Advertisement

Historically contested concepts: A conceptual history of philanthropy in France, 1712-1914

  • Arthur Gautier
Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Since W. B. Gallie introduced the notion of essentially contested concepts (ECCs) in 1956, social science scholars have increasingly used his framework to analyze key concepts drawing “endless disputes” from contestant users. Despite its merits, the ECC framework has been limited by a neglect of social, cultural, and political contexts, the invisibility of actors, and its ahistorical character. To understand how ECCs evolve and change over time, I use a conceptual history approach to study the concept of philanthropy, recently labeled as an ECC. Using France during classical modernity as a case study, I analyze key events and actors from the concept’s inception in 1712 as a virtue of the Enlightenment to its triumph after 1789 as a secular alternative to Catholic charity, until its decline at the end of the nineteenth century as a new consensus emerged around the concept of solidarity. By introducing the notion of historically contested concepts, I make several contributions to research on ECCs, conceptual contestation, and conceptual change.

Keywords

Charity Essentially contested concepts French history Secularism Socialism Solidarity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my colleagues Joel Bothello, Anne-Claire Pache, and Greg Molecke for their wise suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. Thank you to Eugénie Bapst for her precious help on data collection and tracking definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias. I also benefited from the guidance of archivists at the Hôtel de Ville and CEDIAS-Musée social libraries in Paris. Finally, I thank the Editors and the reviewers of Theory and Society for their insightful comments. A version of this article was presented at the European Research Network on Philanthropy conference in Copenhagen, 2017.

References

  1. Adcock, R. (2005). What is a concept? Committee on Concepts and Methods, Working Paper no. 1, International Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  2. Aeschylus. (1983). In M. Griffith (Ed.), Prometheus Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Archambault, E. (1997). France. In L. M. Salamon & H. K. Anheier (Eds.), Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross-national analysis (pp. 103–127). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Archambault, E. (2001). Historical roots of the nonprofit sector in France. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(2), 204–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, T. (1998). Conceptual history and the history of political thought. In I. Hampsher-Monk, K. Tilmans, & F. van Vree (Eds.), History of concepts: Comparative perspectives (pp. 74–86). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, T. (2002). Confessions of a conceptual historian. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 6(1), 11–31.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, T., Farr, J., & Hanson, R. L. (1989). Political innovation and conceptual change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Balzac, H. de (1900). The Village Rector. (K. P. Wormeley, Trans.) (Vol. 32). Boston: Hardy, Pratt & Co.Google Scholar
  9. Bastiat, F. (1850). La Loi. Paris: Guillaumin et cie.Google Scholar
  10. Beaurepaire, P.-Y. (2008). De la charité à la philanthropie, de la bienfaisance à la lutte contre l’exclusion. Voyage au cœur du projet philosophique et de société de la franc-maçonnerie (XVIIIe-XXIe siècles). La Pensée et les Hommes, 51(66), 71–79.Google Scholar
  11. Bec, C. (Ed.). (1994). Philanthropies et politiques sociales en Europe: (XVIIIe-XXe siècles). Paris: Anthropos-Economica.Google Scholar
  12. Blais, M.-C. (2008). La solidarité. Le Télémaque, 1(33), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bödeker, H. E. (1998). Concept, meaning, discourse: Begriffsgeschichte reconsidered. In I. Hampsher-Monk, K. Tilmans, & F. van Vree (Eds.), History of concepts: Comparative perspectives (pp. 51–64). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bothello, J., & Djelic, M.-L. (2018). Evolving conceptualizations of organizational environmentalism: A path generation account. Organization Studies, 39(1), 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bourgeois, L. (1896). Solidarité. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  16. Briscoe, F., & Safford, S. (2008). The Nixon-in-China effect: Activism, imitation, and the institutionalization of contentious practices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 460–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, F. (2006). Flaubert: A Life. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  18. Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (Eds.). (2014). Organizations in time: History, theory, methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Care, N. S. (1973). On fixing social concepts. Ethics, 84(1), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Castel, R. (1995). Les Métamorphoses de la question sociale: Une chronique du salariat. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  21. Chantin, J.-P. (2003). Les adeptes de la théophilanthropie. Rives méditerranéennes, 2(14), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chateaubriand, F.-R. de (1902). The Memoirs of Francois René Vicomte de Chateaubriand, Sometime Ambassador to England. (A. Texeira de Mattos, Trans.) (Vols. 1–6, Vol. 6). London: Freemantle.Google Scholar
  23. Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clarke, J. A. (1964). Turgot’s critique of perpetual endowments. French Historical Studies, 3(4), 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen, W. B. (2003). Epilogue: The European comparison. In L. J. Friedman & M. D. McGarvie (Eds.), Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history (pp. 385–411). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Coing, H. (1981). Remarks on the history of foundations and their role in the promotion of learning. Minerva, 19(2), 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Collier, D., Hidalgo, F. D., & Maciuceanu, A. O. (2006). Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(3), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dachez, R. (2015). Histoire de la franc-maçonnerie française. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  29. Daly, S. (2011). Philanthropy as an essentially contested concept. Voluntas, 23(3), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dean, M. (1992). A genealogy of the government of poverty. Economy and Society, 21(3), 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Debiesse, F. (2007). Le mécénat. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  32. Dedeyan, N. (1983). Histoire de la Société philanthropique de Paris: 1780–1980. Paris: Société philanthropique.Google Scholar
  33. Delalande, N. (2011). L’entrée en philanthropie des Rothschild : l’hôpital israélite de Paris (1852-1914). Archives juives, 44(1), 54–69.Google Scholar
  34. Djelic, M.-L. (1998). Exporting the American model: The post-war transformation of European business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Djelic, M.-L., & Bothello, J. (2013). Limited liability and its moral hazard implications: The systemic inscription of instability in contemporary capitalism. Theory and Society, 42(6), 589–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Draper, H. (1971). The principle of self-emancipation in Marx and Engels. Socialist Register, 8, 81–109.Google Scholar
  37. Duprat, C. (1993). Le temps des philanthropes: la philanthropie parisienne des Lumières à la monarchie de Juillet. Paris: Éd. du C.T.H.S.Google Scholar
  38. Duprat, C. (1996). Usage et pratiques de la philanthropie: Pauvreté, action sociale et lien social à Paris, au cours du premier XIXe siècle (Vol. 1-2). Paris: Comité d’histoire de la sécurité sociale.Google Scholar
  39. Earl, D. (2007). Concepts. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophyhttps://www.iep.utm.edu/concepts/. Accessed 4 Nov 2018.
  40. Elwitt, S. (1986). The Third Republic defended: Bourgeois reform in France, 1880–1914. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Engels, F. (1845). Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England. Leipzig: Otto Wigand.Google Scholar
  42. Ewald, F. (1986). L’état providence. Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  43. Farr, J. (1982). Historical concepts in political science: The case of “revolution.”. American Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 688–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Farr, J. (1989). Understanding conceptual change politically. In T. Ball, J. Farr, & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Political innovation and conceptual change (pp. 24–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Farr, J. (2004). Social capital: A conceptual history. Political Theory, 32(1), 6–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fénelon, F. de. (1830). Dialogues des morts. In Oeuvres Choisies (Vol. 2). Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  47. Fisher, D. (1983). The role of philanthropic foundations in the reproduction and production of hegemony: Rockefeller foundations and the social sciences. Sociology, 17(2), 206–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fiss, P. C., Kennedy, M. T., & Davis, G. F. (2012). How Golden parachutes unfolded: Diffusion and variation of a controversial practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 1077–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 76-100). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  51. Fourier, C. (1847). De l’Anarchie industrielle et scientifique. Paris: Librairie phalanstérienne.Google Scholar
  52. Freeden, M. (1994). Political concepts and ideological morphology. Journal of Political Philosophy, 2(2), 140–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Friedman, L. J., & McGarvie, M. D. (Eds.). (2003). Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Furet, F. (1981). Interpreting the French revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Furet, F. (1995). Revolutionary France: 1770–1880. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gautier, A., Pache, A.-C., & Mossel, V. (2015). Giving in France: A philanthropic renewal after decades of distrust. In P. Wiepking & F. Handy (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 137–154). London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gérando, J.-M. de (1821). Le visiteur du pauvre. Paris: Jules Renouard.Google Scholar
  60. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Giddens, A. (1979). Agency, structure. In Central problems in social theory (pp. 49–95). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gill, M. J., Gill, D. J., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Constructing trustworthy historical narratives: Criteria, principles and techniques: Trustworthy historical narratives. British Journal of Management, 29(1), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts: A User’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Gothot-Mersch, C. (1997). Autour de la philanthropie. Réseaux de motifs obsessionnels chez Flaubert Bulletin de l’académie royale de langue et de littérature françaises de Belgique, (3–4), 397–410.Google Scholar
  65. Green, S. E., Li, Y., & Nohria, N. (2009). Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  67. Hampsher-Monk, I., Tilmans, K., & van Vree, F. (Eds.). (1998). History of concepts: Comparative perspectives. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Harvey, C., Maclean, M., Gordon, J., & Shaw, E. (2011). Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. Business History, 53(3), 425–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hatzfeld, H. (1971). Du paupérisme à la sécurité sociale, 1850–1940. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  70. Hayward, J. E. S. (1959). Solidarity: The social history of an idea in nineteenth century France. International Review of Social History, 4(2), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Henderson, G. D. (1952). Chevalier Ramsay. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
  72. Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1987). The age of empire, 1875–1914. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  74. Hogu, L. (1920). Le mythe de Fénelon. Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 6(30), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ilchman, W. F., Katz, S. N., & Queen, E. L. (1998). Philanthropy in the World’s traditions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Jones, C. (1982). Charity and Bienfaisance: The treatment of the poor in the Montpellier region 1740–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Jung, J., & Mun, E. (2017). Does diffusion make an institutionally contested practice legitimate? Shareholder responses to downsizing in Japan, 1973–2005. Organization Studies, 38(10), 1347–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kettering, S. (1988). Gift-giving and patronage in early modern France. French History, 2(2), 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views on conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 500–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Lambelet, A. (2014). La philanthropie. Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  82. Laurent, É. (1890). Les habitués des prisons de Paris: étude d’anthropologie et de psychologie criminelles. Paris: G. Masson.Google Scholar
  83. Leglaive-Perani, C. (2011). De la charité à la philanthropie. Archives Juives, 44(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
  84. Leroux, P. (1840). De l’humanité, de son principe et de son avenir. Paris: Perrotin.Google Scholar
  85. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lustick, I. S. (1996). History, historiography, and political science: Multiple historical records and the problem of selection bias. American Political Science Review, 90(03), 605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Malthus, T. R. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. London: J. Johnson.Google Scholar
  89. Marais, J.-L. (1999). Histoire du don en France de 1800 à 1939: dons et legs charitables, pieux et philanthropiques. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (Eds.). (1999). Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1844). Die heilige Familie. Frankfurt: Lowenthal.Google Scholar
  92. Mathiez, A. (1903). La théophilanthropie et le culte décadaire, 1796–1801: essai sur l’histoire religieuse de la révolution. Paris: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
  93. Mavidal, J., & Laurent, É. (Eds.). (1867). Séance du mardi 19 mars 1793. In Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860. Première série, 1787 à 1799. (Vol. 60, pp. 322–328). Paris: P. Dupont.Google Scholar
  94. Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity: A study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially contested or just confused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Mitchell, A. (1991). The divided path: The German influence on social reform in France after 1870. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  97. Mitsushima, N. (2017). Aménager, subvertir et contester l’ordre électoral. Genèses, 109, 32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 429–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Naville, F. M. L. (1836). De la charité légale. Paris: Dufart.Google Scholar
  100. Nord, P. (1994). The welfare state in France, 1870-1914. French Historical Studies, 18(3), 821–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Palonen, K. (2002). The history of concepts as a style of political theorizing Quentin Skinner’s and Reinhart Koselleck’s subversion of normative political theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 1(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Payton, R. L. (1988). Philanthropy: Voluntary action for the public good. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  104. Pinkney, D. H. (1972). The French revolution of 1830. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Pinloche, A. (1889). La réforme de l’éducation en Allemagne au dix-huitième siècle: Basedow et le philanthropinisme. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  106. Proudhon, P.-J. (1848). Solution du problème social. Paris: Pilhes.Google Scholar
  107. Proudhon, P.-J. (1863). Du principe fédératif et de la nécessité de reconstituer le parti de la révolution. Paris: E. Dentu.Google Scholar
  108. Reich, R. (2018). Just giving: Why philanthropy is failing democracy and how it can do better. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Reich, R., Cordelli, C., & Bernholz, L. (2016). Philanthropy in democratic societies: History, institutions, values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Richter, M. (1995). The history of political and social concepts: A critical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Rosanvallon, P. (1981). La crise de l’État-providence. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  112. Rosanvallon, P. (1990). L’État en France: de 1789 à nos jours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  113. Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.). (1978). Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  114. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector. I: The question of definitions. Voluntas, 3(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas, 9(3), 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Sanders, W. G., & Tuschke, A. (2007). The adoption of institutionally contested organizational practices: The emergence of stock option pay in Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Sartori, G. (1984). Guidelines for concept analysis. In Social science concepts: A systematic analysis (pp. 15–85). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  119. Schneider, W. H. (1990). Quality and quantity: The quest for biological regeneration in twentieth-century France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133, 531–578.Google Scholar
  123. Skinner, Q. (1969). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and Theory, 8(1), 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of Politics: Regarding Method (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Smith, T. B. (1997). The ideology of charity, the image of the English poor law, and debates over the right to assistance in France, 1830–1905. The Historical Journal, 40(4), 997–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Somers, M. R. (1995a). Narrating and naturalizing civil society and citizenship theory: The place of political culture and the public sphere. Sociological Theory, 13(3), 229–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Somers, M. R. (1995b). What’s political or cultural about political culture and the public sphere? Toward an historical sociology of concept formation. Sociological Theory, 13(2), 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Spencer, H. (1851). Social statics. London: John Chapman.Google Scholar
  129. Stjernø, S. (2009). Solidarity in Europe: The history of an idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Sue, E. (1844). Les mystères de Paris. Paris: Librairie Charles Gosselin.Google Scholar
  131. Sulek, M. (2010a). On the modern meaning of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sulek, M. (2010b). On the classical meaning of Philanthrôpía. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  134. Tocqueville, A. de. (1997). Memoir on Pauperism. (S. Drescher, Trans.). London: Civitas.Google Scholar
  135. Tombs, R. (1996). France 1814 - 1914. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  136. Topalov, C. (1996). Langage de la réforme et déni du politique. Le débat entre assistance publique et bienfaisance privée, 1889-1903. Genèses, 23(1), 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Topalov, C. (1999). Laboratoires du nouveau siècle: la nébuleuse réformatrice et ses réseaux en France, 1880–1914. Paris: EHESS.Google Scholar
  138. Toussaint, F.-V. (1748). Les Moeurs. Lausanne: Bousquet.Google Scholar
  139. Veyne, P. (1990). Bread and circuses: Historical sociology and political pluralism. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  140. Villermé, L.-R. (1840). Tableau de l’état physique et moral des ouvriers employés dans les manufactures de coton, de laine et de soie. Paris: Jules Renouard.Google Scholar
  141. Voltaire. (1764). Dictionnaire philosophique portatif. Genève: Gabriel Grasset.Google Scholar
  142. Waldron, J. (2002). Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)? Law and Philosophy, 21(2), 137–164.Google Scholar
  143. Weiss, J. H. (1983). Origins of the French welfare state: Poor relief in the Third Republic, 1871-1914. French Historical Studies, 13(1), 47–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  145. Zunz, O. (2011). Philanthropy in America: A history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESSEC Business SchoolCergy-PontoiseFrance

Personalised recommendations