On the Problem of Defining Foundations in a Comparative Perspective

Abstract

governments in the developed world facing fiscal pres-sures and seeking to cut back on state spending over thepast two decades or so, a new interest in philanthropicfoundations has gradually emerged in Europe, as well as in otherregions of the world. At the same time, citizens have rediscoveredfoundations as a private alternative to tackle social, cultural, or envi-ronmental needs not sufficiently addressed by the welfare state.Although foundations are undoubtedly facing renewed attention, lit-tle is yet known about the scope, structure, and policy contexts ofthe European foundation sectors, and there is a dearth of compara-tive research. Nevertheless, there appear to be substantial differencesin the history and traditions of foundations across countries and sig-nificant variations in the shapes foundation sectors take (Strachwitzand Toepler, 1996; Anheier and Toepler, 1999). Moreover, the veryconcept of what a foundation is differs cross-nationally, and the def-inition of this set of institutions seems subject to cultural specificity.With the foundation fields largely being a terra incognita in mostcountries, comparative analysis, where attempted, has tended tofocus on the United States, the only country to produce a substantialbody of knowledge and data on foundations. Using the United Statesas a point of reference, however, has not been without problems.Though pointing to the apparently vast size of the U.S. foundationsector (in terms of both numbers of organizations and assets) pro-vided a convenient starting point to lodge complaints about the locallack of such traditions, it also contributed to myth building aroundthe foundation concept internationally (Toepler, 1998). Now thatmore attention is focused on local foundation communities and dataare slowly improving, things can be put into better perspective.In this article, I briefly describe legal definitions and commontypes of foundations in both the United States and Germany and