It is not my intention to mediate in the peculiar discussion on profit educational that is stirring up local public opinion. I intend to draw attention to a third option: philanthropy or the "third sector", made up of foundations, associations and cooperatives of very diverse subject. Its work, endorsed in some European countries by more than a thousand years of continuity, sample that there are efficient alternatives to state public service and private profit when it comes to solving people's needs.

The expense allocated in Chile to non-profit entities (0.9% of GDP) is lower than the Latin American average (1.5%) and, of course, the U.S. average (6.2%). There is a long tradition of philanthropists in our country who have done a lot, but it seems to me that the economic boom would allow them to do even more. Let's see what is happening in two countries that could serve as examples reference letter.

In Germany, there is a veritable fever of new social initiatives. The 18,100 registered civil foundations manage assets worth some 100 billion euros. In addition, there are 30,000 ecclesiastical organizations. 23 million Germans out of a population of 82 million regularly devote money and work to charitable activities. They do so out of the conviction that the major challenges facing society cannot be solved by the resources of the state and the market alone. The third sector can work with an eye to the long term deadline, as it does not have to report quarterly to stock market analysts or stand for election every four years.

The social economy is also flourishing in the United States. TheGiving Pledge, an initiative promoted by the Gates couple and Warren Buffett, has recently caused a sensation. After one year, 69 billionaires have pledged to donate at least half of their wealth to charity, either during their lifetime or at the time of their death.

We can admit that all that glitters in these unprecedented traits of generosity is not gold: in addition to advantageous tax breaks, some of these millionaires may seek above all prestige and social glamour or simply to wash their image. In any case, their positive contribution to the remedy of so many social deficiencies is undeniable.

There are two very different styles: the German one, which operates discreetly and looks to the long term deadline, and the American one, which seeks immediate results and the corresponding advertising. In Europe, we tend to expect everything from the State, the main social agent and the repository of our hopes. In the United States, the leading role is played by the citizens, who know how to mobilize themselves and respond to problems. What is relevant is that where the State does not reach or does not even exist, so many people sample with deeds their concern for others, inspired by a feeling of solidarity or Christian charity.

I think that in Latin America in general, and in Chile in particular, there is much to be done in this respect. Social inequality becomes more unbearable when the country experiences a few years of prosperity and people perceive that the wealth generated does not trickle down. It is all well and good to discuss timely reforms in the quest for greater justice. But while these structural changes -which we should not expect too much- are taking place, it should be time for civil society. And those who have more and can are, logically, more obliged to do so.