#4/24 with State Failure, Impact Unicorns, Humility and a Very Close Call

Dear Readers,

Isn’t the very existence of large fortunes already a failure of the state? A journalist asked me this recently. I thought about it and then wrote down a few lines for Forbes on why "Tax the Rich" is not enough of an answer for me, because it merely calls on the state once again, and how private assets could also have a binding rather than a divisive effect.

Some of my NGO friends, on the other hand, perceive this attitude as a provocation. But the question is not who wins the moral debate, but how we move urgently needed resources. That is why in this newsletter, I highlight examples of success that manage to combine and bridge contradictions.

Best regards,

Felix

A number that sticks in your mind: What? Impact is set to become a billion-dollar sector? 

In any case, that is what we are proposing one year before the next federal election, because now is the time to gather ideas for the election programs. Very specifically with seven levers, and with the Advisory Board for Social Innovations, we have also consciously decided to consider a billion-dollar valuation of social enterprises as good and right.

What do we mean by that? Yes, they can be unicorns in the commercial sense, but they can also save billions in public spending. Ashoka put together some examples of this a few years ago; the argumentation is very worthwhile - and can perhaps also convince those who have raised very constructive criticism on LinkedIn about what the Advisory Board is calling for.

My opinion? Around us, governments have understood that there is a competition to provide the best framework conditions for social entrepreneurs. And if you want to get high up on the agenda, you must not be afraid of the big numbers.

A person who inspires me: Markus Witte. 

We are sitting at the kitchen table with a founder who, with his digital company, has already done more for cohesion and international understanding than could be achieved through donations - and yet we are discussing exactly what the "New Giving" means to him with Markus Witte from Babbel. In the latest episode of our podcast, he speaks for the first time about his money history ("Scarcity without poverty"), his financial commitment, and why it is not at all easy to show this publicly. But I am grateful that he does so, because it is incredibly smart how he also understands the problem from the recipient's side. Perhaps in philanthropy, we need exactly those role models who do not want to be ones? 

An idea for further thought: Funding alliances. 

For many months now, I have been seeing many organizations in my environment whose funding and project commitments have been canceled or delayed further and further. Against the looming cuts in the federal budget, petitions were initiated and signed by 80,000 people. The pressure worked. Funding for democracy promotion, at least, will continue. That was a very close call!

BUT: The grueling uncertainty comes at a price. I have witnessed employees looking for new jobs and organizations being paralyzed for months. And in other fields, funding is falling away anyway, particularly drastically in development cooperation. There, 87% comes from state funding.

What to do? I would wish that we manage to act together not only in democracy promotion. Within a short time, many funding alliances and digital foundations have emerged there, such as Democracy 2.0, United for Democracy, Together for Democracy, Future of Democracy in Germany. In which fields do we need to achieve this next? Write to me, and we will see what we can do. Together.