The atomisation of society, an economy based on competition and growing distrust of politics and of institutions in general: these are some of the factors that have led to a diminished commitment to the common good (broadly, anything that benefits and is shared by all members of a given community). Yet, thus broadly understood, pursuit of the common good should be a necessary step in producing more equitable societies and a planet that continues to be habitable.

But the devil is in the detail. There is more disagreement than agreement about what comprises the common good.

Moderated by Magazine Editor Elaine Stabler, the speakers were:

• Bruce Sievers: Haas Center for Public Service

• Hafsat Abiola: President, Women in Africa

• Dorothy Chan: Head of Philanthropy Services and Advisory, Asia Pacific, HSBC Global Private Banking

A few highlights from the event

Bruce: ‘The common good’ seems like a fairly straightforward aspirational topic, like freedom, or solidarity, or human rights. But like those terms, only when translated into the complicated so-called ‘thick and thin’ of local terms does the multiplicity of meetings emerge.

Michael Walzer, who is a well known political theorist (previously teaching at Harvard and Princeton, and a lifelong editor of Dissent magazine), wrote a book not long ago with the title of Thick and Thin.

I think it’s a wonderful way of describing terms like common good which in a more general, aspirational way seem to be fairly straightforward. It’s only when they become translated into the local context of use, that these kinds of terms reveal the complexity that they actually contain. So the first question that arises with the term like common good is the actual definition. In other words, when you first describe something like the common good, everyone kind of nods in agreement that it is a straightforward understandable term – but it’s only when you start translating it into its local venue action and discussion, that it reveals its complexity.

So I want to take it in terms of three contexts; one is considering the common good as a moral term, second is considering it as a kind of logical term, and third as a matter of justice that combines the moral and the logical.

Hafsat: One of the organisations that I’m on the board of, World Connects, likes to say they like to turn on the power within. You have to turn on the power within African communities, to be able to generate the momentum for sustainable development. If we look at philanthropy in general across Africa, sometimes it feels as if we bring experts from outside, who have the answers, to turn on the light. But turning on your light is not going to help people in Africa. We have to support Africans to ignite their own power within.

I think this is one of the big challenges in philanthropy. Another big challenge is in its scale; the philanthropy that actually gets to Africa is so small, a fraction of total philanthropy. When you think Africa is 1.4 billion people, and the challenges that we have are so daunting – it’s the part of the world with the largest population of people in extreme poverty – it is pretty clear that a fraction of the amount is not going to solve the problem.

So I think if we want to actually move the African continent forward, the way in which we engage with Africa needs to change. We need to begin to work more on community-led development, more on locally driven development, more on empowering women. Also considering the fact that the amount of money from aid from philanthropy that goes into Africa is a fraction of the amount of wealth Africa generates from trade. Yet African trade in terms of the global trade is less than 4%. So I think that the biggest level that philanthropy can make for Africa is to help to ignite Africa’s ability to trade more, because trade is the biggest wealth generator for the continent. So it’s not really about building schools, it’s about helping set up vocational training centres or strengthening entrepreneurs, who can then build the economy – whose taxes can then be used to fund the schools, and the health centres, and things like that. That’s a more sustainable road to development.

Dorothy: Common good can happen at the village, at the city, at the national or even international level – and each of them is a little brick that builds on each other to achieve a much larger picture.

In Asia, we highly value harmony and social cohesion, and that is sort of the invisible hand that is shaping the sense of common good. We don’t have the exact term in Chinese language, but in mainland China many private foundations will use the term gōngyì or ‘public welfare’ in their name, to reflect their intention to improve the well-being and development of the wider community. Beyond public welfare, the closest word that can express the concept of common good technically translates to mutual benefit. When I think of mutual benefit, for me it implies there’s some give and take, or some compromises. It is that context I think that makes Asian giving unique.

(I’d be remiss if I do not highlight that Asian covers over 30 countries with different cultures, in different stages of economic and social development – so I’ll be generalising quite a bit, and sharing more about the North Asia experience which is where I work with clients more.)

I think it is fair to state that a number of the wealth owners in the region still recall the challenging conditions that they experienced as they built their wealth, and these memories and life experiences influence what they give to and how they give. In my conversations with our clients who are big philanthropists, many of them share that their personal success is only possible because the wider community welcomed them or played a role in their wealth-building journey. In fact one of them has publicly stated that he gives because “what is taken from the community should be given back to the community”.

This kind of harmony and social cohesion mindset influences how they work or how they give. It could be categorised as a concentric circle;  you first take care of your family members, then your villages and cities, and then your affiliates such as schools or religious institutions, and finally society at large.

You can watch the full video here: