Philanthropy in a Cold Climate; P. Frumkin

American grant-makers have been heartened by the development of Soviet philanthropy. Foundation News, the magazine for American foundation professionals, trumpeted on its cover the optimistic headline, "Glasnost's Biggest Sur prise: A Charitable Sector Is Born in Russia." Over the past two years, several groups of Ameri can grant-makers have organized tours of the Soviet Union. Part of the reason that so much interest is being expressed in Soviet foundations stems from the fact that private philanthropy can be a powerful force for social change, one that-in the United States, at least-often differs radically in approach from government. In fact, philanthropy's private, non-governmental character is considered one of its greatest virtues. By standing outside the public sector, private philanthropy is free from the pres sures of public opinion and can engage in experi mental and controversial projects that government would never be able to undertake for legal or polit ical reasons.

Because it is free to innovate, American philan thropy has brought competition to civiclife. Lead ing by example, private philanthropy has taught government a lesson or two about what works and what doesn't in the area of social policy. Often, Peter Frumkin is a Ph.D. student in sociology at the Uni versity of Chicago where his research focuses on philan thropy and voluntarism. innovative private programs have proven more effective than similar programs run by govern ment. And in many cases, the competition between public and private spheres has led to the wholesale re-evaluation of public policy. Does Soviet philanthropy fulfill a similar role? Do Soviet grant-makers fund innovative pro grams? Are the new foundations really indepen dent from government? To answer these ques tions, let's examine some of the major new players in Soviet philanthropy. Philanthropy,SovietStyle The cutting edge of Soviet-style philanthropy can be found on a shady street in Moscow's historic Arbat district. In officespaid for by Armand Ham mer, stylish furniture from Stockholm and Apple computers from California abound. These plush surroundings are the headquarters of the Interna tional Foundation for the Survival and Develop ment of Humanity, one of the most prominent of the new Soviet independent organizations.

What does the International Foundation aim to accomplish? Its lofty goals center on "the promo tion of scientific,international projects and public activities aimed at joint efforts to enter the Twenty-first Century without the danger of nucle ar war, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and understanding, and with a concern for the preser vation of the environment and for the enhance ment of the human condition." The foundation has an impressive international board of directors, including the Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, president emeritus of Notre Dame; Robert S. MeNamara, former Secretary of Defense; and 78 THE FREEMAN • FEBRUARY 1992 Jerome Wiesner, president emeritus of MIT. In many respects, however, the real moving force is board member YevgeniVelikhov,vice president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, who enjoys Mikhail Gorbachev's enthusiastic support. After many delays, the International Founda tion has begun to dispense funds. Among its earli est grants was 15,000rubles to support the compi lation and publication of a collection of essays from world literature on the subject of nonvio lence. Other grants include a 100,000ruble gift to fund joint American and Soviet studies of global climate change, and a 34,000ruble contribution to permit the study of "topical problems in humani tarian ethics."

With its cooperative and global vision, the Inter national Foundation is unable to spend its money studying domestic issues, such as the Soviet penal system or Soviet religious life. When board mem ber Andrei Sakharov suggested that such domestic concerns should be included in the foundation's agenda, his idea was rejected by the other board members. Like most new organizations in the Soviet Union, the International Foundation operates without an endowment. The foundation raises money in both rubles and hard currency and givesit away without seeking to build up a large reserve fund. This mode of operation is dictated partly because Soviet banks pay very low interest rates and partly because the funds trickle in little by little rather than arriving in the form of one large donation. Yet there are exceptions: The Foundation for Social Inventions has 8 million rubles in the bank. Founded by Gennady Alfrenko, a special corre spondent of KomsomolskayaPravda,the founda tion operates as an incubator and funder of ideas that have social implications. Alfrenko solicits ideas and donations in his Pravdacolumn and then makes grants to those applicants whose projects have the greatest potential.

Alfrenko receives over 100letters a day from his readers, yet he operates the foundation alone. Pro jects for which funds have been solicited by Alfrenko include the Samantha Project, named in memory of the famed child diplomat Samantha Smith who sought to promote East-West dialogue. The plea that ran in Pravdaread in part: Death did not stop Samantha's heart. It beats in the breasts of millions of her contemporaries. For them, Samantha is still alive-they have not acknowledged her death. They carryon Saman tha's cause, the struggle for the continued exis tence of this planet. They preserve Samantha's truth: War will never originate in the land of the Soviets. The Samantha Project should join together our youthful fighters for peace, child interna tionalists. The Project's tasks are to acquaint foreign children with life in our country, with our country's love of peace. Our children will become guides for our guests. To do this they must have a profound knowledge of our people and of our history. By studying these, our Soviet children will have an intensified patriotic, inter national education. Each contribution to the Project's bank account must be accompanied by a description·of how the money was earned.

Not all of the new Soviet philanthropies are so unabashedly politicized. For those in the Soviet Union who have a taste for the arts, there is the new Soviet Cultural Foundation. Its primary mission is to protect and restore architectural monuments within the Soviet Union. It also tries to bring back to the motherland important Soviet works of art located abroad. The foundation thus seeks to act as a kind of national trust for historic preservation. The Soviet-American Foundation Cultural Ini tiative has an agenda that is as vague as it is ambi tious. Founded by the Hungarian-born millionaire George Soros with a $3 million grant, the Cultural Initiative has set as its goal the promotion of cul ture, construed broadly to include not only art and literature, but also the sciences, education, and medicine. The Cultural Initiative is a grant-making body that has dollars as well as rubles to dispense.

Like its American counterparts, the foundation has a board of directors that reviews grant propos als and allocates funds. Because it was founded by a foreign financier, the foundation has strict standards for accountabil ity and openness. And yet the very.fact that a for eigner is involved in philanthropy within the Soviet Union has raised some eyebrows. Soros has tried to make clear his motives for getting involved in phi 1anthropy in the USSR: "I wanted to be personally involved in promoting openness and independence in Soviet culture. Being a businessman, I have a realistic viewof things and I know that in the Soviet Union every dollar matters, so I can use my money PHILANTHROPY IN A COLD CLIMATE 79 more effectivelyhere than in the U.S. where every thing is much more expensive." While Soros' concern about independence and openness is healthy, it extends only to the hard cur rency side of the Cultural Initiative. For while Soros donated several million dollars, the founda tion also received a sizable contribution in rubles from the Soviet Peace Fund, a public organization set up in 1961, that in 1987 received 273 million rubles in "donations" from Soviet worker collec tives and individual citizens.

Even if these organizations are less than fully independent of the Soviet government, it is impor tant to remember that Soros, Velikhov of the International Foundation, Alfrenko of the Foun dation for Social Inventions, as well as many others involved in Soviet philanthropy, are pio neers of sorts. After all, the Communists until recently dismissed charity as a form of bourgeois trickery designed to get the proletariat to postpone class struggle and revolution. Then and Now New Soviet scholarship on philanthropy clearly documents the changing perception of charity. Vitali Tretyakov, deputy editor of Moscow News, is the author of a monograph on the topic, Philan thropy in Soviet Society, published in 1990 by Novosti. To demonstrate how far the Soviet Union has come, Tretyakov describes how the definitions of the words "philanthropy" and "charity" have changed over the years. In the ConciseDictionary ofForeignWords,published in 1950,philanthropy is defined as follows: PHILANTHROPY. Charity; a means the bour geoisie uses to deceive workers and disguise parasitism and its exploiter's face by rendering hypocritical, humiliating aid to the poor in order to distract the latter from class struggle.

The 5th volume of the second edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, also published in 1950, defines charity in similar terms: CHARITY. Aid hypocritically rendered by repre sentatives of the ruling class in an exploiter soci ety to a part of the poor population in order to deceive the workers and divert them from class struggle. Tretyakov notes that the contempt of earlier gen erations is no longer to be found by 1987in Sergei Ozhegov's Dictionaryof the RussianLanguage: PHILANTHROPY. Bourgeois charity, aid to and protection of the poor. CHARITY. In bourgeois society: generosity of pri vate individuals in giving to the needy. While philanthropy and charity are still defined as phenomena found only in a class society, Tretyakov believes that the progress in Soviet atti tudes toward charity is important. And, in some respects, he is right. Attitudes are changing-now all that is needed are concrete actions.

The most crucial task is to draw clear lines between the public and private spheres. Many of the most important Soviet foundations that pur port to be independent, non-governmental organi zations are in fact connected in one way or another t9 the government: Some have public officials on their boards, others operate with funds that come directly or indirectly from the state. All the while, the number of smaller, less well funded independent charitable groups within the Soviet Union continues to rise. Since many, if not all, of these organizations are trying to raise money from Soviet citizens, it is almost certain that a fund-raising industry will soon develop in the USSR. And while such a development may lead in the short run to an increase in charitable giving in the Soviet Union, it also will bode well in the long run for the cause of freedom. For once Soviet citizens realize that their savings can be put to useful private purposes, effective alterna tives to government programs may become more clear.

What can be done to promote the development of philanthropies in the USSR that are truly inde pendent from government? Most important, Amer icanpolicy-makers,foundation directors,and educa tors-to whom leaders in the Soviet charity move ment look for advice and guidance-must hold the new Sovietfoundations to a rigorous standard when it comes to their autonomy.The new Soviet founda tions must distance themselves from the state while defining for themselves a mission in Soviet society that justifies the term "independent sector." If such steps are taken, the Soviet Union might eventually become hospitable to those habits of the heart that are so intimately connected to indi vidual freedom. For the moment, however, an authentic independent philanthropic sector is only a distant aspiration for the Soviet people. D 80 Rustic, U.S.A. by T. Franklin Harris, Jr. T here is a lot of talk nowadays about democ racy. Everywhere it seems that democracy and freedom are regarded as one and the same. Even further, there are the constant rantings about "economic democracy." It is very discon certing to classical liberals like myself to see democracy equated with freedom. Unbridled democracy is just as tyrannical as any dictator or king. The bloody past of ancient Greece serves as proof of this fact. So, whenever I am confronted with someone who thinks democracy and freedom are synonymous, I tell them the story of my home town, which I shall call Rustic, U.S.A.