7 Foundations and Collaboration

8/12/2019 7 Foundations and Collaboration

1/27

http://crs.sagepub.com/Critical Sociology

http://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1163/156916307X188997

2007 33: 479Crit SociolJoan Roelofs

Foundations and Collaboration

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Critical SociologyAdditional services and information for

http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- May 1, 2007Version of Record>>

by Pepe Portillo on July 29, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Pepe Portillo on July 29, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479http://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479.refs.htmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479.full.pdfhttp://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479.full.pdfhttp://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://crs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/479http://crs.sagepub.com/


2/27

Critical Sociology 33 (2007) 479504 www.brill.nl/cs

Foundations and Collaboration

Joan Roelofs69 Beaver Street, Keene, NH 03431, USA

[email protected]

AbstractFoundations are prime constructors of hegemony, by promoting consent and dis-

couraging dissent against capitalist democracy. Tere is considerable collaboration

among foundations and their networks of nonprofits; between philanthropic

foundations and profitmaking corporations; and between the foundation world

and government entities, local, state, national and international. We do not have

to posit any secret conspiracies (although they may well exist). Te proponents of

civil society celebrate the erosion of boundaries, especially those between the

public and private sectors, while networks consisting of funders and grassroots

organizations enable the powerful to appear as just another participant. Tesedevelopments, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has observed, obscure asymmetries in

power and influence. Democratic institutions are quietly being supplanted by a

new feudalism.

Keywords

foundations, networks, hegemony, civil society

Antonio Gramscis concept of hegemony suggests a conceptual frameworkuseful for understanding foundations. Gramsci (1971), an Italian socialistimprisoned by the Fascists, argued that any political system, such as demo-cratic capitalism, is maintained in two ways. Te more obvious is the polit-ical realm, or the state, which controls through force and laws. It iscomplemented by subtle but essential system-maintenance performed bycivil society, or the private realm, which produces consent without thethreat of force.

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156916307X188997

by Pepe Portillo on July 29, 2014crs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/


3/27

480 J. Roelofs / Critical Sociology 33 (2007) 479504

Foundations are prime constructors of hegemony, by promoting con-sent and discouraging dissent against capitalist democracy. Tey are notall-powerful, but their overarching presence deserves far more scrutinythan they receive from activists, social scientists, or journalists. Teirinfluence is exerted in many ways, among them: creating ideology and thecommon wisdom; providing positions and status for intellectuals; control-ling access to resources for universities, social services, and arts organiza-tions; compensating for market failures; steering protest movements intosafe channels; and supporting those institutions by which policies are initi-ated and implemented.1 Robert Arnove (1980:1) has summarized it asfollows:

. . [F]oundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive

influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and

unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, pro-

mote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits societys atten-

tion. Tey serve as cooling out agencies, delaying and preventing more

radical, structural change.

A pluralist might argue that foundations couldnt have any significantpower, as there are a thousand points of light and diverse projects fundedby philanthropy. However, among these lights are some very broad beams.Tere is considerable collaboration among foundations and their networksof nonprofits; between philanthropic foundations and profitmaking cor-porations; and between the foundation world and government entities,local, state, national and international. We do not have to posit any secretconspiracies (although they may well exist). Tere is enough in the publicrecord to document much cooperative action and foundation intentions to

blur boundaries, especially those between the public and private sectors.Such boundary erosion adds feudal elements to our purported democ-

racy, yet it has not been resisted, protested, or even noted much by politicalelites or social scientists. One explanation for this is that although our

1 Intellectuals in Gramscis sense of the term, which included artists and scholars, clergy,

teachers, journalists, political party and other activists, engineers, public administrators, doctors,

lawyers, social workers, and professional reformers. For a comprehensive treatment of founda-

tion activities see Roelofs (2003).

http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/


4/27

J. Roelofs / Critical Sociology 33 (2007) 479504 481

Constitution was a radical creative departure in the 18th century, it did notprovide adequate processes or institutions for coping with the problems ofthe 20th century. Historians Barry Karl and Stanley Katz (1981: 243)acknowledge and document the vast power of foundations in providingessential services to the polity such as planning, and in training elites forefficient and enlightened leadership:

Te creation of the modern foundation and its legitimation as a national

system of social reform a privately supported system operating in lieu of a

governmental system carried the United States through a crucial period of

its development: the first third of the twentieth century.

Foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997: 25) argues that boundaryblurring serves United States world dominance, the only alternative toanarchy:

As the imitation of American ways gradually pervades the world, it creates a

more congenial setting for the exercise of the indirect and seemingly consen-

sual American hegemony. And as in the case of the domestic American sys-

tem, that hegemony involves a complex structure of interlocking institutions

and procedures, designed to generate consensus and obscure asymmetries inpower and influence.

Te major foundations were created in the early twentieth century by thenew millionaires, seeking to dole out their benevolence in a systematicmanner. Tey also hoped to exert influence over social progress and publicopinion, which was intensely anti-capitalist at the time. Te RockefellerFoundation was chartered by New York State in 1913, after John D. Rock-

efeller decided:

[ ]o establish one great foundation. Tis foundation would be a single cen-

tral holding company which would finance any and all of the other benevo-

lent organizations, and thus necessarily subject them to its general supervision.

(Howe 1980: 29)

Tere were earlier models. Te General Education Board was formed in1902 by John D. Rockefeller to develop Black education that would be

economically useful and politically harmless. It served as a clearinghouse



5/27


for corporate donors and gave grants to schools and state educationdepartments, while coordinating the efforts of many philanthropies, suchas Peabody and Slater Funds, Jeanes Foundation, Phelps-Stokes, JuliusRosenwald Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, and Laura Spelman Rock-efeller Memorial Fund. Similar partnerships resulted in the 1909 foundingof the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, whichrepresented a conservative, elite-led approach to racial integration. Duringthe 1920s, the NAACP was regarded as a counterweight to the Commu-nist Party, which was wooing Blacks (Horne 1986: 19). It was aided duringits formative years by the Rosenwald and Peabody Funds, later joined by

J. D. Rockefeller, Jr., Edsel Ford, and the Garland Fund, among others.

By 1928, on the eve of the Depression, the NAACP had amassed asufficient surplus of funds to invest part of its income in an impressivearray of stocks and bonds . . . (Ross 1972: 106).

From their beginnings, the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Cor-poration (founded in 1911) were partners. Tey created the AmericanCouncil of Learned Societies in 1919 and Social Science Research Councilin 1924 as academic holding companies to distribute research funds. Tesebuffer organizations could pass as neutral to activists and academics,

who in those days were still suspicious of the robber barons and all theiractivities.

Te governmental National Endowment for the Humanities, NationalScience Foundation, and Fulbright fellowships were modeled on these ear-lier foundation-created institutions. Now the SSRC is funded by thesegovernment foundations and the United States Information Agency;the governments of Sweden, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands; theUnited Nations; the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, and MacArthurFoundations; and others.

o formulate foreign policy and its domestic requirements, the Councilon Foreign Relations was created 1921. Originally funded by the Carnegieand Rockefeller Foundations, it is now also supported by Ford, Soros, andothers, including the government agency, United States Institute of Peace.2oday it continues to represent the international side of progressivism,

2 Te Carnegie institutions are not called foundations, but they will be designated as such

for simplification.



6/27


aiming to project United States power throughout the world, and to per-suade US citizens that this is the only acceptable concept of national inter-est (Shoup and Minter 1980). Membership links hegemonic elites andthose aspiring to join them; serious presidential candidates and cabinetmembers dealing with foreign affairs are usually members. Leading jour-nalists (including those of the left-liberal press), academics, bankers, law-yers, CEOs of multinationals, and the foundation people belong, and meetin its study groups and events. Te CFR belongs to a network of relatedorganizations, some in other nations, such as the Royal Institute of Inter-national Affairs in the United Kingdom, and others that are international,such as the rilateral Commission, Bilderberg, and the World Economic

Forum. All aim to integrate governmental and non-governmental elites. In1997 a similar think-tank emerged, the Project for the New AmericanCentury (PNAC) funded by conservative foundations (e.g., Olin, Scaife,and Bradley). It replaces the white gloves of the CFR with brass knuckles.

From the outset there was congressional scrutiny of foundations, begin-ning with the Walsh Commissions (US Congress 1915) warning that thepower of wealth could overwhelm democratic culture and politics. Laterinvestigations (US Congress 1954, 1969a, 1969b, 1973) heralded the

beginning of regulation and prodded the non-profit sector into more for-mal collaboration. A Commission on Private Philanthropy and PublicNeeds was created in 1973, chaired by John H. Filer, CEO of the AetnaInsurance Company, funded by foundations and corporations, andendorsed by both the US reasury Department and Chairman WilburMills of the US House Ways and Means Committee. It produced a five-volume report (Filer Commission 1977) and stimulated the formation ofIndependent Sector, a trade association that collects statistics and under-takes public and governmental relations for nonprofits in general. Aca-demic centers for philanthropy studies were also initiated, the first beingthe Program on Non-Profit Organizations at Yale. Peter Dobkin Hall(1992: 38) maintains that because of the Filer Commission:

For the first time all charitable tax-exempt agencies, from giant grant makers

through grassroots activist organizations, were treated as part of a unified

nonprofit sector. More than merely reporting on the current state of Ameri-

can philanthropy and voluntarism, the Filer Commission succeeded in creat-

ing a new language and a new conceptual framework, which would profoundly



7/27


shape all subsequent research on voluntary, philanthropic, and charitable

activity.

By the 1970s, corporate foundations had joined the traditional privatefoundations in public policy activities. As the civil rights movement becamemore militant, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations responded by creat-ing the National Urban Coalition to transform Black power into Blackcapitalism, the latter usually denoting minority franchise ownerships.Te NUC was a significant departure in philanthropy, enlisting corporatefoundations in funding grassroots and civil rights organizations, in addi-tion to their previous community benevolence or university and think

tank support.Formal organizations have multiplied. Te Council on Foundations

sponsors the Foundation Center, providing statistics and numerous publi-cations that may be accessed on their web site or at branch libraries inevery state. Arts funders have their own peak organization within theCouncil on Foundations, Grantmakers in the Arts, and a think-tank in

Washington, DC, Center for Arts and Culture. In addition, governmentfoundations have been created at the urging of the private ones, whichare modeled on them and work collaboratively with them: the NationalEndowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,the Institute for Museum and Library Services, the Corporation for PublicBroadcasting, and the National rust for Historic Preservation. Generalplanning for the arts has become feasible.

Cultural funders, both public and private, seem to be reconsidering the axiom

of art for arts sake as a guiding principle and are showing increased interest

in the social and/or civic uses of the arts as well as in the public purposes of

the arts. (Wyszomirski 1999: 475)

Te National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy originated amongFiler report dissenters, and champions minority and low-income grantees,as does the National Network of Grantmakers. Regional social changefoundations, such as Haymarket Peoples Fund and North Star Fund, haveunited in the Funding Exchange. Right-wing foundations co-operate atthe Philanthropy Roundtable and the National Commission on Philan-

thropy and Civic Renewal. Tere are specialized organizations such as



8/27


Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership, Hispanics in Philanthropy,the National Society for Fund-Raising Executives, the National Centerfor Nonprofit Boards, and ARNOVA: the Association for Research onNonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. Te Environmental Grant-makers Association has among its members the major liberal foundations(e.g., Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur, and Mott), conservative funders (e.g.,Pew, Smith Richardson, Packard, and Hewlett), and corporate foundations:Ben and Jerrys and Patagonia, as well as BankAmerica, Heinz, Merck, andPhilip Morris.

Many foundations support the Aspen Institute, which sponsors aNonprofit Sector Research Fund, and presents programs creating links

between grassroots anti-poverty organizations and the national securityelite. Tere are two major research journals in the field, Nonprofit and Vol-untary Action Quarterly and Voluntas (with an international focus), anddiverse periodicals, such as the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Foundation News,and Black Philanthropy. Te large foundations and most associations havenewsletters and web sites; particularly useful is Guidestar, a large nonprofitsdatabase, including posted tax forms.

Foundations, Protest Movements, and Citizen Organizations

Philanthropy suggests yet another explanation for the decline of the 1960sand 1970s protest movements. Radical activism was often transformedby foundation grants and technical assistance into fragmented and localorganizations subject to elite control. Groups may have begun with self-funding, but those that wished to survive usually sought grants. Subse-quently, energies were channeled into safe, legalistic, bureaucratic, and

occasionally, profit making activities.A foundation providing only 10% of a groups budget may nevertheless

exert decisive control (as a minority shareholder of a corporation might),especially if the funds are for new initiatives. Grassroots organizationsoften have a considerable portion of their budget supplied by foundations,sometimes by a single one. Beginning in the late 1960s, both the AmericanCivil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancementof Colored People/Legal Defense and Educational Fund received crucial

support from foundations. Te Lockheed Martin Corporation Foundation



9/27


supports the NAACP, the Urban League, and the Childrens Defense Fund.Foundations considered very conservative are nevertheless happy to buy apiece of the action in activist organizations; thus the Bradley Foundationgives grants to the Aububon Society, Environmental Defense (formerlyEnvironmental Defense Fund), and the E. F. Schumacher Society (propo-nent of Small is Beautiful ).

Grants are not the only way organizations are controlled; award-winning strategies are conveyed by conferences, consultants, and publica-tions. Specialized institutions such as the Youth Project and the Center forCommunity Change, supported by a consortium of foundations, provideintegrative services and technical assistance to grassroots groups. Unfunded

groups may also be influenced, as they design their projects and structuretheir organizations to qualify for grants. Of course, organizations that donot seek grants may retain their independence if they can remain self-funding.

Sponsors may influence organizations choice of leaders. Te boards ofcitizen groups sometimes include foundation personnel, and in any case,must be attentive to sponsors interests:

Te Rockefeller Family Fund, for example, made its first grant, $20,000, to afledgling organization called Physicians for Social Responsibility in 1979. Te

money went to hire PSRs first executive director and to open its first office.

In 1980 the Fund followed with $33,000 for the executive directors salary

and the first test direct mail appeal. It was a classic example of seed money at

work. PSR took root and flowered. Last year it reported 100 local chapters,

16,000 members, 30,000 supporters and an annual budget of $500,000.

Moreover, its establishment credentials undoubtedly created a credibility

that sped the growth of concern over the issue. (Wright et al. 1985)

o ensure that there would be an adequate number of attractive, well-funded moderate organizations enlisted in the appropriate causes, founda-tions also created organizations that appeared to be of grassroots origin.For example, the Ford Foundation started the Puerto Rican Legal Defenseand Education Fund, Womens Law Fund, Environmental Defense Fund,Natural Resources Defense Council and many others. Sometimes theseparalleled radical groups, such as Central American solidarity or nucleardisarmament organizations. Energetic and talented leaders of protest move-

http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/http://crs.sagepub.com/


10/27


ments would gravitate to those organizations with salaries, offices, travelbudgets, and conference invitations. Karl Marxs (1956: 190) observationis applicable here:

[]he circumstance that the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages formed its

hierarchy with the best brains from among the people, without regard to

estate, birth or wealth, was one of the principal means of consolidating priestly

rule and the subordination of the laity. Te more a ruling class is able to

assimilate the most prominent men [sic] of the dominated classes the more

stable and dangerous is its rule.

Te protests of the 1960s evoked a whole range of new organizations, cre-ated by the foundations and modeled on the NAACP/LDEF and ACLU.Te new field of public interest law relied on litigation to redress griev-ances; it mobilized elites and check-writers rather than masses and streetfighters. Te Ford Foundation took the lead and other foundations sup-ported the following:

Center for National Policy Review; Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under

Law; Legal Action Center; Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education

Fund; NAACP/LDEF; National Committee Against Discrimination in Hous-ing; Native American Rights Fund; Puerto Rican LDEF; Womens Law Fund;

Womens Rights Project; Natural Resources Defense Council; Center for Law

and Social Policy; Center for Law in the Public Interest; Citizens Communica-

tions Center; Education Law Center; Environmental Defense Fund; Institute

for Public Interest Representation; International Project; League of Women

Voters Education Fund; Legal Action Center; Public Advocates; Sierra Club

Legal Defense Fund; (Bogota, Colombia) Research Center for the Defense of

Public Interests

Foundations coordinated their efforts in this field through the Council forPublic Interest Law, and to insure an adequate supply of practitioners initi-ated a Council on Legal Education for Professional Responsibility.

By the 19701971 school year, 100 law schools were administering 204

clinical programs in fourteen different fields of law. In the next five years

the clinical movement swelled so that by 19751976, CLEPR could con-

servatively estimate that slightly more than 90% of the American Bar



11/27


Association-approved law schools provided some form of credit-granting

clinical education. (Seligman 1978: 162)

Many of the landmark Supreme Court cases (including the early onesemploying Brandeis briefs) were supported by foundations, often actingin concert. Nevertheless, constitutional law literature usually attributesthis litigation solely to a discrete interest group. Ralph Nader and hispublic interest groups have collaborated and coordinated efforts withfoundation-supported public interest law organizations, and foundationshave increasingly supported Naders work. Te challenges to malappor-tioned state legislatures and congressional districts were developed by the

National Municipal League (Ford and Rockefeller-funded) and the wen-tieth Century Fund; the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundationhave spent many millions to litigate equal funding for school districts, andthere was substantial foundation sponsorship of the abortion rights litiga-tion. Such support for progressive activism has certainly brought benefitsand liberation to many people. However, it also serves to maintain elitehegemony, as nearly all social change movements and organizations becomedependent on foundation funding. Radicals either change their tunes, orthey are ejected from organizations seeking comfortable budgets.

Right-wing foundations have adopted the strategies of the liberals. TePacific Legal Foundation, created by the California Chamber of Com-merce in 1973, inspired Coors, oil companies, and others to found pub-lic interest law firms such as the Washington Legal Foundation, theNational Legal Center for the Public Interest, and the Mountain StatesLegal Foundation. Tese were closely allied with the Heritage Foundation,and propelled James Watt, Ann Burford, and their ilk into public office.Conservative foundations, including Mellon, Bradley, Olin, and Smith

Richardson, also directly finance law school programs embodying theLaw and Economics philosophy, which aims to make the free marketthe basis for all law and legal interpretation. Tese initiatives have beenadequately reported and bemoaned in the left-liberal press, which rarelylooks at the funding that is driving the left into the center.

Foundations and Government

Foundations work with governments as any pressure group might, supply-

ing policy ideas and hoping for their enactment, and their efforts in this



12/27


arena are significant, as foundations offer public policies created in-houseand fund nearly all think tanks where new policies are formulated. Tisincludes those considered left-wing or progressive, such as the Interhemi-spheric Resource Center, Institute for Policy Studies, Institute for Agricul-ture and rade Policy, Worldwatch Institute, Redefining Progress, Centerfor Responsive Politics, Cultural Survival, North American Congresson Latin America, National Priorities Project, and the National Security

Archives. Some, like the Economic Policy Institute, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, and Human Rights Watch, were initiated with majorfoundation involvement.

In addition, power is derived from informal contacts, quasi-official status,

joint projects with governments, grants and awards to public agencies, andpolicy-implementation roles for foundations or their grantees. Te conse-quent erosion of the public-private divide, while echoing the old New Eng-land church-state cohesion, was a goal of the Progressive-era municipalreform movement. oday, even professors of public administration get intodisputes about which institutions are public and which private; many citi-zens dont believe that the distinction matters.

Organizations such as the National Municipal League (founded in

1894) were increasingly supported and guided by foundations. Carnegieand Rockefeller financed the Bureau of Municipal Research of New YorkCity, initiated in 1907. Te academic field of public administration waslargely created during the 1920s and 1930s by the Rockefeller Foundationand its affiliates (the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 191828, andthe Spelman Fund, 192849). Foundations funded research institutessuch as Brookings and the National Bureau of Economic Research, andpeak organizations (which combined the functions of pressure groupsand research) such as the American Municipal Association, the AmericanPublic Welfare Association, the National Association of Housing Officials,the Council of State Governments, the Municipal Finance Officers Asso-ciation, etc. Te Rockefeller Foundation created departments of publicadministration to train government personnel at the Universities of Cali-fornia, Chicago, Cincinnati, Harvard, Minnesota, Virginia and the Amer-ican University.

o consolidate this new field, the Spelman Fund developed and financedthe Public Administration Clearing House, closely associated with the

University of Chicago. Its director, Louis Brownlow, was also Chairman of



13/27


the Social Science Research Councils Committee on Public Administra-tion. Te Fund also subsidized the staffing, publications, and conferencesof the American Society for Public Administration, founded in 1939. Bythe late 1930s, an affiliate of the Clearing House, the Public Administra-tion Service, began installing model practices and methods in state andlocal government (Roberts 1994: 225).

Te City Manager idea, which claims that cities should be operatedlike businesses, was endorsed in 1915 by the National Municipal Leaguein its Model City Charter. oday the manager form is promoted by theInternational City Management Association, which receives major fund-ing from the Rockefeller Foundation. Another early effort, directed

specifically at the legal system, was support (by the Rockefeller Foundationand Carnegie Corporation) of the American Law Institute for its project topromote uniformity of all states laws, aiding in the rationalization andcentralization of our political system.

Foundations also influence local government policy through good gov-ernment awards and direct grants. Te latter may be small in comparisonto total budgets, but their very existence as a source of public finance mightraise some eyebrows. Furthermore, these grants are almost always for inno-

vation, so their effect cannot be measured in strictly quantitative terms.Criticism of this funding is usually limited to those who dislike a programssubstance. Tus, parents in Kentucky protested against a public schoolrequirement for genital examinations:

Who authorized the intrusive program? Not the state legislature. Te pro-

gram, imposed by state bureaucrats, was bankrolled by a private foundation,

the Annie E. Casey Foundation. . . .

US charitable foundations dole out about $100 million each year to state and

local governments. oday virtually every state accepts social agenda grants

from private foundations.

Tey bribe government to take on projects they would not otherwise do,

says Kim Dennis, until recently executive director of the Philanthropy Round-

table, an Indianapolis-based trade association for grantmakers.

Bribe may not be too strong a word. Te governments for sale, says attorney

Kent Masterson Brown, who is suing on behalf of Kentucky citizens to void

the states $299,500 contract with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.



14/27


Te 1994 contract provided that the foundation would fund the design of a

comprehensive health care program for the state. (McMenamin 1996)

On rare occasions, liberal critics question the process by which founda-tions have become gatekeepers to almost all local innovation. Rob Gurwitt(1998) reports:

In the late fall of 1996, a select subcommittee of the Pennsylvania House of

Representatives made a startling accusation: Private foundations had been

using their grant money to buy public policy. In particular, the legislators

declared, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the influential New Jersey

health care giant, had been spreading dollars around in an effort to reshapethe states health care system, pursuing its own agenda without regard for

legislative niceties.

Te subcommittees report was blunt. It appears that the Robert Wood John-

son Foundation, the Pew Charitable rusts, and other foundations are pro-

viding grants as seed money to state, county, and local governmental bodies

to develop new or to expand existing government programs, all without the

informed consent of the General Assembly, it said. Calling these foundations

purchasers of public policy, it went on in outraged tones: It is one thing to

seek change, it is quite another when changes in public policy are influenced

by the offering of private money to state governmental institutions.

Gurwitt adds that foundations fund every state government, and that inaddition to the original supporters, such as Ford and Carnegie, many newones are now involved, such as Enterprise, Edna McConnell Clark, AnnieE. Casey, Kellogg, McKnight, and Annenberg Foundations.

Nearly all reforms in public (as well as private) education originated

with foundations. Te course credit system and centrally-administeredcollege entrance examinations came about as a requirement for the collegeteachers pension program (now IAA-CREF) started by the CarnegieCorporation for the Advancement of eaching. Tese had a major effecton standardizing high school education throughout the United States, ascollege admission increasingly dictated curricula. Carnegie later initiatednew math, Sesame Street, and service learning. Ford, along withCarnegie, were the major promoters of educational television and develop-

ers of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Headstart, Upward Bound,



15/27


and alternative schools. In 1967, McGeorge Bundy, President of the FordFoundation, was appointed by New York Citys mayor as chair of a taskforce to plan for NYC school system decentralization.

Public-private boundaries are fading in education. Some school systemsare hiring private corporations to run their schools, school boards financeindependent charter schools, and voucher systems give a public sub-sidy for students attending private schools, including in some districts,parochial schools. Many schools use commercial advertising and junk foodvending machines as fundraisers; even textbooks and curricula are linkedto corporate marketing strategies. Corporate foundations are particularlyinterested in goals such as increasing the number of students in the math,

science and information technology pipeline. Buzz Bartlett, Director ofCorporate Affairs for Lockheed Martin, testified before the US HouseCommittee on Science, stating that Lockheed gives $800,000 a year fork-12 education. Tis is not simply a grant program; Bartlett and othersparticipate actively in the education reform network, which includesthe Business Roundtables Education Working Group. In addition to theLockheed national HQs efforts, [m]ost if not all of our over fifty operat-ing companies are involved in programs in their [sic] schools (US Con-

gress 1999).Tere has long been close interaction between foundations and national

government. As Karl and Katz have indicated, foundations served as theplanning institutions that our political system lacked. Elites, far fromespousing laissez-faire, increasingly sought trust among competingcorporations, and government intervention to aid in capitalisms survival.Te Institute for Government Research (now the Brookings Institution)

was created in 1916, led by a businessman and trustee of the CarnegieEndowment for International Peace, Robert Brookings, and funded by theRockefeller Foundation. Te Budget and Accounting Act was an IGR pro-posal, adopted by Congress in 1921, which turned budget initiation overto the President and a newly created Bureau of the Budget. Te executivebudget, also adopted by state and local governments, was a move towardsmanagerialism, and accords with Progressive ideology.

A major social analysis and program for reform, Recent Social rends inthe United States, was published in 1933 (Presidents Research Commit-tee), initiated by President Hoover, organized by the SSRC, and funded by

the Rockefeller Foundation. It advocated metropolitan government and



16/27


regional planning to replace obsolete local government structures, and newgovernance institutions, such as quasi-governmental and mixed public-private corporations. Economic and social planning was proposed to curethe Depression, and the Social Science Research Council was deemed theappropriate planning institution. Te New Deal was largely created withsuch help, although . . . Roosevelt preferred to conceal the fact that somany of his major advisers on policy and some of his major programmes[sic] in social reform were the result of support by one or more of the pri-vate foundations . . . (Karl and Katz 1981: 268). Te social security pro-gram was designed by the American Association for Labor Legislation, agroup funded by industrialists and Carnegie, Milbank, and Sage Founda-

tions (Domhoff 1990: 47).

Te main work on the program was done by experts from a private organi-

zation called Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc., which had been founded

in 1921 by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to search for ways to deal with labor

unrest and avoid unionization. Te organization was closely linked to both

the familys main oil companies . . . and charitable foundations. Tese Rock-

efeller experts worked with other experts and some business leaders through

committees of the Social Science Research Council. . . .

Many of these committee members, including three employees from Indus-

trial Relations Counselors, Inc. were appointed to President Roosevelts Social

Security task force. (Domhoff 1998: 271)

After social security was enacted there was still the problem of administer-ing this bold new program. Te Social Science Research Councils Com-mittee on Social Security (supported also by the wentieth Century Fund)

was awarded $430,000 (between 19351940) by the Rockefeller Founda-

tion and:

[I]t was the RFs intent that the CSS should coordinate the whole field of

social security on behalf of Rockefeller philanthropy. Te CSS was created as

an adjunct to the federal social security legislation and fulfilled the role of

research planner and organizer for the S[ocial S[ecurity] B[ureau]. (Fisher

1993: 150)



17/27


Te SSB was grateful for the extensive assistance of the CSS, which helpedto select personnel and gave technical advice to federal and state officials.

During the post-World War II period, foundations worked to increasefederal control over a wide range of local functions. President KennedysCommittee on Juvenile Delinquency became an outpost of the Ford Foun-dation, and funded the large scale replication of Fords experiments, which

was the beginning of the Foundations dominant influence in the Waron Poverty. Fords cure for juvenile delinquency, community renewal,required a major reorganization of local government, similar to the arrange-ments in its Gray Areas projects, so called because they were the areasbetween central business districts and suburbs where poor Black, white,

and Hispanic migrants were settling. Public opinion was becoming recep-tive to the idea that community action was a legitimate federal govern-ment involvement, in accordance with Fords policy people, who arguedthat most local governments were excessively compartmentalized, too nar-row geographically, and structurally obsolete.

Te Foundations pilot programs, soon to be adopted by Congress, chal-lenged usual local government structures and processes. Tey were never-theless politically acceptable in Democratic-controlled cities that hoped for

some federal largess from a Democratic administration. Fords Gray Areasexperiments became a working model of the Federal Governments GreatSociety program (Magat 1979: 121). From these initiatives came federallegislation providing for community development corporations (financedby government, corporations, and foundations), which were to establishsmall businesses and industries in depressed areas. Te CDCs, often com-bining education, job training, legal services, housing, health services, andcommunity organizing, were said by a Ford official to be a proxy for localgovernment (Magat 1979: 122). Tese new entities erased the boundariesbetween traditional local government departments; between the publicand private sectors; and among local, state, and national governments.Local tax money was still part of the mix; other funding included federalgovernment and foundation grants, business donations and investments,and any returns on the investment. Boards are rarely elected; they are usu-ally composed of appointed stakeholders, with elites playing a major role.Consequently, democratic control is nearly impossible to maintain; todaythis format is used not only in impoverished communities but also by

economic development corporations throughout the United States.



18/27


Foundations have strong affinities with the Progressive movement, shar-ing its disdain for electoral politics, which, however messy, at one timeempowered working class constituencies (Hays 1957). Municipal reformmarginalized the poor, and the newer institutions continue this trend.

A contributing factor is the foundation-supported tax law, which allowsgrants to 501(c)3 organizations, e.g., including those of poor people, yetprohibits foundation aid to political parties. For business-oriented candi-dates, money is always available, but for others, it is hard to scrape up thebig bucks needed to attract attention. In other capitalist democracies, taxmoney often supports political parties not merely campaigns and candi-dates, but also the offices and staff necessary for effective power.

In addition to task forces, advisory committees, and subsidies to govern-ment operations, there is considerable informal interaction between foun-dations and government. A 1969 Senate investigation questioned thehonoraria and travel payments to judges, federal and local officials, andCongresspeople who participated in foundation conferences, boards, com-mittees, and the like. It was also concerned about the revolving door,

whereby officials would go back and forth between government and foun-dation employment.

Te foundation witnesses claimed that they were being singled outunfairly, as businesses and trade associations were lavish with honorariaand travel expenses. When the inquisitors said foundations were differentbecause they were tax exempt, the rebuttal was that commencement speak-ers were often government officials and they receive honoraria. Manyexamples offered by the foundations in their defense revealed the greatimportance of foundation-supported think tanks and policy networks,e.g., Council of State Governments, to the education and socialization ofgovernment officials.

McGeorge Bundy, then President of the Ford Foundation, stated that ithad onlyone federal judge on the Board of Directors, and that:

I have been out of the Government 3 years now but I did come straight from

government to a foundation. Our vice president for international affairs . . .

came to us straight from . . . Director of the AID.

Dean Rusk . . . went straight from Assistant Secretary of State to the presi-

dency of the Rockefeller Foundation and when he left the office as Secre-

tary of State he received a senior appointment again at the Rockefeller



19/27


Foundation. . . . Cabinet officers seek out some of our program officers or vice

presidents and ask them if they are available for service. . . . We had a represen-

tative in one part of Latin America who accepted an appointment as an Ambas-

sador under the Johnson administration. (US Congress 1969b)

New regulations were enacted, but they did not greatly interfere with thesearrangements; in recent years, the Pew Charitable rusts has been sponsor-ing civility retreats for the entire US House of Representatives at theGreenbrier Resort (Shenon 2001). Although foundations were forbiddenby law to . . .persuade members of legislative bodies or governmentemployees to take particular positions on specific legislative issues, except

in the course of technical advice or assistance rendered in response to awritten request, they could fund occasions or institutions of generalinfluence without penalty (US Congress 1970).

As is evident from the testimony above, the foundations have intimateconnections with the United States foreign policy apparatus; they hadextensive political and cultural dealings with nations on every continent ata time when the US government maintained only formal diplomatic rela-tions. Te United Nations and its component agencies have also been

greatly aided by foundations and receive grants for special projects. JohnD. Rockefeller, Jr., gave an $8.5 million gift enabling the UN to buy theland for its East Side New York headquarters.

Te leading capitalist front organization, the (Rockefeller and Carnegie-initiated) Council on Foreign Relations, which unites business, labor lead-ers, government officials, journalists, and foreign policy academics,supported the Central Intelligence Agencys creation and close links remain(Marchetti and Marks 1980: 237). Te Cold War initiated concertedaction on the cultural front by foundations and the CIA; a major objective

was to persuade European intellectuals that the United States was not onlya free society, but also a culturally rich one that did not repress its artistsas did the proponents of socialist realism. Foundations were used as pass-throughs for government money; they also funded government-approvedoperations themselves (Congressional Quarterly1967; Saunders 1999). Tebest known of these projects was the Congress of Cultural Freedom and its

journal, Encounter;there was a whole slew of such undertakings, includingworld tours of abstract expressionist paintings and the Boston Symphony

Orchestra.



20/27


CIA and foundations together created and supported area studiesinstitutes affiliated with universities to enlist scholars in the Cold War. TeRussian Research Center at Harvard, the European Institute at Columbia,and the Center for International Studies at MI, among others, departedfrom normal academic procedures by their location outside of the univer-sity departments, their broad interdisciplinary approaches, and their fre-quent waiver of academic credentials. Students, professors, and staff werefoundation-funded, and former government officials or migrs withoutdegrees often became senior fellows. A further shift in academic conven-tions was their close association with government agencies and their con-siderable participation in classified research. Development studies were

similarly endowed, and often overlapped with area studies programs. Teirideology reflected the financial interests of foundation trustees and portfo-lios, and they worked to create a well-educated Tird World elite dedicatedto capitalism and economic growth (Berman 1983: 113).

In the case of South Africa, the challenge for Western elites was to dis-connect the socialist and anti-apartheid goals of the African National Con-gress. Foundations aided in this process, by framing the debate in theUnited States and by creating civil-rights type NGOs in South Africa. In

1978 the Rockefeller Foundation convened an 11-person Study Commis-sion on US Policy oward Southern Africa, chaired by Franklin Tomas,President of the Ford Foundation; it also included Alan Pifer, President ofthe Carnegie Corporation of New York.

In Eastern Europe, the 1975 East-West European Security agreement,known as the Helsinki Accords prompted the foundations to createHelsinki Watch (now Human Rights Watch), an international NGO formonitoring the agreements; Rockefeller, Ford, and Soros Foundations areprominent supporters. Te Ford Foundation also funded the London-based East European Cultural Foundation, one of several new foundationsbegun in the 1980s promoting Western-style pluralism in Eastern Europe.Te EECF (n.d.) states that it was:

[C]reated in response to requests from Central and Eastern Europe for

effective assistance in maintaining cultural, intellectual and civic life in these

countries and to prevent their isolation from each other and from the West.

Te EECF encourages and helps to facilitate various forms of creative

work by Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians and Poles, and dialogue between Polish



21/27


Solidarity, Czechoslovakias Charter 77, the Hungarian democratic opposi-

tion and unofficial peace and human rights activists in East Germany, and

between these groups and the West.

When the Central Intelligence Agencys covert use of foundations andorganizations (such as National Education Association and National Stu-dent Association) became public in 1967, there was a brief period of indig-nancy. Congress eventually created a new institution in 1983 to put adifferent face on this type of intervention: the National Endowment forDemocracy. NED initiates some projects, distributes grants, and directlyfunds nonprofit organizations or for-profit subcontractors. Te subsidiar-

ies or core grantees of NED are the Center for International PrivateEnterprise (an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce), the AmericanCenter for International Labor Solidarity (affiliated with the AFL-CIO),and, representing the two major political parties, the National DemocraticInstitute for International Affairs and the International Republican Insti-tute. Private foundations, for example, Smith Richardson and Mellon-Scaife, also chip in. Te Mott Foundation (1998) gave the NDI $150,000in 1998 to increase public confidence in democratization and the transi-

tion to a market economy in Ukraine; it also donated $50,000 for elec-tion monitoring. Foundations and the NED funded overthrow groupssuch as the Civic Forum in Czechoslovakia, Solidarity in Poland, Union ofDemocratic Forces in Bulgaria, and Otpor in Serbia (Cohen 2000: 42).Te US Agency for International Development and a special fund forEastern Europe, Support for East European Democracy (SEED), haveprojects similar to those of the NED. Tis includes funding foreign politi-cal parties a clear violation of the UN Charter; a reciprocal arrangement

would, in addition, violate US law.

Other NAO democracies now have government foundations cognateto NED and work cooperatively, e.g., the Canadian Rights and Democracyand the British Westminster Foundation for Democracy. France, Nether-lands, Greece, Italy, Sweden, and Germany fund political party founda-tions that are especially active in Latin America and Africa. For example:

[]he Konrad Adenauer Foundation [of the German Christian Democratic

Party] has been widely known for its manipulation of the political processes

of Latin American countries such as Chile in the 1960s and Guatemala and



22/27


El Salvador in the 1980s. Furthermore, from the 1960s onward, it has been

legendary in Latin America for its role as a laundry for CIA funds. A recent

example of this role was in the 1984 presidential campaign of Christian Dem-

ocrat Jose Napoleon Duarte in El Salvador, when the Adenauer Foundationacted as a conduit for $350,000 in CIA funds designated for Duartes cam-

paign. (Council on Hemispheric Affairs 1990: 12)

Te 1990 election of Violetta Chamorro in Nicaragua was a similar groupeffort. Te European members of the Socialist International (an associa-tion of socialist and social democratic parties worldwide) have their ownfoundation, the European Forum for Democracy and Solidarity, which

distributes democratization aid.Current arrangements embody the international side of Progressivism public-private partnerships on a world scale. Tey entwine foundations,government programs, quangos (quasi-non-governmental organizations),nongovernmental organizations, and international governmental entities.Te frequent objective of these projects, often called democracy promo-tion is to foster neoliberalism, which entails privatization of most govern-ment functions, business deregulation, abolition of subsidies and welfare,and availability of all assets (land, V stations, national newspapers, etc.)

for purchase by any corporation, regardless of nationality. Freedom alsomeans that foreigners can start any business anywhere, including a newuniversity or a radio station. Democratization is sometimes even associated

with the right of foreigners to be candidates for national office, but it doesnot abolish immigration restrictions for the unmonied. Huge grants havebeen used to persuade Eastern Europeans that NAO membership is aprerequisite for democracy, and to prepare nations for their absorptioninto it.

Te European Union also has worldwide grant programs for sustainabledevelopment and democratization, as do UN agencies such as UNICEF,

WHO, UNESCO, or FAO. Te UNs Department of Peacekeeping Oper-ations has an Electoral Assistance Unit, which helped organize the Nicara-guan 1990 election that led to the defeat of the Sandinista government(Pinto-Duschinsky 1997: 304). Another UN entity, the World Bank, hasa grantmaking foundation unit that sponsors, guides, and coordinatesgrassroots poor peoples organizations. Mongolia, as many former com-

munist countries, has lost its welfare and health care systems, and the



23/27


free market has not had enough time to provide affluence on the US andEuropean models. o compensate, PAC (Private Agencies Collaboratingogether), a US-based NGO, is working to foster economic and civicdevelopment of the Gobi region, in coordination with Mercy Corps Inter-national and Associates in Rural Development. In order to ensure a strongmarket economy, the group is developing and promoting informationtechnology use throughout the region (Civnet 1998). Mongolias Sorosfoundation (see the article in this issue by Nicolas Guilhot), as those else-

where, attempts to organize the desocialized economy and society. Mediaenterprises associated with Soros, such as ransitions on Line are alsobecoming the major sources for information about these countries. Foun-

dations usually have a hand in alternative media, from public broad-casting in the US to OneWorld.net, supported by Ford Foundation,Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, andothers (see the article in this issue by Bob Feldman).

Other examples of Byzantine foreign policy operations include Partnersfor Democratic Change, formed to build civil society in Eastern Europe,the former USSR, and Argentina (all emerging democracies). Te orga-nization has directors from the Kettering and Eisenhower Foundations,

United States Information Agency, European Commission, and Council onForeign Relations, among others. Te Civic Education Project, to assistuniversities in East European and former USSR, includes directors from theSoros-created Central European University, Boeing Corporation, Harvard,

Yale, Princeton, and the German Marshall Fund. Its contributors includeMobil Oil, the European Commission, Ford Foundation, MacArthurFoundation, the North Atlantic reaty Organization, IBM, and severalSoros foundations. CIVICUS, a world alliance of citizen action organiza-tions, contrasts its structure with that of churches and socialist internation-als: In both cases, the global drive was promoted by a centrally organizedinstitution, be it a church or a political organization, spreading its compassto the periphery (andon and de Oliveira 1994). CIVICUS constituents,on the contrary, are said to be spontaneous actors, motivated by values,

who create associations from the bottom up. odays movement is notbeing promoted by one all-encompassing structure. Nevertheless, CIVI-CUS is an elite network in which collaborating funders hold asymmetri-cal power.



24/27


Te expensive conferencing of these networks tends to incorporate allprotest, dissent, and reform energies into a fragmented, pragmatic, NGOmodel dependent on foundation funding, and attractive enough to drawaway partisans or potential recruits of structural change movements. A lead-ingpromoterof NGOs, Tomas Carothers, Vice President for Global Pol-icy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, had this to say:

[M]ost of the new transnational civil society actors are Western groups pro-

jecting themselves into developing and transitional societies. Tey may some-

times work in partnership with groups from those countries, but the agendas

and values they pursue are usually their own. ransnational civil society is

thus global but very much part of the same projection of Western politicaland economic power that civil society activists decry in other venues. (1999

2000)

Foundations have organized grassroots networks such as the Slum Dwell-ers International, the Shackdwellers International, and GROOS (Grass-roots Organizations Operating ogether in Sisterhood), which boast oftheir distinction from archaic social movements of the past, such as earlierrural and urban movements of the poor, including trade unions and left-

wing political parties (SDI 2004). Tese groups are prominent at alterna-tive summits like the World Social Forum also aided by foundations.Even where, as in Bombay 2004, organizers refused general support fromthe Ford Foundation, the participating NGOs (and poor peoples travel)

we are aided by foundations (see article in this issue by RUPE-India). Onecritic, David Rieff (1999), suggested that the civil society system promotedand sustained by foundations is a new feudalism. Donors (mostly foreign),NGO leaders, and members are lined up in patron and client relation-ships; in comparison, national and local political institutions have littlepower, prestige, or funding.

In accordance with the feudal spirit, globalization advocates championnetworks. Celebrated as nonhierarchical, networks enable the powerfulto appear as just another participant, as in the roundtables of local poli-tics. As Brzezinski observed, they obscure asymmetries in power andinfluence. Tus are democratic institutions quietly being supplantedby public-private partnerships, advocated by the Recent Social rendsauthors.



25/27


Tis study has shown that the pluralist model of civil society obscuresthe extensive collaboration among the resource-providing elites and thedependent state of most grassroots organizations. While the latter maynegotiate with foundations over details, and even win some concessions,capitalist hegemony (including its imperial perquisites) cannot be ques-tioned without severe organizational penalties. By and large, it is thefunders who are calling the tune. Tis would be more obvious if there weresufficient publicized investigations of this vast and important domain.Tat the subject is off-limits for both academics and journalists is com-pelling evidence of enormous power.

References

Arnove, Robert, ed. 1980. Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism.Boston, MA: G. K. Hall.

Berman, Edward. 1983. Te Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on Amer-

ican Foreign Policy.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. 1997. Te Grand Chessboard.New York: Basic Books.

Carothers, Tomas. 19992000. Civil Society. Foreign Policy117 (Winter): 1830.

Civnet News. 1999. (September 20). Retrieved 5 July 2000 (http://civnet.org/news/news.htm).

Cohen, Roger. 2000. Who Really Brought Down Milosevic? New York imes Magazine, 26

November. Retrieved 27 November 2000 (http://www.nytimes.com).Congressional Quarterly. 1967. CIA Funding of Domestic Groups. (24 February): 271272.

Council on Hemispheric Affairs. 1990. National Endowment for Democracy (NED): A Foreign

Policy Branch Gone Awry. Albuquerque, NM: Inter-Hemispheric Resource Center.

Domhoff, G. William. 1990. Te Power Elite and the State.New York: De Gruyter.

. 1998. Who Rules America: Power and Politics in the Year 2000. 3rd ed. Mountain View,

CA: Mayfield.

East European Cultural Foundation. n.d. Flyer. London: EECF.

Filer Commission. 1977. Research Papers of the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public

Needs.5 vols. Washington DC: US Department of the reasury.

Fisher, Donald. 1993. Fundamental Development of the Social Sciences. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer-sity of Michigan Press.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International.

Gurwitt, Rob. 1998. With Strings Attached. Governing11 (April): 1820.

Hall, Peter Dobkin. 1992. Inventing the Nonprofit Sector.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

Hays, Samuel P. 1957. Te Response to Industrialism: 1885-1914. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Horne, Gerald. 1986. Black and Red: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Afro-American Response to the Cold

War, 19441963. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Howe, Barbara. 1980. Te Emergence of Scientific Philanthropy 19001920. In Philanthropy

and Cultural Imperialism, ed. Robert Arnove. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall, 2554.



26/27


Karl, Barry D. and Stanley N. Katz. 1981. Te American Private Philanthropic Foundation and

the Public Sphere 18901930.Minerva19 (Summer): 236270.

Magat, Richard. 1979. Te Ford Foundation at Work: Philanthropic Choices, Methods and Styles.

New York: Plenum.Marchetti, Victor and Jon Marks. 1980. Te CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. New York: Dell.

Marx, Karl. 1956. Capital III.In Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy,

eds. . B. Bottomore and M. Rubel. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McMenamin, Brigid. 1996. rojan Horse Money. Forbes158: 123.

Mott Foundation. 2000.2000 Grants Database. Civil Society-Central/Eastern Europe, Russia and

the Republics-19951999. Retrieved 25 July 2000 (http://www.mott.org/cgibin/mott-

grants/grantsearch.pl).

Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael. 1997. Te Rise of Political Aid. In Consolidating Tird Wave

Democracies, ed. Larry Diamond et al. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Presidents Research Committee on Social rends. [1933] 1970. Recent Social rends in the

United States.2 vols. Greenwood, C: Westport.

Rieff, David. 1999. Civil Society and the Future of the Nation-State. Nation, 22 February:

1116.

Roberts, Alasdair. 1994. Demonstrating Neutrality: Te Rockefeller Philanthropies and the

Evolution of Public Administration, 19271936. Public Administration Review54 (May/

June): 221.

Roelofs, Joan. 2003. Foundations and Public Policy: Te Mask of Pluralism. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Ross, B. Joyce. 1972. J. E. Springarn and the Rise of the NAACP: 1911-1939. New York:

Atheneum.

Saunders, Frances Stonor. 1999. Who Paid the Piper?: Te CIA and the Cultural Cold War.Granta:

London. Published in the US as Te Cultural Cold War.New Press: New York.

SDI (Shack/Slum Dwellers International). 2004. Home Page. Retrieved 23 September 2004

(http://www.sdinet.org/pages/amain.html).

Seligman, Joel. 1978. Te High Citadel: Te Influence of Harvard Law School. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Shenon, Philip. 2001. House Votes Haunt Retreat Meant to Spur Collegiality. New York imes

10 March: NE 17.

Shoup, Lawrence and William Minter. 1977. Imperial Brain rust. New York: Monthly Review

Press.

andon, Rajesh and Miguel Darcy de Oliveira. 1994. Citizens Strengthening Global Civil Soci-ety. Washington, DC: CIVICUS. Excerpt from Chapter 1. Retrieved 15 May 2001 (http://

www.civicus.org/pages/pubs9.html).

US Congress. 1915. Commission on Industrial Relations (Walsh Commission). Report.Wash-

ington, DC: Government Printing Office.

. 1954. House. Special Committee to Investigate ax-exempt Foundations and Compa-

rable Organizations. ax-exempt Foundations. 83rd Cong. 2nd Sess.

. 1969a. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Hearings on ax Reform.91st Cong.,

1st Sess.

. 1969b. Senate. Committee on Finance. Hearings on Improper Payments by Private Foun-

dations to Government Officials. 91st Cong. 1st Sess.



27/27


. 1970. Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue axation. General Explanation

of the ax Reform Act of 1969. Washington, DC: GPO.

. 1973. House. Committee on Banking. Hearings on Exempt Foundations and Charitable

rusts before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance. 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (Patman Com-mittee)

. 1999. House. Committee on Science. Subcommittee on Basic Research. Hearings. (July 29).

Available: http://www.house.gov/science/bartlett_072999.htm.

Wright, almadge, Felix Rodriguez and Howard Waitzkin. 1985. Corporate Interests, Philan-

thropies, and the Peace Movement.Monthly Review(February): 1931.

Wyszomirski, Margaret J. 1999. Philanthropy and Culture. In Philanthropy and the Nonprofit

Sector in a Changing America, ed. Charles . Clotfelter and Tomas Ehrlich. Bloomington,

IN: Indiana University Press.

Documents

7 Foundations and Collaboration