Us Before Me pp 151-179 | Cite as

Giving Back

  • Patricia Illingworth
Chapter

Abstract

Giving and helping are often first steps in the dance of generalized reciprocity, and as we have seen, when generalized reciprocity is present social capital blossoms. There are many ways to increase giving. One widely used, though morally compromised, strategy involves appealing to people’s emotions with what has come to be called the “pornography of poverty.” Providing people with tax deductions for their charitable contributions is another way to stimulate giving. Abundant social capital is also associated with increased giving and — unlike the pornography of poverty — is not fraught with moral compromise. We have seen how law can be used to create social capital or, in some cases, hurt it. In this chapter, I continue the analysis of law and social capital, but with a focus on two provisions in charitable tax law. I argue (1) that limiting the charitable deduction to itemizers is likely to undermine social capital and giving, and (2) that law which prejudices global giving may adversely affect the cultivation of transnational social capital.

Keywords

Social Capital Social Trust Charitable Organization Intermediary Organization Generalize Reciprocity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    T. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty,” in The Global Justice Reader, ed. T. Brooks (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 51–72.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), 17.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    E. Brown, “Social Capital and Philanthropy: An Analysis of the Impact of Social Capital on Individual Giving and Volunteering,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36 (2007): 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 8.
    D. E. Pozen, “Remapping the Charitable Deduction,” Connecticut Law Review 39 (2006): 537.Google Scholar
  5. 12.
    R. Reich, “Toward a Political Theory of Philanthropy,” in Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy, ed. P. Illingworth, T. Pogge, and L. Wenar (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 177–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 14.
    K. Otake, S. Shimai, J. Tanaka-Matsumi, K. Otsui, and B.L. Fredrickson, “Happy People Become Happier through Kindness: A Counting Kindnesses Intervention,” Journal of Happiness Studies 7 (2006): 361–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 15.
    C. R. Sunstein, “On the Expressive Function of Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 144 (1996): 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 24.
    T. Pogge, “Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resource Dividend,” in The Global Justice Reader, ed. T. Brooks (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008);Google Scholar
  9. T. Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  10. 28.
    L. Wenar, “Poverty is No Pond: Challenges for the Affluent,” in Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy, ed. P. Illingworth, T. Pogge, and L. Wenar (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 104–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 37.
    M. Yunus and A. Jolis, Banker to the Poor: Micro Lending and the Battle against World Poverty (New York: Public Affairs, 1999), 235–43.Google Scholar
  12. 38.
    L. Wenar, “The Basic Structure as Object: Institutions and Humanitarian Concern,” Global Justice, Global Institutions Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (2007): 253–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Patricia Illingworth 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Illingworth
    • 1
  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations