Larvatus Prodeo

Sociologists and anthropologists have long been fascinated by the place of gift giving and reciprocity in constituting communities. Drawing on ethnographic research in the Pacific, Mauss argued against the idea that gifts are ‘free’ in the political economic sense of an absence of money changing hands. Instead, gifts represented ‘total social facts’ because of the social bonds formed around them. National blood supplies should largely rely on altruism because, as Richard Titmuss famously, and successfully argued, because of the failures of economically rationalist models to promote sufficient supply. As with any theory, critics have pointed to cases in which this isn’t the case, however I was reminded of its explanatory power when I read this op-ed on the tax rules around charity at ABC:

“A number of banks, corporations and different levels of government have donated a million dollars each, but a lot of the money collected came from the pockets of ordinary Australians, reinforcing the maxim ‘if you want charity, go to the poor’. Of course, wealthy people don’t get wealthy by giving their money away. But many who achieve wealth are keen to give back to the community, and research shows that those with greater financial capacity give more and more often. However, rather than making spontaneous one-off contributions, they like to plan their giving.”

(my emphasis) The piece then goes on to explain how ‘Prescribed Private Funds’ have been used to structure giving by the wealthy, which then prime minister, John Howard, “announced ‘would have the object of channelling funds … to isolated acts of relief, including public funds for the relief of one individual or family or a community adversely affected by a natural disaster.” Of course, in case you haven’t realised by now, the impetus for the op-ed was the Victorian Bushfires and concern that “as the severity and frequency of bushfires in Australia appears to be increasing, a more focused and long-term approach to philanthropy in bushfire relief is warranted …” Continue reading ‘Gifts, value and ‘futile’ [State] emissions reductions’