The Philanthropy Scale: a Sociological Perspective in Measuring New Forms of Pro Social Behaviour

In wealthy countries, philanthropy is conspicuous back on stage. It appears in new forms, worldwide. As a result, scholarly attention for philanthropy is growing. Philanthropic goals refer to persons, groups and communities who, in most cases, are not personally known to the giver. In research, however, philanthropic motivations of individuals are usually measured by socio-psychological scales which presuppose direct interactions. Measuring philanthropy could therefore be improved by incorporating a sociological frame of reference as well. As a starting point, this article presents a preliminary version of the philanthropy scale that has been tested in the panel survey of the Giving in the Netherlands (GIN) study. The results are discussed in terms of shortcomings and challenges for further research.

Decentralisation and Social Services in England

Although Great Britain is not normally credited with the achievement of having been the first nation state to implement measures characteristic of a welfare state (this honour goes to Germany and Bismarck's strategy of promoting social insurance in the 1880s) it nevertheless pioneered many models of welfare services in view of the early onset of industrialisation in that country and the subsequent social problems it created. Organisations like the Mutual Insurance and Friendly Societies, the Charity Organisation Society or the Settlement Movement characterised an early approach to welfare that is based on initiatives at the civil society level and express a sense of self-help or of self-organisation in such a way that it did not involve the state directly. The state, traditionally, dealt with matters of discipline and public order, and for this reason institutions like prisons and workhouses represented the other end of the scale of 'welfare' provisions.

De-Territorialization and Re-Territorialization of “the social”. A debate

Deterritorialization has been used as an anthropological concept to designate the weakened ties between culture and place: Certain cultural/social processes and relations seem to increasingly transcend their previously given territorial boundaries in flexible capitalist societies. At the same time, policy studies, especially Studies on Governmentality, have emphasized the re-territorialization of the social, in which the former national welfare arrangements (welfare and nation state) as the scale of bio-political integration patterns are more and more substituted by small scaled inclusion areas (e.g. neighbourhoods, districts and communities). Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari, de-territorialization processes have therefore always to be understood as combined with processes of a re-territorialization, producing new spatial formations. In this view, spatial arrangements and connections are not given and static structures, but controversial and unstable – nevertheless they are influential.