooney and Steinberg Reference Bielefeld, Rooney, Steinberg and Brooks2005: 133). The educational background of a person is one of the most important predictors of charitable giving. After controlling for both income and wealth, people with higher levels of educational achievement give more.

Another factor not to be overlooked is the role played by the expansion and professionalisation of fundraising. Over the 20th century, professional fundraisers emerged and encouraged the broadening and democratisation of charitable giving. Hodgkinson (2002: 398) concluded, ‘the growth of the fundraising profession in recent decades helped to expand giving beyond the wealthy to the population more broadly’. They have an important stimulation effect, for the very fact of being asked for a contribution is one of the best predictors of charitable giving. Other important influences are being the member of an association and being active in it, for the latter make donations twice as often as non-members and they give two to four times more (O'Herlihy, Havens and Schervish Reference O'Herlihy, Havens, Schervish, Powell and Steinberg2006: 17).

As far as the United States is concerned, there is clear evidence that successive cohorts have followed different patterns of charitable giving (Steinberg and Wilhelm Reference Steinberg and Wilhelm2003: 3ff.). After controlling for wealth and income, which generally rise with age, the cohort effect can be still observed. Those born before 1945 are more generous than those born more recently, which supports Robert Putnam's (Reference Putnam2000) thesis that there is a civic generation in the United States.Footnote ³ Another interesting aspect according to one study is that married people give a higher share of their income than the unmarried even when controlling for income after tax. Furthermore, people with children give more than the childless (Jencks Reference Jencks and Powell1987: 326ff.). To conclude, charitable giving is first of all inherently connected to volunteering and networks of participation, and participation in religious congregations has the greatest influence on the behaviour (Schervish and Havens Reference Schervish and Havens1997: 247).

Germany

During the last 15 years, several studies on charitable giving in Germany have reached very different conclusions. Not all the source data are in the public domain since most of the research has been by private-sector market research organisations. Federal income tax statistics show, however, that in 2001 28 per cent of all taxpayers declared tax deductibility for charitable giving, and that total donations were €2.8 billion. In the nature of tax declarations, the actual total would have been higher (Buschle Reference Buschle2005). Buschle's analysis also found that, on average, 0.27–0.28 per cent of income was donated, and 47 per cent of donors were men and 53 per cent women. As in the United States, people with children gave more often and larger sums than the childless. The same was true for religious affiliation: people paying church tithes gave more to other causes too. Thus, financial burdens do not lead automatically to a decreased amount of charitable giving. Both the participation rate and the donated share of income were higher in West Germany than in East Germany: East Germans gave away 0.16 per cent of their income, West Germans 0.3 per cent. Among unmarried contributors, 26 per cent were aged 30–40 years and they donated only 18 per cent of the total sum. Older people (aged 65 or more years) made up 16 per cent of all donors, but their share of the total sum of contributions was 30 per cent, and among them giving was rather unequal. Very few gave very much, which makes for a high average and a low modal donation.

The working group Spenden in Deutschland [Giving in Germany] interviewed more than 5,200 people over the telephone (see www.spenden-in-deutschland.de). One-half (49.5%) of those interviewed had contributed to charitable causes over the previous 12 months. A major finding was that both the educational as well as the religious background had a decisive influence on patterns of charitable giving. Those aged 45–59 years were the most active donors. Thus, in both the United States and Germany, socio-demographic attributes such as income, education, gender, religious affiliation and civic engagement influence whether or not an individual donates to charitable causes (cf. Adloff Reference Adloff, Hopt, Hippel and Walz2005b).

Priller and Sommerfeld (Reference Priller and Sommerfeld2005) analysed the information on charitable giving collected by the aforementioned Survey of Volunteers, and found many of the same correlations as identified for the United States. A higher than expected participation rate of 63 per cent was reported. The survey has data on the amounts donated and three categories were distinguished: up to €100, €101–500, and €501 or more. Since the last category is open, estimating the total sum donated is inexact but it is clear that the better educated, the religiously committed, women and the older people donated money to charitable organisations more often than others. The survey showed that most of the differences between East and West Germany can be explained by religious differences. Among those with a religious affiliation, 69 per cent participated in charitable giving, and among those with strong ties to their church, the rate was 80 or more per cent (ibid.). A close relationship between volunteering and giving was also observed. Even members of associations who did not volunteer gave more often to charities than non-members, and among those who volunteered, the more intensively their effort, the more they gave. Volunteering rates varied markedly with religious affiliation: e.g. East Germans with a strong church affiliation had twice the participation rate in volunteering than those with no religious affiliation (Braun and Klages Reference Braun and Klages2001: 53).Footnote ⁴

It should be remembered that the German data on volunteering and charitable giving lack detail and do not allow for the reliable differentiation of Protestants, Catholics and those with no religious affiliation. Nonetheless, there is strong evidence of a connection between educational background and giving behaviour; people with a high school degree are much more likely to give than people with lower education. The Survey of Volunteers also showed that older people give more often than younger adults. Moreover it is evident that higher household income associates with higher rates of participation in charitable giving, but that the share of household income that is donated does not necessarily increase.

Priller and Sommerfeld (Reference Priller and Sommerfeld2005) also analysed the data on charitable giving in the 2002/2003 European Social Survey (ESS). The ESS collected only whether an individual made a donation during the previous year, not the amount. According to the ESS data, the rate of participation in charitable giving among the adult population in Germany was 32 per cent. The Nordic welfare states had higher rates (Sweden, 44%; Norway, 41%; and Denmark, 34%), and The Netherlands had the highest rate (45%) – it is interesting to note that inclusive welfare states do not ‘crowd out’ private charitable giving. In comparison, the Mediterranean countries with more limited welfare states and strong family support regimes (cf. Kohli Reference Kohli1999, Reference Kohli and Silverstein2004) had remarkably low rates of participation in charitable giving (Greece, 9%; Italy, 11%; Spain, 15%). Post-communist countries such as Poland (12%) and Hungary (6%) also had low rates, whereas the rate in the United Kingdom was relatively high (39%). The similar participation rate (37%) in Austria is most interesting since in that country there are no tax deductions for charitable contributions. It seems that cultures of giving do not correspond to overall patterns of state activity or economic incentives. Nor is the gender differential in giving consistent. In Ireland, Slovenia, Poland and Greece, men gave more often than women, whereas in the Scandinavian countries women accounted for significantly more of the donations than men.

The ESS data enables charitable giving to be analysed by age group. Priller and Sommerfeld (Reference Priller and Sommerfeld2005) distinguished those aged 14–34, 35–64, and 65 or more years. It is striking that in all countries except The Netherlands, those aged 35–64 years has the highest participation rate, and younger and older people gave less often. This contradicts the findings of the Survey of Volunteers, which found that older people had the highest rate of participation. Unfortunately, older people without children cannot be identified from the ESS, only whether or not children were living in the same household. Furthermore, Priller and Sommerfeld's paper did not report multivariate analyses.

The StifterStudie: a study of founders

Beginning in the autumn of 2003, the Bertelsmann Foundation carried out a study of individual founders. First 22 in-depth interviews were conducted, and then in early 2004 all 1,660 founders who set up an independent foundation after 1990 were sent a questionnaire (for details see Timmer Reference Timmer, Strachwitz and Mercker2005a, Reference Timmer2005b). The list of founders was supplied by the Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen [German Association of Foundations]. It was learned that 306 of the founders had died. More than 500 of the remaining founders returned completed questionnaires, a response rate of 46 per cent. Most had set up his or her foundation when alive, whereas in the past foundations were often established by testament. Among the respondents, 70 per cent were men, 70 per cent were married, and the most prevalent 10-year age group was 60–69 years referring to the year of establishment. Most had children, but 42 per cent were childless, a high share given that in Germany only 14 per cent of those aged 50 or more years have no children.

The founders were highly educated: 37 per cent had a diploma from a university or a technical college, and 20 per cent held a doctorate. The largest (44%) occupational group were entrepreneurs, and more than one-half of these owned a company with more than 50 employees. Every other (52%) founder said that the assets of the foundation came from entrepreneurial activity, while 28 per cent said their wealth had accrued from salaries, and 25 per cent from bequests or gifts. Fourteen per cent indicated that they came from an upper-class background, 62 per cent from the bourgeoisie or middle classes, 13 per cent from the petit bourgeoisie or lower-middle classes, and 10 per cent from a worker's household. The private wealth of the respondent founders was as follows: 20 per cent had assets exceeding €4 million; 17 per cent had €2–4 million; 40 per cent between €0.25–2 million; and more than 20 per cent less than €250,000. The last figure shows that setting up a foundation is not necessarily a prerogative of super-wealthy citizens. Indeed, it emerged that both community foundations and private independent foundations hold comparatively low assets.

Among the motives of the founders, ‘serving the common good’ and ‘duty’ ranked much higher than ‘gaining influence’ or ‘self-fulfilment’, but nonetheless personal interests were very important. Fulfilling a rewarding task, being content, and feeling connected to the recipients of grants were the founders' three most important expectations when establishing a foundation. Most (82%) of the respondents said that there was more than one reason for establishing their foundation, and many mentioned very specific motivations; for example, the intervention of fate such as an illness motivated 24 per cent; 26 per cent mentioned an unexpected bequest; 27 per cent the need to organise one's own inheritance; and seven per cent cited the inheritance of a family company. Being without an heir prompted many to think about establishing a foundation. Among all the respondents, 43 per cent said that the foundation was something that they were ‘giving to posterity’, and the childless reported this motivation more than others. During their lifetimes, many founders had avoided becoming publicly recognised and 45 per cent wished to remain anonymous. It is interesting that 65 per cent reported that no friends or acquaintances were associated with their voluntarism.

Maintaining control over the resources was important to all the founders: 53 per cent declared that they wished to control what happens to their money and did not want to give it to independent charities or even to the state through taxation. Ideas of sustainability and perpetuity were important to 71 per cent of the founders. The enduring fulfilment of a fixed purpose motivated them to establish the foundation as a legal entity. In contrast, donations are one-off transfers that are rarely repeated and do not lead to a lasting sense of transcendence. Most of the foundations set up in recent years have been rather small: 43 per cent of the respondents said that the endowment was less than €100,000, and only seven per cent bestowed more than €2.5 million. Consequently, 49 per cent hoped that their foundations would receive other donations and contributions, and 44 per cent planned to donate to their foundation after death through their wills. Many foundations had assets up to €307,000, the maximum for a tax allowance (by a new regulation in 2000). Indeed, 41 per cent of those who set up a foundation in 2000 or after said that they chose the legal form of a foundation over other forms of charitable giving because it received tax privileges.

Privileged milieus and the common good

In connection with the report on poverty and wealth commissioned by the German government, the Berliner Institut für Sozialforschung [Berlin Institute for Social Research] was asked to study the role of the most privileged members of society in maintaining social hierarchies (Schulze et al. Reference Schulze, Steffens and Meyer2004). Part of the project was to focus on the voluntary action and giving of wealthy citizens, and the study addressed the specific questions of under what circumstances private wealth is given for public purposes and the value of such philanthropy for society. This was the first qualitative study of German charitable founders. In 2002, 14 founders associated with 19 charitable foundations, one patron and one chairman of a charitable association were interviewed using open-ended questions. The interviews were fully transcribed and content analysis performed.

The foundations held assets between €50,000 and €25 million. Following an article by Sigmund (Reference Sigmund2000), the hypothesis was examined that founders are characterised by bourgeois entrepreneurship, individualism and a certain sense of mission. The motives of gratitude towards society, altruism, the wish to influence social processes, and prestige were all expected to be important. These hypotheses were quite strongly supported. Furthermore, the researchers discovered that setting up a foundation was closely linked both to a normative family tradition that endorses commitment to the common good, and to specific life circumstances and events, such as retirement, problems with finding a successor for the family company, and health-related crises. It emerged that some founders either did not want their offspring to inherit their entire estate or believed they had no need of the inheritance.

Many interviewees said that giving back to society is the obligation of those who had the fortune to earn or inherit substantial wealth. The following words of a founder are illustrative and reminiscent of Andrew Carnegie's aphorism: ‘It is not a sin to become rich; it is only a sin to die rich’. This, of course, also legitimises wealth and social inequality. The study suggests that gratitude and the desire to repay society are among the founders' major motivations, and that they are also aware that there is a personal return, e.g. recognition and prestige. Self-fulfilment and a sense of purpose in life are also motivating factors. Most of the founders interviewed had substantial social capital, and understood that this was increased by establishing a foundation. Most of the day-to-day work of foundations is done voluntarily and founders relied heavily on their social networks. Next to financial capital, social capital seems to be the most important resource for a foundation to be feasible and effective; without it, grant making or operational processes are impossible. When asked what circumstances favoured or hindered the development of foundations, the interviewees thought that demographic changes as well as increasing wealth would contribute to their spread. In contrast, the German ‘culture of social envy’ was mentioned as an inhibiting factor. Many wealthy people think that most people envy them and are therefore disinclined to demonstrate their wealth by setting up foundations. Some wealthy peers also disapprove of philanthropy. The interviewees argued for a culture that on the one hand appreciates wealth, and on the other hand, has a commitment to the common good. The United States was often cited as a model.

Two attitudes towards the state were characteristic. One type of founder has neo-liberal views and wants to reduce state activity to its core functions. When the state retreats from various fields of action this type of founder sees rich opportunities for his or her own activity. The other type is more benign towards the traditions of the European welfare state and does not want the state to give up its entire array of activities. This split within the German foundation community was also identified by a research project on the roles and visions of foundations in Europe undertaken by the London School of Economics (LSE) in 2001 (see Adloff et al. Reference Adloff, Schwertmann, Sprengel, Strachwitz, Anheier and Daly2007). The German evidence showed that the field of foundations can be divided between a liberal branch that is distant from the state, and a corporatist sub-sector that works closely with state agencies. In Germany, the liberal sector emphasises independence from the state and has grown strongly for 20 years. The share of foundations in the social-corporatist sector – which started during the late 19th century – has shrunk. The new self-consciousness among founders and foundations is one of being private and independent actors with the right to take part in the process of defining the common good.

Altruism: a personality trait or an organisational category?

Over the last 20 to 30 years, the concept of the altruist as the counter-weight to the utilitarian egoist has been revived in economic theory. The work of Oliner and Oliner (Reference Oliner and Oliner1988) on those who rescued Jews from the Nazis, and of Titmuss (1997 [Reference Titmuss, Oakley and Ashton1970]) on blood donors, have been immensely influential. Various psychological motivations have been discussed but only a limited range of explanations has been forthcoming. Although the features of an altruistic personality are not easy to identify, many studies have shown that interactions between the ego and the social environment are an important aspect of altruistic behaviour (Monroe Reference Monroe1994: 888).

A different approach was taken by Kieran Healy (Reference Healy2000, Reference Healy2004) in his internationally comparative studies of altruism, specifically of blood donation regimes in Europe. He asked why it is that, for example, 14 per cent of adults in Luxembourg donated, whereas in France 44 per cent did so. Are the French more altruistic than the Luxembourgers? Healy showed that the organisation and institutionalisation of blood donation regimes is decisive. Different regimes have a different relationship with the general population and different methods for finding and activating potential donors. Not only do the motives vary but also the institutional setting of collecting blood. He concluded, ‘poor organisation – rather than selfish motivation – kept people from giving’ (Healy Reference Healy2000: 1642). Healy (Reference Healy2004) also studied organ donation in the United States and similarly showed that altruism is highly institutionalised. Different organisational capacities explained the different rates of organ procurement among the states. The rates depended on the capacity of organisations to be present in hospitals and to get in direct contact with the relatives of the deceased. Healy concluded that altruism is not only a capacity of individuals but also embedded in organised environments which provide structures for the opportunity to be altruistic and that help create and shape the behaviour.

An interaction micro-model of philanthropic action

To be connected to associations and social networks shows a willingness to interact and at the same time creates the duty to do so. Paul Schervish, one of the leading scholars in the field of philanthropy, put it like this, ‘our conclusion is that charitable giving derives from forging an associational and psychological connection between donors and recipients’ (Schervish Reference Schervish2000: 10). The willingness to donate rests on involvement in networks of face-to-face relationships, which enable identification with the interests, needs and the suffering of others. It is of course easier to identify with causes that have direct implications for one's own life, as with much giving to religious communities, schools, universities or cultural institutions (Schervish and Ostrander Reference Schervish, Ostrander and Til1990: 78). Giving not only reinforces the social bond and therefore horizontal solidarity; it also has the potential to create hierarchical relations by demonstrating one's own rank. Randall Collins (Reference Collins and Hickman1991), for example, saw in rich individuals' charitable contributions a strategy to become members of ‘high society’ and a way to legitimise their economic status. It is particularly the case for elites that donations and charitable foundations are vehicles for their self-definition and expressions of identity (Silber Reference Silber, James and Allen1998: 143; cf. Adloff Reference Adloff2006; Ostrower Reference Ostrower1995).

A powerful theoretical representation of philanthropic action can be built from micro-models of interactions and action (cf. Sokolowski Reference Sokolowski1996; Fine and Harrington Reference Fine and Brooke2004). Individual philanthropic attitudes are, according to such a model, more the result of such actions than the reason for them. Social bonds and patterns of interaction are therefore better predictors of philanthropic activity than individual profiles or attitudes (Sokolowski Reference Sokolowski1996: 273). Motives for action are mostly generated in contexts of action and they are constantly re-framed through social actions (Joas Reference Joas1992: 236ff.). According to Sokolowski (Reference Sokolowski1996: 274), the reason that people voluntarily engage is ‘because someone showed them the way to a socially worthy deed’. People participate in social networks either because they are motivated by people close to them or through organisational recruitment. In their study on political participation in the United States, Verba, Schlozman and Brady (Reference Verba, Schlozman and Brady1995) pointed out that there are generally three possible reasons why people do not engage in voluntary action: either they lack the resources, they have no interest, or they stand outside recruitment networks, as of friends, at workplaces or through churches. In the United States, as has been noted, churches are the most important places for learning civic skills and for civic action.

When people are integrated into social networks and are directly involved, altruistic motives are reinforced: ‘this microstructural model of philanthropic behaviour can be illustrated as an expanded spiral that originates in social ties, and leads to participation in philanthropic activities which change the participant's attitudes which, in turn, motivates him or her for further participation’ (Sokolowski Reference Sokolowski1996: 275). This is the reason why small groups (families, friends, and colleagues) create a basis for voluntary action and charitable contributions. Small groups are the structural basis of civil society (Fine and Harrington 2004), and they offer opportunities for joint action, whether oriented towards solidarity or – and it is important to recognise this as well – to maintaining hierarchical boundaries. In group processes, problems are defined and duties for action created, and exceptionally this may apply to virtual communities such as television audiences (cf. Wenzel Reference Wenzel2001).