Arnove, Robert and Nadine Pinede (2003) “Revisiting the Big Three Foundations”

Arnove, Robert and Nadine Pinede (2003) “Revisiting the Big Three Foundations” (conference paper) www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/politics/publications/working_papers_docs/globalisation/foundations%20papers%20-%20arnove.pdf

Referring to Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism (1980), Arnove writes:
p. 1: “Philanthropic foundations, since their origins at the turn of the 20th century, have played the role of unofficial planning agencies for both a national American society and an increasingly interconnected world-system with the United States at its center. The power of foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford has long resided in their providing necessary seed money for professional advancement and institutional growth, for innovation and research in uncharted and perhaps risky areas where other sources of funding are unavailable. Through the education programs they funded, foundations also were in a position to influence the world views of the general public as well as the orientations and commitments of those leaders who directed social change.”

Foundation stance – via Donald Fisher, writing in PaCI – “a sophisticated conservatism, supporting changes that help to maintain and make efficient an international system of power and privilege.”

p. 2: “Concomitant with globalization and the end of the Cold War has been the ascendance of an almost universally accepted paradigm or socioeconomic model of how individuals and societies develop. Although conservative in its nature, the model has been designated as ‘neoliberalism’ because of its roots in the classical writings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo concerning the benefits that would redound to most through the workings of the ‘invisible hands’ of the marketplace and free trade. The ‘neoliberal agenda’ is associated with the economic restructuring policies promoted by the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its attendant policies involving decentralization, if not dismantling, of many of the functions of national governments in social service (e.g. education and health) provision, the privatization of once public institutions and the charging of users fees for services previously provided free; and the ending of price subsidies for basic commodities and the substantial lowering of trade barriers.”

Regarding Foundation response to the Reagan/Thatcher-era reduction in social spending by the State, Arnove writes that the foundations shifted some of their rhetoric (underclass; sustainable development; urban and rural poverty – all terms that began to show up in reports), but that, essentially - page 4 - “In many way, the foundations were as ambitious and influential as ever; but, they were also increasingly self-reflective and aware of their limitations.”

Arnove goes on to describe the Carnegie Corporation – CC – from its origins in 1911 through the 1990s. Pages 4 through - material not connected to comps or dissertation reading re: CC policies and programs – beyond education and higher education (World Peace; Strengthening Democracy; etc.)

Rockefeller Foundation – from page 7 through page 11 – as with Carnegie description, much that does not connect closely enough with comps questions, nor with dissertation. The other issues RF supports – since 1989 – global environmental studies; school reform in the USA; international security. By 1998, RF issues included: employment, creativity and innovation; food security; and health equity.

Rockefeller Foundation funded the establishment of the Forum for African Women in Education (FAWE) in 1992.

Ford Foundation – pages 11 through 15 – “ENTREPRENEURIAL PHILANTHROPY” – Ford President Franklin Thomas (1979-1996) – social loans and support for development projects. Per Thomas, it was FF’s task to arrange and manage the packaging and brokering of social investment programs.

Arnove writes of the mid-1990s decision by Ford Foundation (and the Social Science Research Council – was Craig Calhoun there by then?) to question the ongoing existence of Area Studies programs, or, at least, the Foundation’s ongoing support for area studies programs. This open questioning sent shock waves through American academia, as people struggled to figure out where to situate themselves. In the end, Arnove raises this quote, from 1930, by Harold Laski – page 14 – “. . .the foundations do not control, simply because, in the simple and direct sense of the world, there is no need for them to do so. They have only to indicate the immediate direction of their minds for the whole university world to discover that it always meant to gravitate swiftly to that angle of the intellectual compass.”

p. 17: “. . . I believe it would be wrong to underestimate the influence of the “big three” foundations in shaping public policy both domestically and internationally. At the same time, it is very possible to overestimate the extent to which these foundations, through their funding of research and experimentation and individual and institutional advancement, have been able to anticipate and attack the root causes of human suffering and foster the well being of many. Advances have been made in such fields as increasing agricultural output, but structural problems remain and may be worsening, as admitted by the very same foundations. Programs promoted by these foundations also may serve as an escape valve or the lubricant for relieving pressures and smoothing out the functioning of a social and economic system that depends, in great part, on charitable giving to alleviate the inequities and misery it generates.”

p. 17: “As former Rockefeller Foudnation President Peter Goldmark noted in his Letter in the 1997 annual report:
Foundations lack the three chastising disciplines of American life: the market test, which punishes of rewards financial performance; the ballot box through which the numbskulls can be voted out of office; and the ministrations of an irreverent press biting at your heels every day.

Ultimately, the concerns I raised in my earlier work remain valid. Such institutions, although more accountable to the public than ever before, are still corrosive of democratic processes and preemptive of more radical, structural approaches to social change.”