We are the Leppang Group ( non profit institution) as a training and apprenticeship institution that focuses on empowering potential young workers. Our office is in the city of Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. We need financial assistance to procure workshop and printing equipment in the £ 1.500.000 With this business capital, we can empower a workforce of 5.000 people and continues to grow every month, empower civil society, support the population's per capita income, create new jobs. Contact person (+62) 81342751737 Best regards, Jusman pagara

I have just read a brief history of Global Philanthropy and I so much appreciate Global Philanthropy initiatives and activities to improve human lots. I want to join Global Philanthropy. What are the crateria for qualification.

Apologies for being a late contributor to your useful posting, John, but better late than never. As a WINGS (Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support) Board member, based in Africa, I welcome any reflection on what we might mean by 'global philanthropy.' Like Alliance, WINGS tends to use this phrase in an inclusive, extensive way. But like all shorthand, the terminology begs more clarity of definition, and John has helpfully challenged us to think about what we actually mean. From a WINGS perspective, I would have to say that we want to nurture all three variants of 'global philanthropy' that John identifies: roughly summed up as ‘philanthropy as it is diversely practiced around the world;’ ‘cross-border or international philanthropy;’ and ‘strategic philanthropy with a global, collaborative perspective.’ As regards the diverse global phenomenon of giving and mutual help, not enough is known, documented and understood about the wider world of philanthropy - including all of the many manifestations of 'private initiatives for the public good.' As John notes, for too long philanthropy has been seen as model to be exported from richer countries to the developing world. At the same time, in the context of growing inequality, the global philanthropy and development establishments have been shaped by assumptions that progress relies mainly on transfers of assistance from wealthier societies to those less advantaged. I believe that WINGS challenges these paradigms by bringing the diverse world traditions of giving and philanthropy into a dynamic learning conversation with each other. The recent WINGS/TPI Global Institutional Philanthropy Report and successive editions of the WINGS Community Foundation Global Status Report go some way to shedding more light on the way the philanthropic impulse presents itself around the world. But more applied research is needed to document philanthropy worldwide, and WINGS is working to build a global system for data collection from WINGS members – drawing on their own real-life vantage point – as well as other key players in philanthropy. We must recognize that inequalities are as great within countries as between them, and that there are untapped resources and wealth in all societies. The challenge is to unlock sustainable resources for development locally and globally. That certainly requires us to strengthen civil society in diverse places, to engage with people of wealth in emerging and developing economies, and to grow a varied set of philanthropic institutions, practices and cultures of giving that are adapted to the unique circumstances of different societies. But we should always be conscious that no-one contributes as much to the well-being of poor or marginalized communities around the world as the poor and marginalized themselves. By increasingly connecting to traditional and indigenous ‘philanthropy of community’ around the world (and fostering a diverse community foundations movement worldwide), WINGS and others are bringing the importance of place, diversity and local genius to the centre of our thinking about a sustainable culture of giving. As one of the few international philanthropy organizations headquartered in the global South, WINGS is committed to providing safe space to bring peer philanthropy practitioners around the world together, on an equal footing, for reciprocal learning and common purpose. When it comes to cross-border or international philanthropy, there are still many legislative and regulatory obstacles to international giving - including the complex web of counter-terrorism and security laws that have emerged in our post 9/11 era. By partnering with EFC and CoF in the Global Philanthropy Leadership Initiative (GPLI), WINGS is working not only to promote international philanthropy but also to nurture an enabling environment that will ease the cross-border flow of philanthropic resources. In Africa, where I work, organizations like the Southern Africa Trust and TrustAfrica are blazing the trail for cross-border grantmaking. But there remain in Africa, as in other regions of the world, too many hurdles and disincentives for cross-border giving and collaboration. Whatever the direction, North-South, South-South, or between countries in the same region, philanthropic collaboration and resource transfers across borders should be encouraged, not hampered, by governments. International philanthropy should also engage with current debates among development organizations about aid effectiveness and accountability. Here WINGS plays a useful role by convening dialogue (through the global WINGSForum and dialogue spaces) around international giving and by strengthening grantmaker governance, self-regulation, codes of conduct, transparency and public accountability. John’s final definition of ‘global philanthropy’ suggests a bold, systemic approach that sees issues through a global lens and tackles them through collaborative action that engages a range of players, including governments and business. There is no doubt that solutions to complex global challenges require greater multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration across traditional boundaries. Acting on this imperative, WINGS has a vital bridging and convening role among its members, across national boundaries, and between philanthropy and other sectors. Through its partnership in GPLI, WINGS is working to strengthen global philanthropic leadership, to encourage innovative multi-stakeholder partnerships, and to foster more effective engagement with policy makers and international organizations. But in order to build the kind of collaboration demanded by global challenges, we need to build a wider, more inclusive movement for philanthropy that connects traditional foundations with community foundations, development grantmakers, volunteer organizations, business and corporate social investors, venture philanthropists, philanthropy advisors and professionals, and private philanthropists. A particular divide that needs to be bridged is the perceived ‘philanthropy’ versus ‘development’ divide. On the one hand, too many self-styled philanthropy organizations see themselves as entirely distinct and different from development NGOs – such as the Oxfam family, Save the Children, and many others. And yet many of these global development NGOs are also grantmakers who mobilize substantial philanthropic resources from the public and other private sources. At the same time, the private ‘development’ organizations sometimes view ‘philanthropy’ players as somehow more charitable than developmental – or they see organized philanthropy and foundations mainly as sources of cash, but not as colleagues or allies. In the end most development NGOS, North and South, are in some real sense ‘private initiatives for the public good.’ So if we want to advance our third, more ambitious notion of ‘global philanthropy,’ we need to start embracing diversity and finding common ground across the perceived philanthropy/development divide. Time is too short and our challenges are too big to waste time on the worn-out stereotypes of the past. If we are going to have impact on the big picture globally – seriously engaging with policy, governments, business and official development agencies – then we better marshal all of the forces we can. In my view, the diverse global forms of ‘private initiatives for the public good’ should be seen as potential players in a larger enterprise to build community, across borders and difference – and to create the lived reality of ‘global citizenship’ required to make the better world we want. Are we up for it?

Dear Mari, Thanks for your comment. In an earlier version of this piece I included another definition that I believe gets at what you are saying. I wrote: "[Another] definition of “global philanthropy” situates local philanthropy in a global context: “think globally, act locally,” as the cliché goes. This definition is implied in publications like the Foundation Center’s “Local Mission—Global Vision: Community Foundations in the 21st Century”, and it also makes its way into EFC’s “Long-term Roles for European Foundations in Addressing Global Issues.” This kind of philanthropy tracks closely with the increasing recognition that we live in a globalized world—a phenomenon that has brought about unprecedented interconnectedness as well as a deeper sense of shared responsibility. Such philanthropy might focus on local issues and local solutions, but it is globally minded in an intentional and strategic way." Ultimately I took this definition out. For me, this domain of social good is better termed "globally minded" than "global". Whatever we call it, it certainly is an essential part of our field's work. John Harvey

Apologies: Hit the post comment button before I managed to insert the hyperlink. Sentence above should read: So your examples of “environmental degradation, HIV/AIDS and other global health concerns, food security, water security, global trade, population, peace” definitely fit the bill as defined by Wolfgang Reinicke and Michael Armacost in 1998. http://www.amazon.com/Global-Public-Policy-Governing-Government/dp/0815773897/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313505422&sr=1-2

John, Thanks for taking on a topic that most people pass over, but I think is critical to establishing the value of global philanthropy. Fundamentally I agree with you that global philanthropy is about global public goods--something that most people gloss over because the traditional definition of a public good usually stops at a national boundary (given the assumption that government, usually national, exists to deliver public goods). So your examples of "environmental degradation, HIV/AIDS and other global health concerns, food security, water security, global trade, population, peace" definitely fit the bill as in 1998. But I'd argue that what you call international philanthropy can sometimes get in the back door, because I would argue that the ultimate global public good is addressing global poverty and reducing global economic disparity. In that context, even an isolated attempt to support growth and address poverty beyond the country you happen to live in can be a contribution to the global public good. [Full disclosure: Wolfgang Reinicke was a colleague of mine at the World Bank.]

Thank you, John, for taking on the daunting task of defining ‘global philanthropy’ and for coming up with such a comprehensive and nuanced trio of definitions. As John rightly comments, ‘the phrase certainly peppers the ever-expanding literature produced by Alliance’. If we use the phrase so often – and I plead guilty here – shouldn’t we be more aware of how we define it? Alliance has always taken a deliberately inclusive approach to vocabulary, so allowing the terms civil society organization, non-profit, NGO and citizen organization all to appear in our pages according to the writer’s preference. I have been taken to task for this by Bill Drayton, who argued that if we took a more consistent approach, say adopting the term citizen organization as opposed to NGO or non-profit, both of which define an organization by what it is not, we could help achieve a change in perceptions. So what should we think about John’s three definitions of global philanthropy? If we were in campaigning/prescriptive mode, which would we adopt? Let’s start by dismissing the second definition, where ‘global philanthropy’ is used to mean supporting causes outside one’s own country. The terms ‘international’ or ‘cross-border’ seem better suited here. As for the other two, it seems to me they both have a valuable campaigning role – the first to emphasize, what surely needs constantly emphasizing, that philanthropy happens everywhere. It is not just a northern import, still less an Anglo-Saxon one. And we can all learn from what others are doing – one of Alliance’s main tenets. The second to remind us of the global nature of so many of the issues we face and the need to coordinate our efforts if we are to tackle them. Alliance will continue in inclusive mode as regards vocabulary – as a ‘global’ platform, it’s not our role to prescribe – but greater awareness of the implications of the terms we use must help us all.