In a world buzzing with instantaneous communications, e-commerce, and borderless business, the word "philanthropy" can have an old-fashioned, faintly quaint sound, like the ringing of a traditional telephone in a room full of chirping mobiles. Foundations, yes. Grants, certainly. Funding, absolutely. But Philanthropy? How Victorian.

What does philanthropy have to do with the 21st century era of the cyber-millionaire and the venture capitalist?

But just when everything seems to be changing is the time to go back to foundations, in every sense of the word. Philanthropy in its most basic sense is the love of humankind, and while we confront cutting edge questions of technology, technique and effectiveness in the new century, we must maintain and renew that principle as the foundation of all foundations.

That love might, once, have meant a top-down, paternalistic approach to charity work, run by a patronizing kind of patron. But now, in our new world of micro-initiatives and community action, the most effective, not to mention the most palatable, forms of philanthropy are based on respect and partnership with those we are pledging to help. The philosophy of modern philanthropy must be one of service, not diktat.

This stems not only from basic human courtesy, as important as that is. The most effective way to help people is to enable them to help themselves. Development, not handouts, is the prescription for progress, and true, sustainable development cannot be imposed from above; it must be created in cooperative partnerships with those most concerned.

And just as we are redefining philanthropy, we need to redefine development. But the two definitions meld into one, for as we come to understand that partnership and respect are the foundations of the new philanthropy, it becomes clear that sustainable development itself can only be achieved through those same principles.

I have learned from my experience in Russia in St. Petersburg and in Pushkin that the best investment is investment in people, in their individual and collective potential as both the focus and the driving force of development.

And so, we must invest more directly in people and less in bureaucracy, in capacity-building rather than capital. This is as much efficiency as philosophy. It is the people on the ground, not the facilities at the home office that make the difference.

Good people, with training and encouragement, not only improve their surroundings and the quality of life of others around them, but they also infuse others with high expectations and inspire them with hope.

Human beings are our most precious asset and our best investment.

This idea is taking center stage in development thinking. The Rio, Cairo, Beijing and Copenhagen UN conferences, among others, provided the international community with a broader definition of development, adding social and human concerns to the traditional emphasis on economic growth. These ground-breaking conferences on some of the most pressing global needs produced an emphatic consensus that places the human factor, especially human rights, women's empowerment and democratic participation, at the core of any sustainable solutions.

In parallel, over the past 10-15 years a vibrant NGO (United Nations Non Goverenment Organizarion) community has emerged, especially in the South, with a profound impact on development practice and thinking. Alternative NGO-sponsored conferences took place alongside all the global UN conferences of 1990s. Activists from both South and North joined to lobby governments and international agencies to give greater priority to the world's poor and marginalized.

Thus NGOs have contributed to the creation of a sense of a global responsibility.

NGOs can be tremendously effective partners to carry out the missions of foundations. NGOs' functions can vary according to need, serving at times as watchdogs or monitors, at others as donors or providers of technical assistance. They work as catalysts, advocacy tools, and support systems to the social safety net and to government.

But they also have a number of advantages over government and other international institutions in an era when national borders are becoming porous and governments are often viewed with, to put it euphemistically, mistrust.

They can carry the weight in areas that are poorly served by government, and act more responsively because they are closer to the communities they serve. Moreover, NGOs, outside of the political realm, can address more sensitive issues, such as gender and reproductive health. In developing countries, NGOs are often better and more cost-effective than governments at meeting the needs and creating opportunities for their citizens.

The impact of NGOs can be gauged by their increasing share of resources, even though governmental aid has declined, and by the impressive list of their achievements, including the opening up of international institutions like the World Bank, the development of transboundary environmental agreements, the global women's movement, the emergence of microfinance in development, the Birmingham Declaration for Debt Relief to the poorest countries and the Ottawa Landmine Ban Treaty.

It was the growth of a new NGO-led coalition activism which brought into force, in record time, this international arms treaty - the first to encompass humanitarian obligations to the weapons' victims.

Working together in unprecedented networks, concerned nations, organizations and individuals united in a pledge to combat the scourge that is still claiming a new victim every 20 minutes — to win back blighted land, to fulfill our humanitarian responsibilities to the survivors and to make peace on the ground a reality as well as a declaration.

NGOs are strong advocates for human development, maintaining pressure on national governments, international agencies and corporations to live up to commitments and to protect environmental standards and human rights. NGOs bring human development into the equation.

NGOs, and other agents of civil society, are the true engines of philanthropy today. It is only through civil society that progressive social change, public policies and the building of democratic cultures and practices can be best advanced and accelerated.

The world over, in fact, new partnerships are forming among all these different kinds of organizations. Governments, businesses and other organizations are changing their basic working principles in response to new networks.

Borders are now being drawn along functional lines, rather than geographical ones – what matters is what you do, not where you do it. Much commerce, learning and sharing of information is now happening in a place that has no place on a map at all – cyberspace.

As the world changes under the influences of new economic, social and technological developments, philanthropic organizations, too, must continually adjust their approaches.

One element of society that can play an increasing role is the business sector. Multinational corporations have an interest, not just in short-term profits, but in security and prosperity around the world.

Stable economies and new markets are impossible without sustainable development. And conducting business is impossible without social stability. People in the most remote locations are now much more aware of the progress and privileges of others, and whether they share them.

For those left on the margins, desperation can breed resentment, unrest, and even violence. And when markets are left to function without concern for human consequences, the results can be very bad for business.

Corporations are also starting to feel the impact of newly aware consumers. Cynics may regard this new sensitivity as another branch of public relations, but whether cleaning up rivers or inner cities, combating corruption, or protecting human rights, ethics and philanthropy are becoming good business. Many multinational corporations are taking their social responsibilities more seriously finding out it makes sense to give something back.

This new sense of corporate responsibility is more than just financial. Business is coming to realize it has a role to play in tackling some of the most serious problems now facing humankind.

Some companies are now beginning to take moral responsibility for the products they produce, and others are following suit. For instance, led by Motorola in 1996, at least seventeen of the 47 US producers of landmines or their components have renounced production.

In the global AIDS crisis, too, there is some new thinking about how to respond to these challenges based on new alliances between industry and the public sector. Pharmaceutical companies are realizing that their rights to profits and intellectual property must be balanced against the crying need for affordable treatments for this plague in the third world. Drug companies and Aid agencies are talking to each other in more constructive ways than they once did, and are joining with the World Bank, WHO (World Health Organization) and other bodies to promote research towards vaccines and cures.

Some in the apparel industry are leading culturally sensitive efforts to improve workplace conditions and enhance human rights.

And increasingly, we are seeing the so-called "new economy" companies engaging in good corporate citizenship, such as efforts to bridge the digital divide. Too often, the only barometer to gauge corporate behavior is money – let us not forget as well the thousands of volunteer efforts in which the business community plays a key role.

In one example, last year a number of major multi national companies joined forces with an international NGO, the International Youth Foundation, to launch a global campaign to encourage every working individual to donate the earnings from the last working hour of the 19th century to the world's children. 52 affiliated institutions, 10,000 national and global companies have raised 12.8 million so far – the money is still coming in.

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Bill and Melinda Gates Children's Vaccine Program, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the vaccine industry was established to expand the availability and use of supremely cost-effective, life-saving vaccines, both longstanding and new, in developing countries.

This initiative in particular demonstrates how effectively multi-sector partnerships can pool resources and expertise to combat large-scale problems.

We must encourage more of these kinds of alliances among the varied elements of society. Working together, Foundations, Business, Government, and Non-Governmental Organizations, can form multifaceted, productive partnerships to address a wide range of issues, to foster cooperation in the developmental process, and promote human welfare everywhere.

This is not a simple matter, of course.

Business, NGOs and governments have long been suspicious of one another. Fortunately, this is changing. Governments as well as donors are coming to recognize NGOs as major development partners.

Every partner has something to gain, and to learn, from the others. Governments can be more flexible, like business; business can be more attuned to social and ecological problems, like NGOs; NGOs can be more organized and streamlined, like business; business can focus more on human needs, like foundations.

Foundations can help in this process by supporting initiatives and creating partnerships with organizations that develop and apply best practice approaches, especially models that can be replicated and yet varied from culture to culture.

One vital principle to support is consultation and cooperation rather than competition. It is a sad fact that the charitable sector, which should be based on higher virtues rather than baser instincts, is one of the most rife with rivalry, as different organizations scramble for scarce donor resources.

Encouraging cooperation will lead to greater value for resources and less duplication, and thus strengthen credibility with — and support from — donors.

At the very least, foundations themselves could talk to each other, build relationships, and coordinate to maximize the impact of their support.

Foundations should also make a greater effort to overcome their inherent resistance to funding core capacity building of organizations on the ground. It is much more appealing to the bottom line, I know, to invest in projects, infrastructure — things that can be written in nice round numbers on a balance sheet. But more and more these days, human resources are the key resources — even businesses are coming around to this view. Again, the secret to development is developing people.

Many believe grant-makers could also overcome an inherent conservative tendency in disbursement. In the majority of foundations, only 5% of income is distributed to beneficiaries. The rest accumulates as capital. Given the current value of the assets of many foundations, and recent market return on investments, perhaps this should be reevaluated. The purpose of a foundation, if I may dare say so, is to sustain the most needy, not to sustain or enrich itself.

For in the final analysis, the criteria for success for foundations are different from those in the business. Although it is hard to present in a cost-benefit analysis, success should be measured in enhanced capability and opportunity for individuals and communities. The valued currency of philanthropy is not profit, but human progress and hope.

By joining forces, and taking advantage of each others' strengths, all the institutions of society — foundations, NGOs, governments, and the business sector — can create a sophisticated web, strong, flexible and responsive enough to find solutions to the global challenges we face. And all of them can afford to take another look at the new definition of philanthropy, and make respect — respect among themselves and respect towards the beneficiaries of their efforts — the foundation of their partnership.

In putting together Sarskaia's projects I have seen it happen.

Foundations supporting best-practice principles, in true partnership with individuals and organizations on the ground, can have local, regional and even international impact. The impact reaches even such vital social goals such as gender equality, health care, and environmental awareness, and affects the overall quality of life, and stability of their community, in every aspect from literacy to family income.

Respect and partnership in the developmental process, we feel, can lead directly to respect and partnership in the peace process, both through the increased stability that economic development brings, and the increased understanding fostered by cooperation on mutually beneficial projects.

Business leaders are coming to realize it is hard to have your finger on a trigger and the keys of a cash register or a computer keyboard at the same time.

Drawing on the experiences of civil society to strengthen their contributions to peace building is a vital part of this process, sustaining agreements originally reached at the political level, and helping found a permanent peace in increased economic and social stability.

Philanthropy will never be outdated. As long as there is a gap — and there is one, and it is growing — in the economic and social distance among individuals and nations — philanthropy will be ever more necessary. It is a fundamental human endeavor, and one of the foundations of civilized society — and that, when it comes down to it is why all of us work so hard for our own foundations.

With each change in the structure of human organization, philanthropy must, and will, redefine itself, as concerned people find new and more effective ways to help those who have less than themselves.

New systems and technologies open new channels and networks; in addition to the traditional routes through religious and governmental organizations, we now have NGOs, corporations, and powerful individuals contributing to human welfare in unprecedented ways.

And the basis of that contribution is what it always has been: philanthropy, the opposite of greed, the antidote to selfishness, and the love of humankind. All in all, not a bad foundation for a new millennium.