Why being there is not enough: Organized proximity in place-based philanthropy

Service Industries Journal

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 515-529

  Glückler, Johannes ^a   Ries, Martina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Advisory boards; Geography; Germany; Heidelberg; Philanthropy; Proximity; Social network analysis

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; ACCESSIBILITY; CIVIL SERVICE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; NETWORK ANALYSIS; SOCIAL NETWORK; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

BADEN-WURTTEMBERG; EUROPE; GERMANY; HEIDELBERG;

EID: 84857341380     PISSN: 02642069     EISSN: 17439507     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2011.596534     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Acs, Z.J., & Phillips, R.J. (2002). Entrepreneurship and philanthropy in American capitalism. Small Business Economics, 19, 189-204.
2. Adam, T. (Ed.). (2004). Philanthropy, patronage, and civil society: Experiences from Germany, Great Britain, and North-America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
3. Andreoni, J.E. (2001). The economics of philanthropy. In N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 11369-11376). London: Elsevier.
4. Anheier, H.K., & Seibel, W. (2001). The nonprofit sector in Germany. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
5. Borgatti, S.P., & Everett, M.G. (1999). Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21, 375-395.
6. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7. Bryant, W.K., Jeon-Slaughter, H., Kang, H., & Tax, A. (2003). Participation in philanthropic activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 43-73.
8. Bryson, J., McGuiness, M., & Ford, R.G. (2002). Chasing a 'loose and baggy monster': Almshouses and the geography of charity. Area, 34(1), 48-58.
9. Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen. (2010). Stiftungen in Zahlen: Errichtungen und Bestand rechtsfähiger Stiftungen des bürgerlichen Rechts in Deutschland im Jahr 2009. Berlin: Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen.
10. Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen. (2011). TOP50 -Stiftungsdichte in Großstädten. Rechtsfähige Stiftungen des bürgerlichen Rechts. Berlin: Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen.
11. Burt, R.S. (1983). Philanthropy as a cooptive relation. Social Forces, 62(2), 419-449.
12. Cap Gemini. (2010). Merrill Lynch global wealth management und Capgemini veröffentlichen den 14. jährlichen World Wealth Report. Pressemitteilung. Berlin: Author.
13. Card, D., Hallock, K.F., & Moretti, E. (2010). The geography of giving: The effect of corporate headquarters on local charities. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 222-234.
14. Deutsche Bundesbank. (2010). Geldvermögen und Verbindlichkeiten der privaten Haushalte 1991-2009. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bundesbank.
15. DiMaggio, P.J., & Useem, M. (1978). Social class and arts consumption: The origins and consequences of class differences in exposure to the arts in America. Theory and Society, 5(2), 141-161.
16. Dowding, K. (2001). Explaining urban regimes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(1), 7-19.
17. Elkin, S.L. (1987). City and regime in the American republic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18. European Foundation Centre. (2008). Foundations in the European Union: Facts and figures. Brüssels: Author.
19. Fich, E.M., & White, L.J. (2005). Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other's boards? Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(1-2), 175-195.
20. Galaskiewicz, J., Wasserman, S., Rauschenbach, B., Bielefeld, W., & Mullaney, P. (1985). The influence of corporate power, social status, and market position on corporate interlocks in a regional network. Social Forces, 64, 403-431.
21. Giving Pledge LLC. (2010). The giving pledge, Retrieved from www.givingpledge.org.
22. Glückler, J., Ries, M., & Schmid, H. (2010). Kreative Ökonomie. Perspektiven schöpferischer Arbeit in der Stadt Heidelberg (Heidelberger Geographische Arbeiten, Bd. 131). Heidelberg: Geographisches Institute.
23. Greif, S., & Schmiedl, D. (2006). Patentatlas Deutschland: Regionaldaten der Erfindungstätigkeit. München: Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt.
24. Havens, J.J., & Schervish, P.J. (2005). Geography and generosity: Boston and beyond. Boston: Center on Wealth and Philanthropy, Boston Foundation.
25. Havens, J.J., & Schervish, P.J. (2007). Geography and giving: The culture of philanthropy in New England and the nation. Boston, MA: Center on Wealth and Philanthropy, Boston Foundation.
26. Higley, J., Hoffmann-Lange, U., Kadushin, C., & Moore, G. (1991). Elite integration in stable democracies: A reconsideration. European Sociological Review, 7(1), 35-53.
27. Jacobi, R. (2009). Die Goodwill-Gesellschaft: Die unsichtbare Welt der Stifter, Spender und Mäzene. Hamburg: Murmann Verlag.
28. Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7, Article 21.
29. Martin, D.G. (2004). Nonprofit foundations and grassroots organizing: Reshaping urban governance. Professional Geographer, 56(3), 394-405.
30. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 20.
31. Mills, C.W. (1956). The power elite. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32. Mizruchi, M.S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directories. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 271-298.
33. Moore, G., Raffalovich, L.E., Whitt, J., Sobieraj, S., Beaulieu, D., & Dolan, S. (2003, August 16). Ties that bind: Exploring the neglected role of nonprofits in corporate and government networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA.
34. Moore, G., Sobieraj, S., Whitt, J.A., Mayorova, O., & Beaulieu, D. (2002). Elite interlocks in three US sectors: Nonprofit, corporate, and government. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 726-744.
35. O'Hagan, J., & Harvey, D. (2000). Why do companies sponsor arts events? Some evidence and a proposed classification. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(3), 205-224.
36. Offer, A. (1997). Between the gift and the market: The economy of regard. Economic History Review, 50(3), 450-476.
37. Ostrower, F. (1997). Why the wealthy give: The culture of elite philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
38. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W.W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5-21.
39. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
40. Powell, W.W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
41. Preston, C. (2010, August 4). 40 Wealthy American families vow to give a chunk of their fortunes to charity. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com/article/40-Rich-Families-Sign/123754/
42. Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S.L. (2006). Playing the board game: An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 747-775.
43. Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe. (2010). Stiftungsregister nach Stadt-und Landkreisen. Karlsruhe: Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe.
44. Salzman, H., & Domhoff, G.W. (1983). Nonprofit organizations and the corporate community. Social Science History, 7(2), 205-216.
45. Schervish, P.G., & Havens, J.J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 8(3), 235-260.
46. de Socio, M. (2007). Business community structures and urban regimes. A comparative analysis. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(4), 339-366.
47. Statistisches Bundesamt. (1995). Vermögenssteuerstatistik. Datenauszug. (Fachserie 14 Reihe 7.4). Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
48. Steinberg, R.S. (1990). Taxes and giving: New findings. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 1(1), 61-79.
49. Stone, C.N. (2004). It's more than the economy after all: Continuing the debate about urban regimes. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(1), 1-19.
50. Torre, A. (2008). On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional Studies, 42(6), 869-889.
51. Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59.
52. Useem, M. (1979). The social organization of the American business elite and participation of corporation directors in the governance of American institutions. American Sociological Review, 44, 553-572.
53. Useem, M. (1980). Corporations and the corporate elite. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 41-77.
54. Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle: Large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the US and UK. London: Oxford University Press.
55. Vogel, A. (2006). Who's making global civil society: Philanthropy and US empire in world society. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 635-655.
56. Whitt, J.A. (1987). Mozart in the metropolis. Urban Affairs Review, 23(1), 15-36.
57. Whitt, J.A., & Lammers, J.C. (1991). The art of growth. Urban Affairs Review, 26(3), 376-393.
58. Wolpert, J. (1988). The geography of generosity: Metropolitan disparities in donations and support for amenities. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(4), 665-679.
59. Wolpert, J. (1994). The structure of generosity in America (Working Paper Series 94.015). Washington D.C.: The Aspen Institute.
60. Wolpert, J., & Reiner, T. (1984). The philanthropy marketplace. Economic Geography, 60(3), 197-209.
61. Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion: Caring for others and helping ourselves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.