Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-19T07:47:14.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foundations and the Charisma of Giving: A Historical Sociology of Philanthropy in Germany and the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Frank Adloff
Frank Adloff*
Affiliation:
Institute of Sociology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Kochstraße 4, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
*
e-mail: frank.adloff@soziol.phil.uni-erlangen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Looking at foundations in the United States and in Germany from around 1800 to the present from a historical-sociological perspective, the article focuses on the social significance of foundations over the course of time—which social relationships and exchanges they promote, which guiding principles they institutionalize, how they accrue charisma, how they relate to the public good, and which social groups use these instruments to which ends. In both societies, foundations embody the principle of charismatically charged exclusivity. Foundations try to harmonize individual objectives with an idea of the common good that is considered sacrosanct. Large sums of money dedicated to the common good possess a charisma, making them rather immune to criticism and causing them to be perceived positively. In this sense, they occupy a central position within both societies and contribute to their stratification.

Résumé

Résumé

Examinant les fondations aux États-Unis et en Allemagne des années 1800 à nos jours, dans une perspective historique et sociologique, cet article porte sur l’importance sociale des fondations au cours du temps : les rapports sociaux et les échanges qu’elles favorisent, les principes directeurs qu’elles institutionnalisent, comment elles acquièrent leur charisme, leurs rapports avec l’intérêt public, et les groupes sociaux qui utilisent ces organisations et à quelles fins. Dans les deux sociétés, les fondations incarnent le principe d’exclusivité chargée d’un point de vue charismatique. Les fondations s’efforcent d’harmoniser les objectifs individuels avec l’idée de l’intérêt commun, considéré comme sacro-saint. Les importantes sommes d’argent destinées au bien commun ont du charisme, les protégeant ainsi des critiques et les amenant à être perçues de manière positive. En ce sens, elles occupent une position centrale au sein de ces deux sociétés et participent à leur stratification.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag konzentriert sich auf die gesellschaftliche Bedeutung von Stiftungen und betrachtet dazu diese Institutionen in den USA und Deutschland im Zeitraum von etwa 1800 bis heute aus einer historisch-soziologischen Perspektive. Der Beitrag befasst sich insbesondere damit, welche sozialen Beziehungen sie fördern, welche Leitideen sie institutionalisieren, wie sie Charisma entwickeln, in welcher Beziehung sie zum Gemeinwohl stehen und mit der Frage, welche sozialen Gruppen diese Instrumente zu welchen Zielen einsetzen. In beiden Gesellschaften verkörpern Stiftungen das Prinzip charismatischer Exklusivität. Stiftungen versuchen, individuelle Ziele mit dem Konzept des Gemeinwohls, das als sakrosankt betrachtet wird, in Einklang zu bringen. Große Geldsummen, die für das Gemeinwohl bestimmt sind, ziehen Charisma auf sich und immunisieren Stiftungen gegen Kritik. In diesem Sinne haben sie in beiden Gesellschaften eine zentrale Stellung inne und tragen zu ihrer Stratifikation bei.

Resumen

Resumen

Examinando las fundaciones en los Estados Unidos y en Alemania desde 1800 aproximadamente hasta la actualidad, desde una perspectiva histórico-sociológica, el presente artículo se centra en la importancia social de las fundaciones a lo largo del tiempo - qué relaciones sociales e intercambios promueven, qué principios directores institucionalizan, cómo acumulan carisma, cómo se relacionan con el bien público, y qué grupos sociales utilizan estos instrumentos con qué fines. En ambas sociedades, las fundaciones encarnan el principio de exclusividad cargada carismáticamente. Las fundaciones tratan de armonizar los objetivos individuales con una idea del bien común que se considera sacrosanta. Grandes sumas de dinero dedicadas al bien común poseen un carisma, haciéndolas bastante inmunes a la crítica y haciendo que se perciban de manera positiva. En este sentido, ocupan una posición central en ambas sociedades y contribuyen a su estratificación.

摘要

摘要

从历史与社会的角度研究了从1800年到现在美国和德国的基金会之后,这篇文章主要把焦点集中在了基金会在这段时间内所造成的社会影响——他们促进了哪些社会关系与社会转型,把哪些社会准则变成了制度,如何增强影响力,他们与公共利益的关系以及哪些社会群体使用了这些基金会去做了什么事情。这两个国家的基金会都秉承着“魅力包装的独一性”的原则。基金会都试图去把个体目标和被认为是神圣不可侵犯的共同利益融合在一起。那些大笔被认为是为了共同利益的金钱因而拥有一种魅力,而这种魅力使得这笔钱对任何批评都产生免疫,从而被人们认为这些金钱都是积极有用的。因此,基金会在这两个国家的社会都处于核心地位,并且为这些社会阶层的划分起到了重要的作用。

要約

要約

歴史社会学的な視点からおよそ1800 年から現在までのアメリカ合衆国とドイツの基金に注目する。本論文では、時間の経過における基金の社会的意義に焦点を当てるが、具体的に社会的関係と交流の促進、指針となる成文化された原則、カリスマ性の計上方法、公共の利益との関連方法、ソーシャル・グループが最終的にツールを使う社会集団について取り上げる。両方の社会では、基金は排他性の原則を体現する。基金は神聖と考えられており、共通の利益のアイデアを持つ個々の目的を調和させている。多額の資金、共通のNGOへの多額の資金は批判の影響を受けず、積極的に活動する要素となるカリスマ性を持っている。この意味で、両方の社会はともに社会内の中央位置を占めてその成層に貢献しているといえる。

ملخص

ملخص

النظر في أسس في الولايات المتحدة وألمانيا من حوالي عام 1800 حتى الوقت الحاضر من منظور تاريخي- إجتماعي، يركز المقال على الأهمية الإجتماعية للمؤسسات على مدار الساعة، أي العلاقات الإجتماعية والتبادل التي يعززوها٬ أي المبادئ التوجيهية الذين يضفون عليها الطابع المؤسسي، كيف تتحقق الكاريزما، كيف يرتبطون بالصالح العام، أي الفئات الإجتماعية التي تستخدم هذه الأدوات لنهايتها. في كل المجتمعات ٬المؤسسات تجسد مبدأ أتهم بالتفرد بالكاريزما. المؤسسات تحاول مواءمة الأهداف الفردية مع فكرة الصالح العام التي تعتبر مقدسة. مبالغ كبيرة من المال مكرسة للخير المشترك تمتلك الكاريزما، مما يجعلها في مأمن بدلا˝ من النقد وتسبب لهم أن ينظر إليهم بشكل إيجابي. في هذا المعنى، فإنها تحتل موقع مركزي داخل كل المجتمعات والمساهمة في الطبقات الخاصة بهم.

Keywords

PhilanthropyFoundationsElitesComparative historical sociologyCharisma

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , October 2015 , pp. 2002 - 2022
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abell, P. (2004). Narrative explanation: an alternative to variable-centered explanation?. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 287–310. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam, T. (2001). Stadtbürgerliche Stiftungskultur und die Ausformung sozialer Distinktionen in amerikanischen, deutschen und kanadischen Städten des 19. Jahrhunderts. Comparativ, 11(5/6), 52–80.Google Scholar
Adam, T. (2007). Stiften in deutschen Bürgerstädten vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg: Das Beispiel Leipzig. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 33, 1, 46–72. doi: 10.13109/gege.2007.33.1.46.Google Scholar
Adam, T. (2009). Buying respectability: Philanthropy and urban society in transnational perspective, 1840s to 1930s. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adloff, F. (2006). Beyond interests and norms: Gift-giving and reciprocity in modern societies. Constellations, 13(2), 407–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8675.2006.00399.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adloff, F. (2009). What encourages charitable giving and philanthropy?. Ageing & Society, 29, 1185–1205. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X08008295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adloff, F. (2010). Philanthropisches Handeln. Eine historische Soziologie des Stiftens in Deutschland und den USA. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Adloff, F., & Sigmund, S. (2005). Die gift economy moderner Gesellschaften – Zur Soziologie der Philanthropie. In Adloff, F. & Mau, S. (Eds.), Vom Geben und Nehmen (pp. 211–235). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Adloff, F., & Strachwitz, R. G. (2011). Eine Privilegierung von Stiftungen – wozu?. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, 1(2011), 55–65.10.1515/fjsb-2011-0110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aksartova, S. (2003). In search of legitimacy: Peace grant making of U.S. philanthropic foundations, 1988–1996. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(1), 25–46. doi: 10.1177/0899764002250005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, J. C. (1998). Citizen and enemy as symbolic classification. In Alexander, J. C. (Ed.), Real Civil Societies (pp. 96–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Daly, S. (2007). The politics of foundations. A comparative analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Hammack, D. (Eds.). (2010). American foundations. Roles and contributions. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Romo, F. P. (1999). Foundations in Germany and the United States. In Anheier, H. A. & Toepler, S. (Eds.), Private funds, public purpose. Philanthropic foundations in international perspective (pp. 79–118). New York: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-4893-5_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BDS (2008). Stiftungen in Zahlen 2007. Berlin: Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen.Google Scholar
BDS (2014). Stiftungen in Zahlen 2013. Berlin: Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen.Google Scholar
Bergmann, J. (2004). Die Reichen werden reicher – auch in Deutschland. Leviathan, 32(2), 185–202. doi: 10.1007/s11578-004-0014-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. (1995). Some observations on the history of large philanthropic foundations in Britain and the United States. Voluntas, 6(3), 275–291. doi: 10.1007/BF02354017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, E. S., & Guthrie, D. (Eds.). (2011). Politics and partnerships. The role of voluntary associations in America’s political past and present. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Colombo, J. D., (2007). Gemeinnützigkeits- und Spendenrecht in den USA. In Walz, W. R., et al. (Eds.), Spenden- und Gemeinnützigkeitsrecht in Europa (pp. 571–609). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and the intersectoral division of labor in the arts. In Powell, W. W. & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector. A research handbook (pp. 432–461). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P., & Anheier, H. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited. Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. doi: 10.2307/2095101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foundation Center (2008a). Highlights of foundation giving trends. New York: Foundation Center doi: 10.15868/socialsector.16054.Google Scholar
Foundation Center (2008b). Key facts on corporate foundations. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
Foundation Center (2013). Foundations stats. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
Frey, M. (1999). Macht und Moral des Schenkens. Staat und bürgerliche Mäzene vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: Fannei & Walz.Google Scholar
Frumkin, P. (1999). Private foundations as public institutions. In Lagemann, E. C. (Ed.), Philanthropic foundations (pp. 69–98). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, P. (2006). Der lange Weg der sozialen Innovation – Wie Stiftungen zum sozialen Wandel im Feld der Bildungs- und Sozialpolitik beitragen können. Berlin: Maecenata Institut.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. (2009). Billions of drops in millions of buckets. Why philanthropy doesn’t advance social progress. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley doi: 10.1002/9781118386309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. D. (1992). Inventing the nonprofit sector and other essays on philanthropy, voluntarism, and nonprofit organizations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P. D. (2000). A historical overview of philanthropy, voluntary associations, and nonprofit organizations in the United States, 1600–2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Hall, P. D. (2004). A solution is a product in search of a problem: A history of foundation and evaluation research. In Braverman, M., Constantine, N. A., & Slater, J. (Eds.), Foundations and evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hall, P. D., & Marcus, G. E. (1998). Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? Class, dynasty and inheritance in America. In Miller, R. K. & McNamee, S. J. (Eds.), Inheritance and wealth in America (pp. 139–172). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1931-1_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammack, D. C. (2004). Community foundations. In Burlingame, D. F. (Ed.), Philanthropy in America. A comprehensive historical encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 91–95). Santa Barbara: Cal.: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Hammack, D. C., & Anheier, H. K. (2013). A versatile American institution. The changing ideals and realities of philanthropic foundations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Hammack, D. C., & Heydemann, S. (Eds.). (2009). Globalization, philanthropy, and civil society. Projecting institutional logics abroad. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.2979/5482.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, D. (1997). Das Stiftungswesen als Instrument bürgerlichen Handelns im 19. Jahrhundert. In Kirchgässner, B. & Becht, H.-P. (Eds.), Stadt und Mäzenatentum (pp. 75–92). Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke.Google Scholar
Hoelscher, P., Ebermann, T., & Schlüter, A. (Eds.). (2010). Venture Philanthropy in Theorie und Praxis. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.10.1515/9783110510447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalupner, S. (2000). Das Stiftungswesen im politischen Diskurs 1983–2000. Berlin: Maecenata Verlag.Google Scholar
Karl, B. D., & Karl, A. W. (1999). Foundations and the government. In Clotfelter, C. T. & Ehrlich, T. (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America (pp. 52–72). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Karl, B. D., & Katz, S. N. (1981). The American private philanthropic foundation and the public sphere 1890–1930. Minerva, 19, 236–270. doi: 10.1007/BF01096567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, S. N. (2001). Whatever happened to the general purpose foundation? Who is thinking about the big problems? Waldemar A. Nielsen Issues in philanthropy seminar series. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Katz, S. N. (2006). Policy issues: philanthropy. In Ginsburgh, V. & Throsby, D. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (pp. 1299–1321). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0676(06)01037-4.Google Scholar
Keller, S. (1963). Beyond the ruling class. Strategic elites in modern society. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Kocka, J., & Frey, M. (1998). Einleitung und einige Ergebnisse. In Kocka, J. & Frey, M. (Eds.), Bürgerkultur und Mäzenatentum im 19. Jahrhundert (pp. 7–17). Berlin: Fannei & Walz.Google Scholar
Laum, B. (1914). Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Kulturgeschichte (Vol. 2). Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
Lenkowsky, L. (1999). Reinventing philanthropy. In Clotfelter, C. T. & Ehrlich, T. (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a Changing America (pp. 122–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Liermann, H. (1963). Geschichte des Stiftungsrechts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. (1990 [1925]): The gift. The form and reason for exchange in Archaic societies. New York/London: Norton.Google Scholar
McCarthy, K. D. (2003). American creed. Philanthropy and the rise of civil society 1700–1865. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226561998.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/1467-9558.00171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münkler, H. (2007). Anstifter, Unruhestifter. Wie Stiftungen Veränderungen bewegen. Merkur, 61(3), 200–209.Google Scholar
Münkler, H., Bohlender, M., & Straßenberger, G. (2006). Einleitung. In Münkler, H., Straßenberger, G., & Bohlender, M. (Eds.), Deutschlands Eliten im Wandel (pp. 11–21). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Nassehi, A. (2006). Münkler, H., Straßenberger, G., Bohlender, M. Deutschlands Eliten im Wandel (pp. 255–273). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Neem, J. N. (2003). Politics and the origins of the nonprofit corporation in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1780–1820. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(3), 344–365. doi: 10.1177/0899764003254593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, W. A. (1972). The big foundations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Odendahl, T. (1990). Charity begins at home. Generosity and self-interest among the philanthropic elite. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ostrander, S. A. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356–372. doi: 10.1177/0899764007300386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrower, F. (1995). Why the wealthy give. The culture of elite philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrower, F. (2002). Trustees of culture. Power, wealth, and status on elite arts boards. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226778860.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time. History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400841080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prewitt, K. (2006). American foundations: What justifies their unique privileges and power?. In Prewitt, K., et al. (Eds.), The legitimacy of foundations (pp. 27–47). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Retallack, J., & Adam, T. (2001). Philanthropy und politische Macht in deutschen Kommunen. Comparativ, 11(5/6), 106–138.Google Scholar
Richter, A. (2001). Rechtsfähige Stiftung und Charitable Corporation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Schofer, E., & Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. (2001). The structural contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary association membership in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 806–828. doi: 10.2307/3088874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, T. (2010). Bertelsmannrepublik Deutschland. Eine Stiftung macht Politik. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Sealander, J. (1997). Private wealth & public life. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801854606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sealander, J. (2003). Curing evils at their source: The arrival of scientific giving. In Friedman, L. J. & McGarvie, M. D. (Eds.), Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history (pp. 217–239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shils, E. (1972). The constitution of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. A. (1999). The evolving American foundation. In Clotfelder, C. T. & Ehrlich, T. (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America (pp. 34–51). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sprengel, R. (2001). Statistiken zum deutschen Stiftungswesen. Berlin: Maecenata Verlag.Google Scholar
Sprengel, R., & Ebermann, T. (2007). Statistiken zum deutschen Stiftungswesen. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadelmann, I., & Freitag, M. (2011). Making civil society work: Models of democracy and their impact on civic engagement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(3), 526–551. doi: 10.1177/0899764010362114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strachwitz, R. G. (2001). Country Report: Germany. In Schlüter, A., Then, V., & Walkenhorst, P. (Eds.), Foundations in Europe (pp. 133–144). London: Directory of Social Change.Google Scholar
Strachwitz, R. G. (2005). Traditionen des deutschen Stiftungswesens – ein Überblick. In Strachwitz, R. G. & Mercker, F. (Eds.), Stiftungen in Theorie, Recht und Praxis (pp. 33–45). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. doi: 10.3790/978-3-428-51680-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strachwitz, R. G. (2007). Stiftungen nach der Stunde Null. Die Entwicklung des Stiftungswesens in Westdeutschland nach 1945. Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 33(1), 99–126. doi: 10.13109/gege.2007.33.1.99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W. (2006). Nach dem Korporatismus: Neue Eliten, neue Konflikte. In Münkler, H., Straßenberger, G., & Bohlender, M. (Eds.), Deutschlands Eliten im Wandel (pp. 149–175). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve. Insights from comparative historical analysis. In Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803963.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmer, K. (2005). Stiften in Deutschland. Die Ergebnisse der StifterStudie. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
Toepler, S. (1998). Foundations and their institutional context: Cross-evaluating evidence from Germany and the United States. Voluntas, 9, 153–170. doi: 10.1023/A:1022000621032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toepler, S. (1999). Operating in a grantmaking world. Reassessing the role of operating foundations. In Anheier, H. A. & Toepler, S. (Eds.), Private funds, public purpose. Philanthropic foundations in international perspective (pp. 163–181). New York: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-4893-5_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toepler, S. (2007). Foundation roles and visions in the USA. In Anheier, H. K. & Daly, S. (Eds.), The politics of foundations. A comparative analysis (pp. 324–339). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turner, S. (2003). Charisma reconsidered. Journal of Classical Sociology, 3(1), 5–26. doi: 10.1177/1468795X03003001692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, A. (2006). Who’s making global civil society? Philanthropy and US Empire in World Society.. British Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 635–655. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00129.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, E. N. (1995). Top heavy. The increasing inequality of wealth in America and what can be done about it. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Zimmer, A. (1997). Public–private partnerships: Staat und Dritter Sektor in Deutschland. In Anheier, H. K. (Ed.), Der Dritte Sektor in Deutschland (pp. 75–98). Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar