
The billionaire curse [philanthropy as enterprise] - samizdis
https://aeon.co/essays/the-enterprise-of-philanthropy-does-well-out-of-doing-good
======
mcph
I think the author is right to point out the problems inherent to today's
philanthropic environment (e.g. less money donated to lesser impact, measured
by a number of metrics, globally)—particularly the inefficient outcomes
created by major donors' ability to demand tons of information on program
performance at a net cost to those programs efficacy due to cycles spent on
such reporting.

(BTW, the phenomenon of insufficient and inefficient giving is only a
"problem" if we agree that more wealth redistribution or a closing of existing
wealth gaps is a good thing, so let's start there for this discussion and if
you disagree let's discuss separately!).

But a huge missing point here is the issue of channel saturation in major
giving; even if giving could be made more effective, there is almost certainly
a cap on how much money can be redistributed through existing philanthropic
channels.

IMO, new avenues for wealth redistribution have to be created, either outside
of existing philanthropic channels or with major modification to existing ones
as the author proposes. Frankly, all the media and academic coverage I've
found on this topic is pretty light on details and there's very little funded
research on this topic.

It feels like there are a few directions to move towards to solve the
saturation issue: [1] don't get this rich, give away in smaller numbers more
frequently such that parties are not in the position of generating and giving
away wealth in sums too high to be absorbed by existing channels, [2] find a
way to get taxed, because the US government can spend your money, be OK with
the fact that this spending may not be net beneficial to folks, [3] innovate
and build huge infrastructure around creating new, possibly non-philanthropic
channels (incubators, money giveaways that aren't predicated on productivity
or outcomes, etc.).

The issue with [3] is that it will still leave enough discretion up to the
billionaire in question that funds may still not be distributed in a way or to
a quantity that 1) maximizes possible impact or 2) distributes enough money to
meaningfully address wealth inequality... Much to consider here.

