Understanding welfare

(The text “Wohlfahrt verstehen” (understanding welfare) was first published in 2015 when I was building the (now-defunct) Benckiser Stiftung Zukunft with the later co-founders of Effektiv Spenden. Particularly in the early years of our foundation work, when we primarily dealt with poverty and educational deficits in Germany, we unsurprisingly repeatedly encountered welfare services. We also encountered an astonishing level of self-assurance and almost categorical resistance to new project and funding approaches. The extent of the resistance was inversely proportional to the – usually non-existent – evidence of effectiveness of their own projects. In this blog post, I tried to explore the causes of this. I fear the text remains just as relevant today, so we are republishing it here.)

Anyone thinking about the development of the social sector cannot ignore social welfare. The great social entrepreneurs of the 19th century, such as Johann Hinrich Wichern and Lorenz Werthmann (the founding fathers of Diakonie and Caritas), not only made social welfare a topic of discussion against considerable resistance, but also provided examples of successful implementation of social projects and set standards that have had to be defended time and again and continue to have an impact today.

We are now in the 21st century. Who do we find today when we look for prosperity? The answer depends first of all on the perspective of the observer. Secondly, it also depends on how one wants to look at welfare. For example, voluntary welfare associations appear either as monolithic blocs that stand for (and speak for) social welfare in Germany, or merely as protective supra-regional umbrellas under which committed local organizations can informally exchange ideas.

Anyone thinking about the further development of the social sector should try to make large charitable organizations their partners, because they have more experience and access to the social sector than any other comparable structure. But what happens if the charity (initially) resists the request? How can understanding still be achieved? Understanding is the beginning of communication. To achieve true understanding, it is necessary to shift from an external to an internal perspective. This is, of course, difficult for the external observer, but not impossible. In dialogue with members of charitable organizations, patterns emerge from which conclusions can be drawn.

History: We are the social
Welfare organizations, especially Caritas and Diakonie, can look back on a centuries-long history of social commitment. It was a social commitment at a time when there were no social security systems to take care of the sick and the needy. Nor was it a society that saw it as its social duty to provide a decent existence for all citizens without distinction. Welfare arose in a struggle for distribution and against interests that opposed social welfare. This may explain why, now that the welfare system is finally established, welfare advocates sometimes react with hostility when people outside the welfare system come forward with (supposed) suggestions for improvement.

Order: We have the mandate
Historically, especially in pre-democratic times, welfare officials have often been seen as the sole advocates for those in need. Sometimes this perception is perpetuated in a welfare system that is mandated to exist for all eternity. This may explain why welfare advocates sometimes overlook the fact that decisions about necessary social services should be made not by the welfare agency itself, but by the public sector - and therefore subject to only one authority: the will of the voters.

Effectiveness: Well meant is well done
Welfare workers see themselves as part of a social security system that catches people in need. That system must therefore be good, because it stands in opposition to a system that is bad, through whose gaps people repeatedly fall. Anyone who ends up in the social system after a fall has found refuge under a good, protective roof and a good, helping hand.
This may explain why members of the welfare sector sometimes find it difficult to enter decisively into a debate on effectiveness. Because what is effective is what is good, and everything is good here.

Innovation: Collective tops individuality
Welfare members see themselves as part of a collective of the good. In Welfare’s view, individualism is an expression of a selfish society, to which the collective idea of solidarity in Welfare is the counter-model. This collective idea makes it difficult for Welfare members to make individual excellence visible within their own ranks. This would make it clear that some people do things better than others, even though everyone means well. This may explain why charities sometimes find it difficult to identify innovative and particularly successful solutions within their own ranks and make them available to other organizations within the association.

System: Language is identity
In order to do justice to the basic idea of welfare, i.e. to reach as many people as possible in the best possible way, it would be necessary to constantly review one’s own actions. The terminology for review and change is effectiveness, efficiency, efficacy and, last but not least, sharing of best practices - all terms of a thoroughly economized “cold” society, which stands in contrast to the “warm” solidarity system of welfare. This may explain why members of the welfare sector sometimes find it difficult to reflect on their actions in terms of such dimensions. If they were to do so, they would risk losing sight of the fundamental incompatibility of the two systems, from which many derive welfare’s raison d’être - and not least its identity.

Power: The whole is less than the sum of its parts
In Michael Ende’s “Jim Button and Luke the Engineer,” the illusory giant Tur Tur appears. A fearsome giant from a distance, Tur Tur gets smaller and smaller the closer you get to him. Finally, you are confronted with a small man who is amazed that the world is afraid of his apparent size. The view from afar: The German government’s Monopolies Commission has been accusing charities for years of excessive power, lack of transparency, cartel-like structures and waste of funds. A close-up view: An experienced, well-meaning, and enormously busy gentleman who anxiously asks back: Me? A cartel?!

Understanding lies somewhere in between.

(originally published in 2015 on the blog of the Benckiser Stiftung Zukunft)

About the author

Stefan Shaw

Founder & Director of Donor Advisory

Book a meeting

I am one of the founders of Effektiv Spenden. If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to send me an email. I will get right back to you.