Philanthropy: power with in international relations

Abstract

In international relations, a long list of private donors has joined governments in addressing global problems and their financial contributions are mind-boggling. We argue that the transformational potential of philanthropists such as Bill and Melinda Gates and Michael Otto relies largely on mechanisms of power with others, i.e. cooperation and learning. There are situations in which power is neither attributed solely to A nor to B, but to both. Comparing the cases of Gates and Otto, however, we simultaneously emphasize that power with is not exercised independently from power over dimensions. If we simply assume philanthropists to be do-gooders, we may become inattentive to often hidden or invisible conflicts of interests and values.

Keywords:

• philanthropy
• international relations
• power over
• power with
• Bill Gates

Notes

1. www.forbes.com/billionaires (accessed 2 May 2012).

2. While not the focus of this paper, analyzing to what extent the company exercises power with in these social and environmental activities could be an interesting exercise as well.

3. We understand power with (learning, cooperation) as a form of power exercise that includes strategic (bargaining) as well as (communicative) actions. For the theory of communicative action, which is based on Arendt, arguing is more relevant. Bargaining, which is usually associated with rational choice approaches, however, can be as decisive in practice. What is crucial is the fact that communicative actions are not just cheap talk and actors are oriented towards common goals (Saretzki 2007, pp. 113–115).

4. http://givingpledge.org/ [Accessed 15 April 2012].

5. Self-portrayal of the initiative on its website: www.cotton-made-in-africa.com [Accessed 30 November 2011].

6. www.accenture.com/de-de/company/newsroom-germany/Pages/nachhaltigkeit-mode-studie.aspx [Accessed 10 May 2012].

7. While the actual newness of these activities can be debated, their nature, extent and influence have changed dramatically over the last decades (see below).

8. Critical state theorists, however, use the term instrumental power to refer to a range of more structural mechanisms of business influence on politics such as revolving doors and social networks, which in turn support lobbying and campaign finance activities (Miliband 1969, p. 18, Poulantzas 1978, p. 92).

9. However, the focus on the relative power of states, which Waltz relates back to the distribution of power in the global system, also shows the influence of structural aspects.

10. www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/at-g-20-the-g-is-for-gates/2011/11/04/gIQA36DInM_story.html [Accessed 8 November 2011].

11. See, for instance, the 50th anniversary of the German development ministry: www.bmz.de/de/ministerium/50JahreBMZ/walter_scheel_preis/index.html [Accessed 6 June 2012].

12. Please note that (Strange 1996, p. 199, Strange 1998, p. 48) takes a different approach in her concept of structural power, as she combines aspects of the second and third faces of power.

13. Simultaneously, the existence of these technical and financial networks limits the scope for rule-setting by states (McDowell 2006, p. 164).

14. www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto [Accessed 1st August 2011].

15. Interestingly, the BMGF itself is failing to deliver such data (The Lancet 2009, p. 1577; Witte 2008, pp. 27-8).

16. In addition, Gates and Otto also know how to insert their values and activities in the public discourse. Andrew F. Cooper (2008, pp. 13, 32) describes Gates as a ‘celebrity entrepreneur’ who is familiar with the media’s communication practices.

17. At the G20 Summit, Gates even picked up the Occupy movement’s demand for a transaction tax, the Robin Hood Tax (www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/03-7; www.klimaretter.info/wirtschaft/hintergrund/9526-eu-schiebt-finanzmarktsteuer-an [Accessed 10 November 2011].