By Lance E. Lindblom, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Nathan Cummings Foundation

Speech Presented at the Independent Sector Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, November 4, 2001

A common vision for the non-profit sector? Common goals? For such a heterogeneous, diverse–some would say divisive–cantankerous, polyglot, group such as ourselves?

Absurd.

We are all over the place–we are from all over the place–geographically, demographically, politically, economically, whatever... Even on a Sunday morning when some of us have been long conditioned to hear optimistic, authoritative pronouncements from the pulpit of a blue sky, ecumenical nature–it still seems on its face absurd ...... in fact, contrived. Just another one of those amorphous topics handed out to speakers at association meetings to soothe the membership with the balm of banalities–which at best are soon forgotten–and at worst, were never even heard.

But there is a common hope that underlies a potential common vision and goals for the non-profit sector. It is that wealth can transcend its own parochial interests, and directly be used for the common good. That is a very radical notion–it often necessitates the application of principles that are different from the principles by which the wealth was accumulated. And, as Shakespeare would say, "there’s the rub." And therein lies the potential common vision and goals for our sector.

For the past few decades, especially, but not exclusively, in the United States, we have sought to make up for past economic dislocation and deficiencies through the promotion of "the market." The result was not just the use of the market as an important technique for fostering efficiency and productivity and encouraging economic growth. It itself became the vision. It begat what some called a "free market ideology", or neo-liberalism; others, more critical, labeled it a market fetish. Its belief was, and is, that by removing obstacles to, and enhancing the rewards of, seeking wealth, the free market was to benefit us all. Wealth was urged, nay deputized by society’s new priests, the economists, to pursue its most parochial interests, as a social duty. It seems to be a very convenient belief for the well-off to have.