INTRODUCTION

Respecting other definitions, I prefer to refer to the economic task as that which tries to obtain a greater degree of humanization from the material conditions of life. In this definition the preponderance of the rules of human nature to acquire the greatest economic valuation of goods is outstanding. It leads us to highlight the features of rationality, originality and freedom as characteristic and vital in all economic activity. The capacity for reasoning, the capacity for being objective and the personal freedom of all human beings, leads us, in definitive, to ownership.
The distinction between the estates of some and others, together with the innate tendency to improvement of life, results in the convenience of voluntary exchange between different patrimonies. It ends in direct exchange or barter of goods, in the first stage, and in indirect exchange with the help of money, in a second step of the process of economic improvement.
Widespread voluntary exchange advances us in the unsuspected world of specialization and division of work to physical levels as well as in the fields of science and technology.
From the budgets of freedom and property a self-generating process of more exchange and specialization is produced that allows modern economies to reach some highly recognised benchmarks of human economic development.
In the social framework of the market the capacity of service to other peoples' patrimonies and the corresponding solidarity of individuals establish, in the medium and long term, the widespread process of increase in wealth.
This process, succinctly outlined, indicates the importance that freedom and competition together with the classic institutions of the market have had and continue to have in that economic task of humanizing the material conditions of life (MISES, 1980; RÖPKE 1989; FRIEDMAN, 1980; HAYEK, 1976).
In spite of the basic helpfulness recognized by the events of market institutions, criticism started to appear from one or another side of the scientific map that undermined the basic roots of property and freedom necessary to tack together the whole framework of the market economy.
Among the shortcomings of the market an undeniable one forced its way through, on which I endeavour to base this article: the classic market economy, guided by the exclusive motive of personal profit, could work more or less efficiently for certain goods and services, but it was patent that it could not work in the production of goods of collective character.
An important argument to discredit the market economy has been the recognition of the impossibility of lending, through that system, services of collective character over those that payment individualized by the reception of such a good or service cannot be demanded.
This "failure" of the market economy gave rise to a really outstanding increment of state functions with the object of supplying these goods that the market economy was not able to. The difference between private and collective goods and services was on a par with managerial production and production through government expenditure.
"The great advantage of political or governmental organization is that it possesses the power to force all the members of the group to contribute to finance the costs of the collective good" (BUCHANAN and FLOWERS, 1980).
At the moment this is one of the most important reasons for the unstoppable growth of government expenditure in practically all nations.
The position was clear: if it is appropriate that something is produced in the benefit of society, and the market economy cannot produce it, the state apparatus should coercively separate resources from the private sector, to spend them on the production of these goods and services of collective character.
This argument is patent in the classic examples of national defence, legislative power, judiciary and even in general basic infrastructures, but in many other goods and services the alternative is not so necessary.
This has led to the quick and easy conclusion that it should be the State that carries out all the collective activities in the citizens' benefit.
The thesis that I seek to outline in this essay is that it does not necessarily have to be this way. Not all the production of collective goods that cannot be in hands of the market economy has to be in the hands of the state bureaucratic apparatus.
With this third channel I refer to that of the associations, foundations of private and civil character, but non-profit-making, that socially channel the liberality of individuals towards works of collective character. (When speaking in this article about foundations I do not seek to limit myself to the mere strictly legal term, registered in a completely defined way, but to all non-profit-making associations. The term foundation, in France, for example, is much more widely accepted than in Spain.)
ADVANTAGES OF NON-PROFIT-MAKING ASSOCIATIONS OVER EXCLUSIVELY MERCANTILE COMPANIES
The free market economy took an excessively firm stand over the selfishness of all economic factors that allowed, through mechanisms never fully explained, the functioning and success of general interest. One of the attacks on the market economy is derived from the extremely selfish profit-making dealt with in the marginal reflections that impose the misunderstood invisible hand, where private interest prevails over general interest, and strengthens it.
This hinted deviation, derived from a misinterpretation of the invisible hand, was joined by a hedonist and consumerist interpretation of the ultimate objectives of the human being in the course of the history of economic thought and daily activity.
The production of goods of collective character for these non-profit-making associations or foundations has the advantage with regards to the market economy, of avoiding the temptation for selfish and exacerbated personal enrichment of its proprietors. This results in, in a short-term temporary horizon, the production of maximum private profit, in spite of the social cost that is imposed on society.
They have an advantage with regards to the market economy aggravated by the exclusion of profit-making in monetary terms and in the short term. This on occasions limitless profit-making desire is substituted by an attempt to fulfil the social goal or purpose characteristic of the association or foundation in the best possible way.
It is on this point that I would like to highlight the existence and more widespread possibility of expansion of a third channel of production of collective goods and services, without falling into the pure and on occasions excessively selfish economy of the market, or into the dogmatic bureaucratic and planning state structure.
The foundations, having as a basic and differential characteristic the fact of being non-profit-making, overcome in many aspects the form of organization of the classic production units of capitalism reflected in the public limited companies.
Profit is not measured in these cases with the pure monetary fact of differential of revenue and countable costs, but rather it acquires a social and qualitative dimension that allows to predict a more mutually binding and humanized society.
The foundations allow channelling of the illusions and diverse desires of a multitude of citizens towards possible common projects that would be impossible from purely profit-making short term perspective, but that are made reality by the free and harmonic collaboration of many.
The foundation allows to strengthen the activities that have an economic effectiveness in the medium, long and very long term. The managerial activities of classic capitalism have the danger of always acting in agreement with imperatives of maximization of short-term productive success, many times mortgaging the future of their corporate purposes. The unusual search for one's own immediate interests tends to leave important investments that only fructify in the long term out in the cold.
But the managerial reality is changing. In the developed countries, the accentuation of the importance of the most immaterial necessities over urgent and basic materials, means that leisure time increases and a return to the individual occurs. This bears a flourishing of intellectual, cultural, scientific and sporting necessities, as well as greater concern for the family, roots, patrimony, and for the social and environmental surroundings. (WOLTON, 1988).
To this phenomenon it is necessary to add the revitalisation of the importance, in all productive activity, of human capital, of the quality of the most intellectual and social component of work. This leads to a greater concern from the managerial world for education, investigation, culture and social communication.
In this context the institutions of sponsoring and patronage acquire special relevance for the good managerial image, and as an instrument for communication and expression of their own philosophy as associations that are interested in social profit, at the same time recognizing their role as instruments of diffusion.
The increase of interest in the managerial world for the activities of non-profit-making organisations is recognition that the invisible hand should not be interpreted as though when looking out for one's own interest general interest is improved. It is discovered that looking for the general interest results in the attainment of authentic personal or managerial interest.
The United States is in the lead in private financing for this type of institutions. In Europe, and especially in Spain, it is the State that is burdened with providing most help to these associations, which puts up with less wealth in the environment of free social initiative.
Companies are reconverting their priorities of objectives from a radical capitalist posture towards a more mutually binding and social economy in the long term. The survival of the company depends on it.
This posture indicates that, in the individual conscience, another re-conversion is penetrating from the homo economicus to the homo socialis. The more and more new and varied vital necessities are projected "through the collective coexistence in social necessity, that is organized as a group of means to correct it. The result is that the economic and the social are closely interrelated" (GARCÍA DE LIANIZ, 1988). The market economy becomes the social economy of the market.
This confluence that we are pointing out is of the capitalist private sector as well as of the state sector, towards a private sector of social economy, where social profit substitutes the classic, and where the most human and personal necessities have primacy. This is what accelerates the urgency in Spain for novel dispositions, with a range of Law that clarifies, develops and levels the way to article 34 of the Constitution, in which the right of foundation is recognized "for objectives of general interest" (FIELD ARBULO, 1988).
THE FOUNDATIONS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
But, on the other hand, the great advantage of this type of foundations and associations is that of allowing to introduce the economic force of freedom (and with it competition) between the different foundations and associations. If the State is the only one that practices this type of services, the creative power of free competition disappears in the attainment of these objectives.
Although the Government is the only holder of employment of tax coercion, that does not mean that it nourishes reserving the exclusive right of rendering certain collective services to the State. If the political road becomes the exclusive channel of expression for corresponding preferences, the opinion of minority groups will be excluded. If the satisfaction of each new tendency or desire depended on majority and general approval, it would be hard for them to end up being materialized because, in the beginning, there are few innovative performances.
In this respect it is important to remember that, a long time before the governments decided to intervene in connection with these matters, a great part of the collective necessities, today generally felt as such, have been satisfied through the personal effort of individuals or small groupings of citizens that contributed the demanded means for the materialization of the achievement of a series of collective purposes which they estimated as important. The teaching centres, hospitals, libraries, museums, theatres and parks were not services that the State facilitated initially (...), in their initial development certain private benefactors were pioneers" (HAYEK, 1976).
There are great advantages, with regard to the collective rendering of services for the state apparatus that agglutinates in its breast the economic power of freedom, pluralism, solidarity - even with the minorities - and competition that motivates initiative and creativity.
With the foundations, the healthy private interest of doing what I want with my own things can be channelled in a more plural, efficient and democratic way. Instead of paying taxes that only the State projects and plans to spend, we would have an open means to free economic decision-making that each citizen would channel according to his own preferences. The greatest number of people possible would have the greatest number of possibilities so that they themselves could choose their own way of life.
There would be a continuous exercise of right to the economic vote respecting the minorities that, although in inferior conditions, would have an open road to the carrying out of their projects and collective realizations by means of liberality.
The options of each group of individuals allow them to choose their own lifestyle, provided that they do not hinder the freedom of other individuals.
These associations and foundations, because of their necessary dedication to their corporate purposes, would allow to receive those individuals' contributions that value them in their authentic and subjective measure enlarging the field of exercise of freedom.
Private and managerial contributions and grants to this type of non-profit-making associations and foundations allow to reintroduce competition mechanisms on a production level, and therefore, to guarantee the growth of more diversified and better quality services. It also allows to restore a logical pressure for a permanent fall in costs.
The development of the foundations with diverse purposes, from assistance, educational or scientific activities to ecological, cultural, folkloric, political or sporting activities, allows to open up the fan of free options in society, strengthening the right to carry out, with my own possessions, what I consider more opportune. A society that organizes its producer and creator activity through foundations is a more genuinely free and plural society in which there are more possibilities for my personal options to be made reality.
Organizing the production of goods and services through foundations and associations of this type does not imply that competition is eliminated. Competition is not necessarily tied to individual profit-making desire and monetary benefit. Without profit-making desire a competitive process is equally established between foundations, based on improving the quality of fulfilment of their statutory goals that will be the reason for their survival and development. The administration of such organizations will be continually subjected to the positive competition of getting the best service for the potential beneficiaries and, in definitive, to society. The concept of benefit will suffer an equally positive transformation passing from a merely monetary and short-term conception towards a more stable, durable interpretation, which reflects human values, hard to measure in quantitative terms.
The process of competition is fundamentally a process of individual discovery and speedy transmission of information throughout the whole social meshing. "The problem consists precisely of discovering how the use of information can be optimised, as well as the capacities and opportunities for people to obtain new information that is distributed among hundreds of thousands of individuals and that nobody can, for this reason, personally possess in its entirety" (HAYEK, 1976).
Competition facilitates the acquisition of transfer of information and, as HAYEK indicates, it is absurd to imagine a priori that somebody can be in possession of the mentioned wealth of knowledge.
Foundations are especially appropriate for the lending of collective goods and services that require the contribution of many taxpayers that coincide in the necessity of such services. From this perspective they become an alternative to the state public services with the advantage of respecting minority options more, avoiding monopolization and homogenisation of options and applying the principle of contributing in the direction that I personally think more convenient for social improvement. A society structured more around these associations and foundations becomes a more plural and democratic society.
A diversified social offer of foundations could reduce the necessity of state public expenditure in such activities as education, scientific investigation, social and assistance works, health, attention to childhood, attention to pensioners, improvement of the environmental surroundings, etc.
Such a social offer would allow tax rebates for contributions to such institutions improving the wealth of options to citizens and introducing a competitive approach among public activities.
"The concession of favourable fiscal treatment to private foundations is established uniformly in the fiscal systems of the most important countries in the world, in a clear recognition of the functions parallel to those of public nature that, imperative of their very legal nature, they necessarily carry out." (VILASECA I MARCET, Coord., 1984).
The tendency towards the Welfare State of all the States and Public Corporations reinforces the advisability of extending the foundational objectives to strictly charitable ones to develop the characteristic purposes of the public authorities in a more effective way.
In Spain, as we have indicated, the strengthening of non-profit-making associations has greater raison d'être because the very Constitution (article 34) expressly recognizes the right of individuals to found for purposes of general interest. The result is that many of the lower range current dispositions should unify the lexicon and general orientation, as well as suppress all real limitation to charitable purposes.
Not only should the foundations not be taxed themselves, but also rather, logically, the contributions should be reduced evenly and not diminishing the sum reduced proportionally according to the total superior amount of the taxpayer's income. The holders of high incomes are those that can really apply an important part of them to favour and strengthen the foundations. Nor does it seem appropriate to limit to a certain percent the percentage of the tax base that can be reduced. It should be possible for the surplus income of a person to be applied without limits to objectives of general interest just as the team of lawyers managed by JOSEP MARÍA VILASECA AND MARCET indicate for the Spanish case in their conclusions.
The usefulness, justice would dare to say, of tax relief of contributions to these associations is reinforced by the fact that these contributions are economically and legally separated from the patrimonial mass of those who contribute them, to belong henceforth to the social object and statutory purpose of collective interest.
The State or Public Corporation is liberated from the realization of these collective goods and services with the consequent possibility of reduction of its public expenditure.
The necessity for reduction of such contributions is directly derived from the ownership of these patrimonies to social objects of general interest that substitute the collective purposes of the coercive tax to the taxpayer.
The State can spend less because these associations carry out that which is agreed with more pluralism.
The Crown Corporations would not usurp the classic principle of property and control of doing, with what is mine, what I consider most convenient.
These associations cannot be taxed, since it would be as if the State were taxing itself in its activities, but rather also, taxes should be reduced on gratuitous donations because they contribute in a parallel way to the attainment of the same social purposes.
The State should decide if this or that social purpose of this or that foundation are not really harmful for society in general and whether those social purposes are completely fulfilled by such an association, but, given these assumptions, it is obvious that fiscal treatment should be favourable.
The promotion of associations of this type has to be on a par with a state control directed fundamentally towards confirmation that the contributed funds go towards the anticipated purpose. It is in these associations where rigorous audits should be demanded that do not conclude in the mere economic environment, but rather they examine entirely the execution of the social purposes. It is here where the demand for a social balance would be high-priority. It should be clear that the contributed funds, and those picked up in mercantile activities, are dedicated voted to statutory social purposes; otherwise social fraud would be incurred.
CONCLUSION
What we propose is strengthening an institution that on one hand would curb the interventionist, homogenising and planning attitude of the State and on the other would put a limit to the indiscriminate extension of the attitude of short-term speculative and selfish enrichment in which the lucrative capitalist company can degenerate.
From social purposes, such as the development of domestic, artistic or union work to foundations where the social goal was the purchase of lands for forest repopulation or the investigation of the scientific solution of AIDS, all would fit in a freer and more humanized society, in which the State would stick to its vital function of legislatively coordinating and promoting the individual aspirations of its citizens.
"As R.C.CORNUELLE has convincingly demonstrated, for the good functioning of society it is very important that a third independent sector develops its activity between the private sector and the public, capable of providing in a more effective way, many of those that today are considered services characteristic of the Government. Allowing to compete with this in the area of the public service grant, the existence of this independent sector would eliminate the most important threat that government intervention bears: the birth of the monopoly with all its unavoidable sequels of concentration of power and inefficacy. (...)Civic spirit does not have to always be channelled by the way of government decision" (HAYEK, 1976).
The promotion of these institutions is undergoing a political and social will of collaboration between the State and private initiative where not only the positive image of these institutions is fomented, but the bureaucratic obstacles that demand a numberless of deliberations, agreements, conventions, are eliminated etc., that discourage the private sector. This requires, especially the managerial world, to act more rapidly and with more effectiveness in healthy social competition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BUCHANAN y FLOWERS: Introducción a la ciencia de la Hacienda Pública, Madrid, Editoriales de Derecho Reunidas, 1980, page 37.
CABRA DE LUNA: "El mecenazgo social", en Fundaciones y mecenazgo en el Estado de bienestar, number 11, Centro de Fundaciones, Madrid, 1988.
CAMPO, José Antonio del: "El artículo 34 de la Constitución y su desarrollo", en Fundaciones y mecenazgo..., Centro de Fundaciones, Madrid, 1988.
CASADO PEREZ: "El bienestar social", en Fundaciones y mecenazgo..., Madrid, 1988.
FRIEDMAN: Libertad de elegir, Barcelona Ed. Grijalbo, S.A., 1980.
GARCIA DE LEANIZ: "La economía social", en Fundaciones y mecenazgo..., 1988.
HAYEK: Derecho, legislación y libertad, Madrid, Unión Editorial, S.A., 1976.
LEPAGE:¿Por qué la propiedad?, Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Económicos, 1986.
MISES: La acción Humana, Madrid, Ed. Unión Editorial, 1980.
MUSSELLWHITE: "La colaboración entre los sectores público y privado en la era Reagan", en Fundaciones y mecenazgo...,1988.
RÖPKE: Teoría de la economía, Madrid, Unión Editorial, 1989.
VILASECA I MARCET, Coord.: "Régimen tributario de las Fundaciones privadas", en Revista de Derecho Financiero y de Hacienda Pública, núm. 173, September-October 1984, page 1038.
WOLTON, Claude: "Desarrollo del mecenazgo europeo: S.P.O.N.C.O.M.", en Fundaciones y mecenazgo..., Madrid, 1988.
Joseph John Franch Menéu
Published in the Magazine of Financial Law and Public Treasury. July-August 1990. Number XL/208 Pages 905 to 916.