tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/bill-gates-8923/articlesBill Gates – The Conversation2024-03-05T14:34:39Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2235372024-03-05T14:34:39Z2024-03-05T14:34:39ZDonations by top 50 US donors fell again in 2023, sliding to $12B − Mike Bloomberg, Phil and Penny Knight, and Michael and Susan Dell led the list of biggest givers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578433/original/file-20240227-22-ys3u32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3008%2C1868&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Penny Knight and Phil Knight were the second-largest givers of 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.wishtv.com/news/education/indiana-lawmakers-join-gop-led-states-trying-to-target-college-tenure/">Michael Hickey/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The top 50 American individuals and couples who gave or pledged the most to charity in 2023 committed US$12 billion to foundations, universities, hospitals and more. That total was 28% below an inflation-adjusted $16.5 billion in 2022, according to the <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/page/philanthropy-50">Chronicle of Philanthropy</a>’s latest annual tally of these donations.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation U.S. asked <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VYsdAEIAAAAJ&hl=en">David Campbell</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=c__VVwsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Angela R. Logan</a> and <a href="https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/people-directory/moody-michael.html">Michael Moody</a>, three scholars of philanthropy, to assess the significance of these gifts and to consider what they indicate about the state of charitable giving in the United States.</em></p>
<h2>What trends stand out overall?</h2>
<p><strong>David Campbell:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/donations-by-top-50-us-donors-dropped-sharply-to-16-billion-in-2022-bill-gates-elon-musk-mike-bloomberg-and-warren-buffett-lead-the-list-of-biggest-givers-199732">As was the case in 2022</a>, more than one-third of these big gifts – $4.4 billion – went to donors’ personal foundations. Another $764.3 million flowed into donor-advised funds. Also known as DAFs, these charitable savings accounts make it possible for donors to reserve assets such as cash, stocks and bonds for future charitable gifts.</p>
<p>That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that a significant amount of the money these wealthy Americans technically gave away in 2023 didn’t get in the hands of charities right away. And while foundations must <a href="https://www.ncfp.org/2008/10/15/what-is-the-5-payout-rule/">give away or spend 5% of their assets every year</a>, there are no such requirements for DAFs.</p>
<p>Many of the same wealthy people make this list every time, and they stick with a few main priorities. Media mogul and former New York City Mayor <a href="https://www.bloomberg.org/public-health/">Mike Bloomberg</a>, for example, puts a lot of his charitable money into public health.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Moody:</strong> One thing that stands out for me is what’s missing. This list doesn’t include some billionaires known to give significant amounts of money to charity, and it doesn’t reflect all the ways that the wealthiest Americans seek to do good aside from giving to charitable organizations. </p>
<p>The list leaves out anonymous donors, such as the one who in 2023 <a href="https://www.mcpherson.edu/2023/07/mcpherson-college-establishes-1-billion-endowment/">catapulted the endowment of McPherson</a>, a small college in Kansas, past the $1.5 billion mark. It also omits a very prominent billionaire donor: author and philanthropist MacKenzie Scott.</p>
<p>Scott openly discusses her giving in periodic essays posted to the internet, including one in December 2023 when she described the <a href="https://yieldgiving.com/essays/giving-update/">more than $2.1 billion she had given</a> in the previous 12 months to <a href="https://yieldgiving.com/gifts?essay=20231206">360 nonprofits</a>.</p>
<p>However, this sort of self-disclosure doesn’t fit the <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/how-the-chronicle-compiled-its-list-of-the-top-50-donors-of-2022">Chronicle of Philanthropy’s methodology</a>. To avoid counting the same donation twice, it acknowledges only those gifts that go directly to charities or are made to foundations and other intermediaries such as DAFs. Without specific information from Scott or her representatives about which vehicles she uses and how much money she funnels through them each year, they leave her off the list. </p>
<p>Another <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/15/investing/elon-musk-charity-donation/index.html">probable omission is Elon Musk</a>, one of the richest people in the world, who leads several companies and <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/elon-musk-donated-1.95-billion-in-tesla-stock-in-2022">designated billions for charity in 2021 and 2022</a>. He has said little about his giving. Details about gifts he’s made to his foundation or other charities usually surface only through mandatory legal filings. Also, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-says-spacex-tesla-neuralink-boring-company-are-philanthropy-2022-4?r=US&IR=T">Musk has argued that his companies</a> are his best “philanthropy.”</p>
<p>Similarly, other billionaires who regularly make this list also say they use money to do good in ways beyond the charitable gifts summarized here.</p>
<p>John Arnold, who made a fortune by starting and running a hedge fund, and his wife, Laura Arnold, as well as Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, often point to ways they pursue their philanthropic goals through for-profit means, as well as through gifts to their foundations and DAFs. <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/laura-and-john-arnold-foundation-to-restructure-as-llc">They reserve large chunks of their fortunes</a> in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/technology/zuckerbergs-philanthropy-uses-llc-for-more-control.html">limited liability companies</a>, which are private corporations that they use to either make charitable donations or invest in what they believe are socially responsible companies.</p>
<p><iframe id="T04sr" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/T04sr/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What surprises you about the biggest donors?</h2>
<p><strong>Campbell:</strong> Last year, <a href="https://theconversation.com/donations-by-top-50-us-donors-dropped-sharply-to-16-billion-in-2022-bill-gates-elon-musk-mike-bloomberg-and-warren-buffett-lead-the-list-of-biggest-givers-199732">I predicted</a> that Melinda French Gates, the ex-wife of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, would make the 2023 list and she did. French Gates was the ninth-largest donor of 2023, while her former husband was No. 16.</p>
<p>French Gates has charted her own course by creating <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/melinda-french-gates-effort-aims-to-accelerate-womens-power-and-influence?sra=true">Pivotal Ventures</a>, a limited liability company. But she has continued to give primarily by funding the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the biggest private source of <a href="https://pages.devex.com/rs/685-KBL-765/images/the-top-10-foundations-funding-development.pdf">funding for international development</a>.</p>
<p>French Gates indicated that she <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/melinda-french-gates-no-longer-pledges-bulk-of-her-wealth-to-gates-foundation-11643808602">plans to branch out</a> with her philanthropy. But she and Bill <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/leadership?division=Co-chairs%20and%20Board%20of%20Trustees">still co-chair the foundation</a> bearing their names.</p>
<p><strong>Angela Logan</strong> Most <a href="https://www.dafresearchcollaborative.org/national-study-dafs7">donor-advised funds aren’t massive</a>. Only 1% of those accounts held balances of $10 million as of late 2021, according to a recent report. Yet, some of the biggest donors of 2023 deposited far more than that.</p>
<p>Tech executive Michael Dell and his wife, Susan Dell, have infused theirs with $486 million, while Phil Knight, the founder of the athletic apparel and footwear company Nike, and his wife, Penny Knight, placed $104 million in their DAF. <a href="https://www.dell.org/what-we-do/">Both couples</a> also have <a href="https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/knight-foundation,911791788/">their own foundations</a>.</p>
<p>I believe it’s worth watching to see whether in the future more of the biggest donors will take this route, rather than creating their own family foundations.</p>
<p>One concern is that there is <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/an-unlikely-event-the-israel-hamas-war-could-finally-spark-daf-reform">no obligation for donors to disclose gifts</a> they make through DAFs, another <a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-and-availability-of-exempt-organizations-returns-and-applications-requirements-for-private-foundations">difference between them and foundations</a>.</p>
<p>If more of the biggest donors take the DAF route, rather than forming foundations or giving directly to charities, the public would lose access to information about where philanthropic dollars go. And that could potentially further erode trust in charitable giving and nonprofits.</p>
<p><iframe id="rA1lY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/rA1lY/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What concerns do you have?</h2>
<p><strong>Campbell:</strong> While these gifts are formidable, I still think about those who are not showing up. Only 23 of the top givers are from the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/">Forbes 400 list</a> of the wealthiest Americans.</p>
<p>I find it surprising that many of those with the most to give away are outflanked by others’ generosity. Only 13 of the year’s top donors have signed <a href="https://givingpledge.org/">the Giving Pledge</a>, a “promise by the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes.” This fact leads me to wonder what the long-term plans are for many of the other top donors.</p>
<p>Will they sign to the Giving Pledge? What makes them willing to give so much today but not commit for tomorrow? </p>
<p><strong>Logan</strong> Similarly, I’m struck by the lack of diversity in terms of age among the top givers. More than half of them are over 80. Only one person listed among the youngest members of the Forbes 400 list, Zuckerberg, also made the cut.</p>
<p>Even more intriguing is that, in addition to Zuckerberg, five more of the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/savannahborn/2023/10/03/the-youngest-billionaires-on-the-2023-forbes-400-list/">youngest members of the Forbes 400</a> have signed the Giving Pledge: Airbnb co-founders Joe Gebbia, Nathan Blecharczyk and Brian Chesky; Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency platform Coinbase; and Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. </p>
<p>What makes them willing to commit so much tomorrow but less inclined to give as much today? </p>
<p><iframe id="8ubHV" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8ubHV/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What do you expect to see in 2024 and beyond?</h2>
<p><strong>Logan:</strong> I feel as though this has been stated every four years since I turned 18, but the 2024 U.S. presidential election will be the most consequential in the nation’s history.</p>
<p>I suspect that in this election cycle, donors are putting more of their philanthropic dollars toward preserving democracy, voter education and the causes that matter to Americans on the left, right and center.</p>
<p>Additionally, even if the conflict between Israel and Hamas ends soon, I expect to see an increase in giving in 2024 to combat both antisemitism and Islamophobia and for that to continue going forward. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/29/us/hate-crimes-antisemitism-anti-muslim-dg/index.html">Hate-related crimes</a>, including those targeting Muslims and Jews, have been rising in the U.S. since 2014. And they have surged since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel launched its war on Gaza. That could drive further giving along the lines of the $100 million that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft provided his <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/robert-kraft-patriots-israel-anti-semitism-0cf70cb4">Foundation to Combat Antisemitism</a> in 2023.</p>
<p><strong>Moody:</strong> I expect that most of the biggest gifts will keep going to foundations and DAFs, as well as higher ed and medical causes. That pattern seems to hold steady, regardless of whatever new culture war, political fight or international conflict is in the headlines.</p>
<p>However, as Angela Logan notes, there are hints that we’ll see more major gifts focused on issues like ethnic conflict, bigotry or racial justice and uplift. One notable example of this in 2023 was the Knights’ <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/phil-knight-invests-400-million-in-portland-s-albina-neighborhood">$400 million pledge to revive a struggling Black neighborhood</a> in Portland, Oregon.</p>
<p>But the world of philanthropy can be surprising sometimes. Donors can make choices no one saw coming, and new donors can burst on the scene. With <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/business/ubs-billionaires-report/index.html">new billionaires emerging</a> at a swift pace, it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen next.</p>
<p>Consider, for instance, the news announced in late February 2024 that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/nyregion/albert-einstein-college-medicine-bronx-donation.html">Ruth Gottesman donated $1 billion</a> to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx.</p>
<p>Gottesman is a former professor at that medical school. Her husband, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/business/dealbook/david-s-gottesman-dead.html?searchResultPosition=1">David “Sandy” Gottesman</a>, was a billionaire investor who died in 2022 without putting any strings on what she should do with their fortune. This gift broke with some common conventions.</p>
<p>While she did stipulate that the funds should be be used to make the school tuition-free forever, she didn’t tie the gift to <a href="https://charitylawyerblog.com/2021/06/28/charity-naming-rights-how-to-do-it-right/">naming rights</a>. She insisted, instead, that the college keep its name. Initially, she even <a href="https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/dr-ruth-gottesman-just-gave-1-billion-to-make-tuition-free-at-this-bronx-medical-school-it-comes-with-a-surprising-catch.html">wanted to give the money anonymously</a>. </p>
<p>Will other big donors now follow suit?</p>
<p><em>The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has provided funding for The Conversation U.S. and provides funding for The Conversation internationally. Arnold Ventures provides funding for The Conversation U.S.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223537/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Campbell is the Chair of the Board of the Conrad and Virginia Klee Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela R. Logan is the Board President of the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Moody does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three philanthropy scholars discuss several trends in giving by the wealthiest Americans highlighted in this yearly report. Among them: Much of this money doesn’t go to charities right away.David Campbell, Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkAngela R. Logan, Associate Teaching Professor of Management & Organization, St. Andre Bessette Academic Director of the Master of Nonprofit Administration, University of Notre DameMichael Moody, Professor of Philanthropic Studies, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2036532023-05-12T12:21:51Z2023-05-12T12:21:51ZWhat’s a Luddite? An expert on technology and society explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525491/original/file-20230510-25-btjznr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=349%2C298%2C1982%2C1453&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some Luddites simply want to press 'pause' on the uninhibited march of technological progress.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/digital-rain-2-royalty-free-illustration/1326774318?phrase=luddites&adppopup=true">Stan Eales/iStock via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The term “Luddite” emerged in <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/">early 1800s England</a>. At the time there was a thriving textile industry that depended on manual knitting frames and a skilled workforce to create cloth and garments out of cotton and wool. But as <a href="https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain/articles/the-industrial-revolution">the Industrial Revolution</a> gathered momentum, steam-powered mills threatened the livelihood of thousands of artisanal textile workers.</p>
<p>Faced with an industrialized future that threatened their jobs and their professional identity, a growing number of textile workers turned to direct action. Galvanized by their leader, Ned Ludd, they began to smash the machines that they saw as robbing them of their source of income.</p>
<p>It’s not clear whether <a href="https://www.history.com/news/who-were-the-luddites">Ned Ludd was a real person</a>, or simply a figment of folklore invented during a period of upheaval. But his name became synonymous with rejecting disruptive new technologies – an association that lasts to this day. </p>
<h2>Questioning doesn’t mean rejecting</h2>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/im-a-luddite-you-should-be-one-too-163172">original Luddites were not anti-technology</a>, nor were they <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/">technologically incompetent</a>. Rather, they were skilled adopters and users of the artisanal textile technologies of the time. Their argument was not with technology, per se, but with the ways that wealthy industrialists were robbing them of their way of life.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Engraving of a mob of men breaking into a factory." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525490/original/file-20230510-25-vvlwmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A wood engraving from 1844 depicts Luddites destroying power looms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/austro-hungaria-social-history-bohemian-weaver-mutiny-news-photo/549548257?adppopup=true">Archiv Gerstenberg/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Today, this distinction is sometimes lost.</p>
<p>Being called a Luddite often indicates technological incompetence – as in, “I can’t figure out how to send emojis; I’m such a Luddite.” Or it describes an ignorant rejection of technology: “He’s such a Luddite for refusing to use Venmo.”</p>
<p>In December 2015, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Bill Gates were jointly nominated for a <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-elon-musk-is-a-luddite-count-me-in-52630">“Luddite Award”</a>. Their sin? Raising concerns over the potential dangers of artificial intelligence. </p>
<p>The irony of three prominent scientists and entrepreneurs being labeled as Luddites underlines the disconnect between the term’s original meaning and its more modern use as an epithet for anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly and unquestioningly embrace technological progress. </p>
<p>Yet technologists like Musk and Gates aren’t rejecting technology or innovation. Instead, they’re rejecting a worldview that all technological advances are ultimately good for society. This worldview optimistically assumes that the faster humans innovate, the better the future will be.</p>
<p>This “<a href="https://www.masterclass.com/articles/move-fast-and-break-things">move fast and break things</a>” approach toward technological innovation has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years – especially with growing awareness that <a href="https://theconversation.com/sci-fi-movies-are-the-secret-weapon-that-could-help-silicon-valley-grow-up-105714">unfettered innovation can lead to deeply harmful consequences</a> that a degree of responsibility and forethought could help avoid.</p>
<h2>Why Luddism matters</h2>
<p>In an age of <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/chatgpt-pause-ai-experiments-open-letter/">ChatGPT</a>, gene editing and other transformative technologies, perhaps we all need to channel the spirit of Ned Ludd as we grapple with how to ensure that future technologies do more good than harm.</p>
<p>In fact, “<a href="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kirkpatrick-sale-crow-s-nest-distribution-neo-luddites-and-lessons-from-the-luddites">Neo-Luddites</a>” or “New Luddites” is a term that emerged at the end of the 20th century.</p>
<p>In 1990, the psychologist Chellis Glendinning published an essay titled “<a href="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chellis-glendinning-notes-toward-a-neo-luddite-manifesto">Notes toward a Neo-Luddite Manifesto</a>.” </p>
<p>In it, she recognized the nature of the early Luddite movement and related it to a growing disconnect between societal values and technological innovation in the late 20th century. As Glendinning writes, “Like the early Luddites, we too are a desperate people seeking to protect the livelihoods, communities, and families we love, which lie on the verge of destruction.”</p>
<p>On one hand, entrepreneurs and others who advocate for a more measured approach to technology innovation lest we stumble into avoidable – and potentially catastrophic risks – are frequently labeled “Neo-Luddites.” </p>
<p>These individuals represent experts who believe in the power of technology to positively change the future, but are also aware of the societal, environmental and economic dangers of blinkered innovation.</p>
<p>Then there are the Neo-Luddites who actively reject modern technologies, fearing that they are damaging to society. New York City’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/style/teens-social-media.html">Luddite Club</a> falls into this camp. Formed by a group of tech-disillusioned Gen-Zers, the club advocates the use of flip phones, crafting, hanging out in parks and reading hardcover or paperback books. Screens are an anathema to the group, which sees them as a drain on mental health.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how many of today’s Neo-Luddites – whether they’re thoughtful technologists, technology-rejecting teens or simply people who are uneasy about technological disruption – have read Glendinning’s manifesto. And to be sure, parts of it are rather contentious. Yet there is a common thread here: the idea that technology can lead to personal and societal harm if it is not developed responsibly. </p>
<p>And maybe that approach isn’t such a bad thing.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/CnUir04L3aS/?utm_source=ig_embed\u0026utm_campaign=loading","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203653/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite the association of ‘Luddite’ with a naïve rejection of technology, the term and its origins are far richer and more complex than you might think.Andrew Maynard, Professor of Advanced Technology Transitions, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1997322023-02-14T15:05:22Z2023-02-14T15:05:22ZDonations by top 50 US donors dropped sharply to $16 billion in 2022 – Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mike Bloomberg and Warren Buffett lead the list of biggest givers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509613/original/file-20230212-14-nfo2vl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5266%2C2616&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were two of the year's biggest three donors.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BerkshireHathaway/f5c802393a544cf39633732355f03ca3/photo?boardId=37be9465fcce45d283d5431cccb20a6a&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=322&currentItemNo=1">AP Photo/Nati Harnik</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The top 50 American individuals and couples who gave or pledged the most to charity in 2022 committed to giving US$16 billion to foundations, universities, hospitals and more – a total that was 55% below an inflation-adjusted $35.6 billion in 2021, according to the <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/2023phil50">Chronicle of Philanthropy</a>’s latest annual tally of these donations.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation U.S. asked <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VYsdAEIAAAAJ&hl=en">David Campbell</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=tu70lmIAAAAJ">Elizabeth Dale</a> and <a href="https://johnsoncenter.org/team/michael-moody/">Michael Moody</a>, three scholars of philanthropy, to assess the significance of these gifts and to consider what this data indicates about the state of charitable giving in the United States.</em></p>
<h2>What trends stand out overall?</h2>
<p><strong>Elizabeth Dale</strong>: After two years of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-50-biggest-us-donors-gave-or-pledged-nearly-28-billion-in-2021-bill-gates-and-melinda-french-gates-account-for-15-billion-of-that-total-175778">giving that was close to record levels</a>, the nation’s biggest donors seem to have resumed giving at pre-pandemic levels, with support largely directed to the causes they have historically favored: higher education, hospitals and medical research. They also put a lot of money into foundations, for the most part those bearing the names of these extremely wealthy donors or their relatives.</p>
<p>I believe that the decline in giving likely had something to do with last year’s stock market volatility – <a href="https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1131213/just-how-bad-was-2022s-stock-and-bond-market-performance">major indices lost as much as</a> <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/30/investing/dow-stock-market-2022/index.html">33% of their value</a> in 2022 – and the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm">onset of high inflation</a>. Both <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.10.016">financial markets and inflation</a> can <a href="https://www.nonprofitpro.com/post/the-effect-of-inflation-on-charitable-giving/">influence charitable giving</a>. </p>
<p><strong>David Campbell</strong>: Despite giving from these very rich Americans being so much lower than in 2021 and 2020, the total for 2022 was still higher than more than half of the years since 2000. Nonetheless, more than half of the total came from three donors: Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates; Tesla, SpaceX and Twitter CEO Elon Musk; and former New York City mayor and financial media entrepreneur Mike Bloomberg. Some $8 billion – half of these gifts – went to foundations in 2022, with $5 billion injected into the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone.</p>
<p>This means that the benefit of these donations will not be experienced immediately but rather over many years. U.S. foundations are <a href="https://www.ncfp.org/2008/10/15/what-is-the-5-payout-rule/">required to spend only 5% of their assets</a> annually, and most foundations <a href="https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/library/philanthropy/frequently-asked-questions-about-philanthropy/faq-the-philanthropist-s-dilemma-do-i-spend-down-o">try to preserve their holdings</a> so that they may continue operating well into the future. </p>
<p><strong>Michael Moody</strong>: The gifts from Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both point to how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been evolving in the past couple years, following the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-bills-philanthropy-bill-gates-02984256b0927ea3587f91a776501436">founders’ divorce in 2021</a>.</p>
<p>Bill Gates’ contribution to the foundation came from him alone, and Buffett’s big gifts last year went to foundations led by his relatives rather than to the Gates Foundation, an institution that he announced years ago would <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/warren-buffett-to-give-bulk-of-fortune-to-gates-foundation">receive the bulk of his fortune</a>. While Buffett has said he still <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/buffett-resigns-trustee-gates-foundation-2021-06-23/">fully supports the Gates foundation</a>, he did step off its board in 2021. That board has since gained new members who <a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-bill-gates-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-dee83497907f32eb847428d2878acba6">aren’t related to Bill Gates or Melinda French Gates</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="ev6zS" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ev6zS/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What surprises you about the biggest donors?</h2>
<p><strong>Campbell</strong>: One thing that stands out to me is not only that some donors appear on this list year after year but also that they have a clear vision for their philanthropy and consistently use it to focus on a few core passions: <a href="https://www.arnoldventures.org/arnolds-personal-giving">John and Laura Arnold</a> on a specific set of public policy concerns, including reproductive rights and civil rights; <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64499635">Gates on global health</a>; and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.org/">Bloomberg</a> on higher education access, public health and gun safety.</p>
<p><strong>Dale</strong>: I’d like to point out that only 20 of this year’s top 50 donors are on the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/">Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans</a>. It’s worth paying attention to who isn’t giving on a big scale, especially in an era of such <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:129;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:all;units:shares">extreme wealth inequality</a> and an effective <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/">8.2% tax rate on the wealthiest Americans</a>. It can be easier to pay a lot of attention to the perennial donors on this list like Bill Gates, Bloomberg, the Arnolds, Sergey Brin and a few others who have consistently been among the country’s top charitable donors for years. </p>
<p>I also find it interesting that three big donors all re-upped their commitments to the <a href="https://www.alzdiscovery.org/research-and-grants/diagnostics-accelerator">Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation</a> Diagnostics Accelerator. Leonard Lauder – an heir to the Estée Lauder Cos. cosmetics fortune – Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates each made <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2022/07/30/bill-gates-is-reupping-his-commitment-to-alzheimers-research-and-detection/?sh=58b7eb856a83">$11.25 million gifts</a> to this venture, which they helped launch in 2018 <a href="https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-are-signs-alzheimers-disease">to research ways to make earlier diagnoses Alzheimer’s disease</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Moody</strong>: I find it noteworthy that none of the top 50 donors in 2022 was under 40 and that only five of them were under 50. That the top donors skew older should not be too surprising given that <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/08/wealth-inequality-by-household-type.html">Baby Boomers have nine times as much wealth</a> as millennials. But some members of Generation X and millennials are <a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-worlds-billionaires-by-generation/">starting to enter the echelon of the world’s wealthiest</a>, so I’d expected to see more of them crack this list.</p>
<p><iframe id="Bc1sC" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Bc1sC/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What concerns do you have?</h2>
<p><strong>Moody</strong>: I think a lot of Americans would say that one of our biggest problems as a country right now is our <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/archive/winter-2021/america-is-exceptional-in-its-political-divide">divisiveness and our apparent inability to overcome it</a>. Yet with the notable exception of <a href="https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=258">Pierre and Pam Omidyar</a>, who support efforts to ensure free and fair elections as well as what they term “<a href="https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/democracy-governance/built-moment">constructive politics</a>” through their <a href="https://democracyfund.org/what-we-do/">Democracy Fund</a>, few of the biggest donors are focused on overcoming this polarization.</p>
<p><strong>Dale</strong>: I’m struck by how little money in 2022 was clearly identified as being directed to the environment and climate change, especially given the <a href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/10/world-rocked-by-29-billion-dollar-weather-disasters-in-2022/">climate-related disasters</a> of Hurricane Ian in Florida, heat waves in Europe and flooding in Pakistan and India.</p>
<p>While several of these top donors did announce that they had made gifts totaling $186.8 million to environmental-related causes, only $27.6 million was directly given to an environmental organization and $50 million to address climate change. Other large gifts went to the Schmidt Ocean Institute and the ocean program at the University of California, Santa Barbara.</p>
<p><strong>Campbell</strong>: I think it is important to note that giving by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/15/mackenzie-scott-billionaire-donations-non-profits">MacKenzie Scott</a> is not included on this list because she did not respond to the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s survey. She has given at least <a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-philanthropy-amazoncom-inc-cd1001a49c168f1d01c99ade96c5c671">$14 billion to some 1,600 nonprofits</a> since 2019.</p>
<p>Scott’s approach to philanthropy stands out because of its unusual scale, as well as her <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-takeaways-from-mackenzie-scotts-1-7-billion-in-support-for-social-justice-causes-143659">focus on equity and marginalized groups</a> and her <a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/what_large_unrestricted_gifts_do_for_leaders">no-strings-attached grants</a>. Her gifts to organizations to use for their immediate needs provide a stark contrast to other top givers who place their donations in foundations, where much of the public benefit is deferred.</p>
<p><iframe id="waPpK" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/waPpK/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What do you expect to see in 2023 and beyond?</h2>
<p><strong>Campbell</strong>: I have more questions than answers.</p>
<p>How will the devastating earthquake in Turkey and Syria affect giving? Will the scale of the disaster, which had <a href="https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/turkey-syria-earthquake-updates-2-13-23-intl/index.html">left 36,000 people dead by mid-February 2023</a>, be a motivator, considering that many of the largest U.S. donors focus their giving on causes operating in the United States? Will declining inflation spur more giving by the wealthiest Americans next year and a return to the levels seen in recent years?</p>
<p>I imagine we will see <a href="https://www.pivotalventures.org/founder">Melinda French Gates</a> on this list next year. Will her giving look more like Scott’s, making donations to organizations that address equity issues a priority? Or will it look more traditional and long-term, emphasize foundation giving and be shaped by the input of in-house experts?</p>
<p><strong>Dale</strong>: While the composition of the data obscures much about the end recipients of this elite giving, I believe it’s clear that more philanthropy, in addition to large-scale public funding, is needed to address major diseases, climate change and social and racial inequality. I’d like to see more of these donors make efforts to work together and a speedier disbursement of grants from foundations.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated on Feb. 17, 2023, to include new data on Elon Musk’s charitable giving in 2022.</em></p>
<p><em>The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has provided funding for The Conversation U.S. and provides funding for The Conversation internationally. Arnold Ventures provides funding for The Conversation U.S.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199732/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Campbell chairs the board of the Conrad and Virginia Klee Foundation, and is a member of the board of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth J. Dale has received funding from The Ford Foundation, Giving USA Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation via Indiana University for her research on philanthropy and giving. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Moody has received funding in the past from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation via grants to the nonproft 21/64, and has conducted contract research for the Greater Houston Community Foundation. </span></em></p>As giving receded to pre-pandemic levels, most of these gifts were designated for foundations, higher education, hospitals and medical research.David Campbell, Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkElizabeth J. Dale, Associate Professor of Nonprofit Leadership, Seattle UniversityMichael Moody, Chair for Family Philanthropy, Grand Valley State University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1980022023-01-26T09:37:40Z2023-01-26T09:37:40ZVaccine hesitancy in South Africa: COVID experience highlights conspiracies, mistrust and the role of the media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505814/original/file-20230123-19-4i7gf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Intent to vaccinate cannot be used to predict uptake.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Siphiwe Sibeko/POOL/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent weeks, China has reported a spike in new cases of COVID and related deaths. Some countries have imposed travel restrictions as a result. But most – including South Africa – have not. </p>
<p>Instead, the South African government’s <a href="https://sacoronavirus.co.za/2023/01/12/minister-speaking-notes-on-health-media-briefing-by-health-minister-dr-joe-phaahla-10-january-2023/">approach</a> is to increase testing, boost surveillance, and, most importantly, breathe new life into its COVID vaccination campaign.</p>
<p>South Africa first introduced COVID vaccines in <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-key-questions-about-south-africas-vaccine-rollout-plan-155972">February 2021</a>. It set an ambitious target of fully vaccinating 67% of the population (40 million people) by the end of that year. By mid-January 2023, almost two years down the road, only 35% (<a href="https://covid19.who.int/region/afro/country/za">21 million people</a>) had been fully vaccinated.</p>
<p>One area that’s seen a troublingly low turnout is Soweto. The area is a massive cluster of some 30 townships – underdeveloped, racially segregated urban areas – in the south of Johannesburg. Soweto has about 1.7 million inhabitants; most are black. Only about 20% have gone to a vaccine site to finish their inoculation. </p>
<p>This vaccination rate is in stark contrast to what Sowetans told us as part of a <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/9/1379">study we undertook</a> back in August 2020, before vaccines became available nationwide. The study was done at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital in Soweto – Africa’s largest hospital. More than half of everyone we interviewed said they would accept a vaccine. This was still much lower than <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14760584.2021.1949291">national surveys</a> at the time, which estimated a hypothetical acceptance rate of about 75% on average. </p>
<p>This clearly shows that hypothetical intent to vaccinate cannot be used to predict uptake. To plan an effective rollout, it’s paramount to understand the social underpinnings of vaccine hesitancy in Soweto. Such insights would likely be transferable to places with similar demographics and socioeconomic profiles throughout South Africa. </p>
<h2>What drives hesitancy?</h2>
<p>There is always a certain <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953606001092?via%3Dihub">“field of suspicion”</a> in perceptions and attitudes towards illness and inoculation. People may have uncertainties and doubts concerning, for instance, adverse side effects, symptoms, or outcomes of disease. This is especially true in the case of a novel, rapidly spreading and potentially deadly virus like COVID-19.</p>
<p>In Soweto, we identified a host of factors amplifying this field of suspicion. </p>
<p>The haphazard way in which the media reported on the disease was one such factor. There were <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/experts-say-governments-mixed-coronavirus-messages-cause-confusion-9ea44d28-a022-4c1b-a137-457615c38746">conflicting messages</a> coming from health and government authorities. Wild speculation, rumours, “fake news” and whispers about COVID-19’s nature and true origins spread via local <a href="https://www.gov.za/covid-19/resources/fake-news-coronavirus-covid-19">social media networks</a> and in some parts of <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00045/full">the press</a>. Some concepts weren’t explained in a way non-expert audiences could engage with (or in languages that the vast majority of people in Soweto speak).</p>
<p>Mistrust of the institutions involved was another factor. Suspicion and uncertainty opens a space in society for stubborn false or incorrect claims and conspiracy theories. Some people were saying that COVID-19 fatalities had been deliberately exaggerated and that it was a scheme concocted by “Big Pharma”. Some believed that the virus did not exist. Others claimed that Bill Gates had put a microchip in the vaccine to “control” the masses, or that the 5G network was somehow causing it.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/exBTSKsnDrU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In Soweto, various Africanised counterfactual claims circulated. For instance, some warned that COVID-19 was a man-made virus purposefully created to destroy black African populations. Or, in a contradictory version, black people were immune and COVID-19 only infected white people.</p>
<p>When such misinformation flourishes, people become even more anxious, doubtful and hesitant about getting vaccinated. </p>
<p>Structural, social, economic and political factors together decrease uptake in immunisation programmes. This is particularly evident in townships such as Soweto because of histories of colonisation, marginalisation and racism. For instance, <a href="https://borgenproject.org/health-disparities-during-apartheid/">during apartheid</a>, the white government displaced thousands of people and decreased funding for social services such as education and healthcare for non-whites. This resulted in a lack of medical coverage for and discrimination against black people both economically and in terms of healthcare. These historical and structural health disparities continue to have an impact on the broader healthcare picture in South Africa even today.</p>
<p>Another factor was related and, in some ways, similar to the issue of mistrust. The pandemic triggered a social mechanism that medical anthropologists refer to as “<a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425">othering</a>”, just as it did and still does in the ongoing <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-social-management-of-hiv-african-migrants-in-south-africa-127955">HIV pandemic</a>. This time, othering presented in its more sinister form – racialisation.</p>
<p>Othering can be viewed as scapegoating and stigmatisation – believing, for instance, that the virus affects only the rich, white people or foreigners.</p>
<p>Othering and racialisation also reinforce false divisions: the <em>mkhukhu</em> (shack) dweller against the wealthy, black people against white people, those who are pro-vaccination against those who mistrust vaccines. All of these tensions combined can destabilise the authorities’ credibility as they try to roll out immunisation programmes.</p>
<h2>Way forward</h2>
<p>It remains paramount during vaccination rollouts to explore and address factors that influence vaccine confidence and selectivity.</p>
<p>Appropriate media coverage of vaccination and debunking of wrong “information” is crucial in driving forward immunisation.</p>
<p>Curbing vaccine hesitancy is as much a matter of acknowledging its social, historical and cultural roots as it is of addressing its clinical dimensions. These are lessons best remembered for future outbreaks – and they are even more important to unravel now as South Africa’s government encourages more people to line up for the COVID-19 jabs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198002/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bent Steenberg has received funding from the Danish International Development Agency (Danida), the European Commission, the Mellon Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.</span></em></p>Curbing vaccine hesitancy is as much a matter of acknowledging its social, historical, and cultural roots as it is of addressing its clinical dimensions.Bent Steenberg, Medical Anthropologist, Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, South African Medical Research CouncilLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1949622023-01-12T13:20:06Z2023-01-12T13:20:06ZDead billionaires whose foundations are thriving today can thank Henry VIII and Elizabeth I<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503104/original/file-20230104-16-22jrm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C0%2C1931%2C991&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Automaker Henry Ford's name endures on the foundation formed from his fortune.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/henry-ford-with-his-model-t-news-photo/51098603?adppopup=true">Hulton Archive/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>More than 230 of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-giving-pledge-a-philanthropy-scholar-explains-182015">world’s wealthiest people</a>, including Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have promised to give at least half of their fortunes to charity within their lifetimes or in their wills by signing the <a href="https://givingpledge.org/pledgerlist">Giving Pledge</a>. Some of the most affluent, including <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/business/jeff-bezos-charity/index.html">Jeff Bezos</a> – who hadn’t signed the Giving Pledge by early 2023 – and <a href="https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=393">MacKenzie Scott</a>, his ex-wife – have declared that they will go further by giving most of their fortunes to charity before they die. </p>
<p>This movement stands in contrast to practices of many of the philanthropists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Industrial titans like oil baron <a href="https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/">John D. Rockefeller</a>, automotive entrepreneur <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.7912/C2/605">Henry Ford</a> and steel magnate <a href="https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/">Andrew Carnegie</a> established massive foundations that to this day have big pots of money at their disposal despite decades of charitable grantmaking. This kind of control over funds after death is usually illegal because of a you-can’t-take-it-with-you legal doctrine that originated 500 years ago in England.</p>
<p>Known as the <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Rule_Against_Perpetuities/63xG4oBiVnAC?hl=en">Rule Against Perpetuities</a>, it holds that control over property <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLTDCqR2mts">must cease within 21 years of a death</a>. But there is a <a href="https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2407&context=dlra">loophole in that rule for money given to charities</a>, which theoretically can flow forever. Without it, many of the largest U.S. and British foundations would have closed their doors after disbursing all their funds long ago.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://mdcourts.gov/attysearch#searchform">lawyer</a> and <a href="https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/public-administration/about-us/faculty-staff/nuri-heckler.php">researcher</a> who <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=yCboPP4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">studies</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1621659">nonprofit law</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2019.1626696">history</a>, I wondered why American donors get to give from the grave.</p>
<h2>Henry VIII had his eye on property</h2>
<p>In a recent <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RenB8J1XlLN9GvLX3auFFQRHAFuCupD8/view?usp=sharing">working paper</a> that I wrote with my colleague <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=F0rg8fYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Angela Eikenberry</a> and Kenya Love, a graduate student, we explained that this debate goes back to the court of Henry VIII.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="White man wearing luxurious clothing and a broad fur collar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=775&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=775&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=775&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=974&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=974&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503857/original/file-20230110-448-mumq8n.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=974&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Henry VIII ruled England from 1509 to 1547.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/662833">The Metropolitan Museum of Art</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Rule Against Perpetuities developed in response to <a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803114938887">political upheaval in the 1530s</a>. The old feudal law made it almost impossible for most properties to be sold, foreclosed upon or have their ownership changed in any way.</p>
<p>At the time, a small number of people and the Catholic Church <a href="https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/handle/2104/9014">controlled most of the wealth in England</a>.
Henry VIII wanted to end this practice because it was difficult to tax property that never transferred, and property owners were mostly unaccountable to England’s monarchy. This encouraged fraud and led to a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/561096">consolidation of wealth that threatened the king’s power</a>.</p>
<p>As he sought to <a href="https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-did-henry-viii-break-rome">sever England’s ties to the Catholic Church</a>, Henry had one eye on changing religious doctrine so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, and the other on all the property that would become available when he booted out the church.</p>
<p>After splitting with the church and securing his divorce, he enacted <a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803114938887">a new property system</a> giving the British monarchy a lot more power over wealth and used that power to seize property. Most of the property the king first took belonged to the church, but all <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/561096">property interests were more vulnerable under the new law</a>.</p>
<p>Henry’s power grab angered the wealthy gentry, who launched a violent uprising known as the “<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Henry_VIII_and_the_English_Monasteries/uTjUAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1">Pilgrimage of Grace</a>.”</p>
<p>After quelling that upheaval, Henry compromised by allowing the <a href="https://reginajeffers.blog/2022/07/25/statute-of-wills-henry-viiis-answer-to-primogeniture/">transfer of property</a> from one generation to the next, but did not allow people to tell others how to use their property after they died. The courts later developed the Rule Against Perpetuities to allow people to transfer property to their children when they turned 21 years old. </p>
<p>At the same time, wealthy Englishmen were encouraged to give large sums of money and property to <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=868394">help the poor</a>. Some of these funds had strings attached for longer than the 21 years. </p>
<h2>Elizabeth I codified the rule</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.hrp.org.uk/hampton-court-palace/history-and-stories/elizabeth-i/">Elizabeth I</a>, Henry VIII’s daughter with his ill-fated wife Anne Boleyn, became queen after his death. She used her reign to codify that previously informal charitable exception. By then it was the 1590s – a tough time for England, due to <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=868394">two wars, a pandemic, inflation and famine</a>. Queen Elizabeth needed to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/24415458">prevent unrest without raising taxes</a> even further than she already had.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A white woman dressed in elaborate regal garb with a high collar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1008&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1008&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499143/original/file-20221206-24-ju9b48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1008&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth I ruled England from 1558 to 1603.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/364401">The Metropolitan Museum of Art</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Elizabeth’s solution was a new law decreed in 1601. Known as the “<a href="https://conservationtools.org/library_items/1385-The-Modern-Law-of-Charities-as-Derived-from-the-Statute-of-Charitable-Uses">Statute of Charitable Uses</a>,” it encouraged the wealthy to make big charitable donations and gave courts the power to enforce the terms of the gifts. </p>
<p>The monarchy believed that <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/sptlns2&div=16&g_sent=1&casa_token=2L9P-TguWK8AAAAA:GX5MqdTeJBZmNgVhzkyQMjpm2YHoBc6p_oj09G8Mfi-KkMdwVIwBSJ9UhcxhtJoWQDabW8L3">partnering with charities</a> would ease the burdens of the state to aid the poor.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://fee.org/articles/how-does-government-welfare-stack-up-against-private-charity-it-s-no-contest/">concept remains popular</a> today, especially among conservatives in the U.S. and U.K. </p>
<h2>The charitable exception today</h2>
<p>When the U.S. broke away from Great Britain and became an independent country, it wasn’t always certain that it would stick with the charitable exception.</p>
<p>Some states initially <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/179/trustees-of-philadelphia-baptist-association-v-hart-s-executors">rejected British law</a>, but by the early 19th century every state in the U.S. had adopted the <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Rule_Against_Perpetuities/63xG4oBiVnAC?hl=en">Rule Against Perpetuities</a>.</p>
<p>In the late 1800s, scholars <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1321788">started debating the value of the Rule Against Perpetuities</a>, even as large foundations <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/history/american-history-general-interest/charity-philanthropy-and-civility-american-history?format=PB&isbn=9780521603539">took advantage of Elizabeth’s philanthropy loophole</a>. As of 2022, my co-authors and I had found that <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RenB8J1XlLN9GvLX3auFFQRHAFuCupD8/view?usp=sharing">40 U.S. states have ended or limited the rule</a> and that every jurisdiction, including the District of Columbia, permits eternal control over donations.</p>
<p>Although this legal precept has endured, many <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691183497/just-giving">scholars</a>, <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/as-more-foundations-choose-to-spend-down-charities-worry-about-future-funding">charities</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/15/mackenzie-scott-billionaire-donations-non-profits">philanthropists</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-big-problem-with-how-jeff-and-mackenzie-bezos-are-spending-a-small-share-of-their-fortune-103311">question</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-reason-americans-are-getting-leery-of-billionaire-donors-162409">whether it makes sense</a> to let foundations hang onto massive endowments with the goal of operating in the future in accordance with the wishes of a long-gone donor rather than spend that money to meet society’s needs today.</p>
<p>With such issues as climate change, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2019/09/23/pay-now-or-pay-later-the-certain-cost-of-climate-change/?sh=2b3d17e6323c">spending more now could significantly decrease</a> what it will cost later to resolve the problem. </p>
<p>Still other problems require change that is more likely to come from smaller nonprofits. In one example, many long-running foundations, including the <a href="https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/news-and-press/news/ten-philanthropies-will-help-flint-recover-and-rise-from-water-crisis/">Ford, Carnegie and Kellogg foundations</a>, contributed large sums to help Flint, Michigan, after a shift in water supply brought lead in the tap water to poisonous levels. Some scholars argue this <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1621653">money undermined local community groups</a> that better understood the needs of Flint’s residents.</p>
<p>Another argument is more philosophical: Why should dead billionaires get credit for helping to solve contemporary problems through the foundations bearing their names? This question often leads to a <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/37615450">debate over whether history is being rewritten</a> in ways that emphasize their philanthropy over the sometimes questionable ways that they secured their wealth.</p>
<p>Some of those very rich people who started massive foundations were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/08/who-was-edward-colston-and-why-was-his-bristol-statue-toppled-slave-trader-black-lives-matter-protests">racist</a> and <a href="https://www.history.com/news/henry-ford-antisemitism-worker-treatment">antisemitic</a>. Does their use of this rule that’s been around for hundreds of years give them the right to influence how Americans solve 21st-century problems?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194962/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nuri Heckler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The hefty sums many billionaires give away place them in an age-old debate about wealth and charity – and whether it’s appropriate for donors to have a say over their wealth from the grave.Nuri Heckler, Assistant Professor of Public Administration, University of Nebraska OmahaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1820152022-05-06T12:33:02Z2022-05-06T12:33:02ZWhat’s the Giving Pledge? A philanthropy scholar explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460821/original/file-20220502-12-9imgcj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4741%2C2776&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitchell Rales and Emily Wei Rales signed the Giving Pledge in 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/mitchell-rales-and-emily-wei-rales-founders-of-the-news-photo/1043207718">Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://givingpledge.org">Giving Pledge</a> is a commitment by billionaires to voluntarily give most of their wealth to charitable causes <a href="https://rdcu.be/cMpll">either during their lifetimes or in their wills</a> as bequests to be made after death.</p>
<p>More than 230 individuals and couples have made this commitment since investor Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates – who divorced the Microsoft co-founder in 2021 – <a href="https://givingpledge.org/pressrelease?date=08.04.2010">created the pledge in 2010</a>. In 2013, the Giving Pledge was opened to members outside of the United States. By my own calculations, pledgers come from 28 countries, and slightly more than 25% were born outside of the United States. </p>
<p>Everyone who signs on is encouraged to submit a letter elaborating their philanthropic philosophy, <a href="https://rdcu.be/cMppC">motives and giving preferences</a>.</p>
<p>I have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-window-into-the-hearts-and-minds-of-billionaire-donors-139161">analyzing these letters</a> as part of my <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HbBzLFAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">research regarding the philanthropic activities</a> of the superrich, including their <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-window-into-the-hearts-and-minds-of-billionaire-donors-139161">motives and priorities</a>.</p>
<h2>Why the Giving Pledge matters</h2>
<p>Some critics argue that the Giving Pledge is <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/billionaire-philanthropy-is-a-pr-scam-wealth-tax-proponent-argues">nothing more than a publicity stunt</a>, because there is no enforcement. It also does not require its members to disburse funds to nonprofits and other charitable causes.</p>
<p>Even when donors do uphold their commitment, they can simply transfer ample assets to a <a href="https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/guidance/philanthropy/private-family-foundation.html">family foundation</a> or a <a href="https://www.nptrust.org/what-is-a-donor-advised-fund">donor-advised fund</a> – financial accounts in which donors reserve money they plan to give away later.</p>
<p>Despite those limitations, I see two main reasons the pledge matters.</p>
<p>First, it could potentially increase charitable giving, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/americans-gave-a-record-471-billion-to-charity-in-2020-amid-concerns-about-the-coronavirus-pandemic-job-losses-and-racial-justice-161489">totals nearly US$500 billion a year</a> in the United States, if everyone who has signed on follows through. For example, Mitchell Rales, the co-owner of industrial conglomerate Danaher Corp., and his wife, Emily Wei Rales, <a href="https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=388">joined the Giving Pledge in 2018</a>. They recently <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-29/billionaire-duo-keeps-danaher-grip-while-doling-out-3-3-billion">shifted $3.3 billion in shares</a> to their charitable foundations.</p>
<p>Second, it may have helped some very wealthy people articulate their ambitious philanthropic agendas. One example is <a href="https://histphil.org/2021/07/22/mackenzie-scott-the-giving-pledge-and-rival-discourses-of-billionaire-philanthropy/">MacKenzie Scott</a> – a novelist who has given away more than <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-mackenzie-scotts-12-billion-in-gifts-to-charity-reflect-an-uncommon-trust-in-the-groups-she-supports-173496">$12 billion since her 2019 divorce</a> from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Another is the former hedge fund manager <a href="https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=163">John D. Arnold and his wife, Laura Arnold</a>. They have committed to giving away <a href="https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/connect/give-while-you-live/">at least 5% of their wealth annually</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>More than 150,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-140K">Join the list today</a>.]</p>
<h2>How many people could sign the pledge?</h2>
<p>While estimates about the wealth of the richest people in the world vary, it’s clear that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/07/magazine/billionaires.html">number of billionaires is rising</a>, along with the value of their assets. Forbes, which has tracked them for years, estimates that there are about 735 U.S. billionaires and a total of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/">2,668 worldwide</a>.</p>
<p><em>Read other short accessible explanations of newsworthy subjects written by academics in their areas of expertise for The Conversation U.S. <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/significant-terms-105996">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182015/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hans Peter Schmitz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More than 350 billionaires have signed on so far.Hans Peter Schmitz, Professor, University of San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1757782022-02-08T17:14:23Z2022-02-08T17:14:23ZThe 50 biggest US donors gave or pledged nearly $28 billion in 2021 – Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates account for $15 billion of that total<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444888/original/file-20220207-15-1lrn0ho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=432%2C288%2C5227%2C3284&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his ex-wife, Melinda French Gates, gave their foundation $15 billion right before their divorce became final. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/bill-gates-and-his-wife-melinda-gates-introduce-the-news-photo/1040713592">Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty ImagesLudovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The 50 Americans who gave or pledged the most to charity in 2021 committed to giving a total of US$27.7 billion to hospitals, universities, museums and more – up 12% from 2020 levels, according to the <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/package/philanthropy-50-2021s-top-donors">Chronicle of Philanthropy</a>’s latest annual tally of these donations.</em></p>
<p><em>More than half of this money came from just two particularly big donors: <a href="https://apnews.com/article/science-business-endowments-bill-gates-melinda-french-gates-cb45fe0a97b8f41c51f44f3226c47218">Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates</a>. Shortly before their <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/02/tech/bill-melinda-gates-divorce-finalized/index.html">divorce became final, in August 2021</a>, they announced plans to add <a href="https://apnews.com/article/science-business-endowments-bill-gates-melinda-french-gates-cb45fe0a97b8f41c51f44f3226c47218">$15 billion to their foundation’s coffers</a>.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VYsdAEIAAAAJ&hl=en">David Campbell</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=tu70lmIAAAAJ">Elizabeth Dale</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=uqv9NgwAAAAJ">Jasmine McGinnis Johnson</a>, three scholars of philanthropy, assess what these gifts mean, the possible motivations behind them and what they hope to see in the future in terms of charitable giving in the United States.</em></p>
<p><iframe id="Rpf7I" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Rpf7I/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What trends stand out overall?</h2>
<p><strong>Elizabeth Dale</strong>: First, let’s acknowledge who is missing: <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/mackenzie-scott-93924">MacKenzie Scott</a>. The novelist and billionaire publicly shared that she had <a href="https://mackenzie-scott.medium.com/?p=ea6de642bf">given over $2.7 billion in the first half of 2021</a>. She then changed course, <a href="https://mackenzie-scott.medium.com/no-dollar-signs-this-time-ec7ab2a87261">choosing not to disclose</a> how much money she gave away in the second half of the year, or the organizations she supported, as an effort to deflect media attention. The Chronicle said it left her out because neither she nor her consultants provided the details it requested.</p>
<p>Had the publication included her, even if only the gifts she made in half the year, she would have occupied the No. 2 spot again. Scott was only behind her ex-husband, Jeff Bezos, on the Chronicle’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-25-billion-the-biggest-us-donors-gave-in-2020-says-about-high-dollar-charity-today-154466">2020 list</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/package/bezoses-and-bloomberg-top-chronicle-list-of-the-50-donors-who-gave-the-most-to-charity">In 2018</a>, prior to their divorce, Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates topped the list together, but they didn’t make the <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/the-philanthropy-50/#id=browse_2019">2019 list at all</a>. </p>
<p>Tracking where giving goes, even for the largest donations, is an imperfect science. Scholars, journalists and other experts must rely on publicly available information and details the donors themselves provide to compile this data, and the full details aren’t always available. For example, even in this list, we don’t know everything about these gifts, how much was already given and the ways organizations will put this money to use. </p>
<p><iframe id="GKJz6" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GKJz6/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Jasmine McGinnis Johnson</strong>: Following the police killings of <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/racial-equity-donations-soared-then-fell-in-the-months-after-george-floyds-murder-by-a-police-officer-11619037824">George Floyd and Breonna Taylor</a>, many foundations and philanthropists were thinking more critically about what was the appropriate way to fund racial equity and social justice nonprofits. </p>
<p>In 2020, those gifts totaled <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-25-billion-the-biggest-us-donors-gave-in-2020-says-about-high-dollar-charity-today-154466">$66 billion</a>, making them the 14th-highest priority of the nation’s top 50 donors. In 2021, donations aimed at reducing racism and supporting Black-led organizations didn’t make it to a list of these donors’ highest 20 funding priorities. </p>
<p>With <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/">police brutality</a> continuing unabated and the growth of <a href="https://www.realsimple.com/work-life/money/mutual-aid-crowd-funding-explainer">mutual aid organizations</a> focused on race and social justice, I find this ebbing of interest surprising.</p>
<p>However, I also see some reasons to be hopeful in other research completed in 2021.</p>
<p>Many Americans, <a href="https://theconversation.com/black-hispanic-and-asian-american-donors-give-more-to-social-and-racial-justice-causes-as-well-as-strangers-in-need-new-survey-166720">especially people of color</a>, are <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/diverse-donors-led-the-shift-to-social-and-racial-justice-giving-in-2020-new-report-says">donating to racial justice causes</a>. In 2020, for example, 16% of all households gave to these causes, up from 13% in 2019.</p>
<p><strong>David Campbell</strong>: The biggest donors responded to challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, sharply increasing their giving to social service organizations, including food banks and housing groups. In 2021, that giving receded so much that food banks and housing didn’t make it into a list of the top 20 causes for the biggest donors. One explanation for this may be that when seismic events influence giving, those effects diminish over time.</p>
<p>In keeping with past years, these wealthy donors <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12115-021-00580-0">emphasized higher education and health-related</a> giving, through donations to colleges, universities, hospitals and medical research.</p>
<h2>What should the public know about 2021’s top two donors?</h2>
<p><strong>Dale</strong>: With an endowment valued at over $50 billion, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has, by far, <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/how-the-10-biggest-foundations-changed-in-a-year-of-covid-and-whats-next">more assets than any other U.S. institution of its kind</a>. </p>
<p>The foundation, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gates-Foundation">established in 2000</a>, is <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/why-we-need-to-keep-an-eye-on-the-gates-foundations-board-expansion">getting more scrutiny</a> than it used to, especially with respect to its bureaucratic and data-driven approach. It also has <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/articles/2022-gates-foundation-annual-letter-trustees">four new board members</a> who joined after billionaire investor <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210623005262/en/">Warren Buffett stepped down</a> in 2021.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/melinda-french-gates-no-longer-pledges-bulk-of-her-wealth-to-gates-foundation-11643808602">Melinda French Gates’ future role</a> in the foundation <a href="https://www.devex.com/news/gates-foundation-ceo-insists-that-french-gates-remains-engaged-102563">is uncertain</a>. She <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2021/07/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-mark-suzman-plans-evolve-governance">could step down as a trustee</a> in 2023 if she and Bill Gates determine they can no longer work together.</p>
<p><strong>Campbell</strong>: Since its founding, the <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/">Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation</a> has distributed <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/foundation-fact-sheet">over $60 billion</a> to causes tied to eradicating <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/">diseases and reducing poverty and inequity around the world</a>. </p>
<p>In 2021, it announced plans to spend $2.1 billion within five years on women’s economic empowerment and leadership, and boosting <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2021/06/gates-foundation-commits-2-1-billion-to-advance-gender-equality-globally">women and girls’ health and family planning</a>.</p>
<p>The foundation has <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-big-bets-on-educational-reform-havent-fixed-the-us-school-system-92327">delved heavily into K-12 education</a> in the U.S. – with mixed results, as the <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter">Gateses themselves acknowledged in 2018</a>. The foundation <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/business/gates-foundation-new-trustees.html">disbursed $6.7 billion in 2021</a>, the highest amount to date for a single year.</p>
<p><iframe id="mhMSu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mhMSu/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What concerns do you have?</h2>
<p><strong>Campbell</strong>: The top 50 donors in 2021 include only 14 of the many billionaires who have signed the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-window-into-the-hearts-and-minds-of-billionaire-donors-139161">Giving Pledge</a>, a commitment by some of the world’s richest people to “<a href="https://givingpledge.org/">dedicate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes</a>.” To date, more than 230 individuals and couples have taken this step. </p>
<p>Similarly, only 21 of the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/">Forbes 400</a> list of wealthiest Americans made the Philanthropy 50. I would like to know why more of the richest Americans, including some who have committed to giving away their fortunes, weren’t among 2021’s top 50 donors. For the billionaires who have signed the Giving Pledge, it’s worth asking why they are waiting. What benefit do they see in giving later rather than sooner?</p>
<p><strong>Dale</strong>: The $2.65 billion in giving by these wealthy Americans to <a href="https://www.nptrust.org/what-is-a-donor-advised-fund/">donor-advised funds</a> is double 2020 levels and almost 10 times higher than in 2019. Both donor-advised funds – financial accounts that people use to give money to the charities of their choice when they are ready to do so – and <a href="https://learning.candid.org/resources/blog/nonprofit-foundation-ngo-what-do-they-mean/">foundations</a> are intermediaries for giving that offer <a href="https://ips-dc.org/more-evidence-of-warehousing-of-wealth-in-donor-advised-funds/">little transparency and can warehouse funds</a> designated for nonprofits’ use.</p>
<p>Most wealthy donors <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-elon-musk-can-save-big-on-taxes-by-giving-away-a-ton-of-his-tesla-stock-172036">receive tax deductions</a> and other benefits, such as public recognition, when they initially make big gifts. But it can often take years for their money to reach charities.</p>
<p>It’s hard, however, to separately track money being given directly to charities from funds that are reserved for a future charitable use.</p>
<p>As more and more donors, including some of the richest Americans, give to charity through donor-advised funds instead of traditional foundations, <a href="https://www.thenonprofittimes.com/regulation/donor-advised-funds-added-to-new-federal-legislation/">calls for regulating them more tightly</a> are growing louder. </p>
<p>[<em>Over 140,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-140ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<h2>What do you expect to see in 2022 and beyond?</h2>
<p><strong>Dale</strong>: Scott has certainly caused some <a href="https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-health-education-coronavirus-pandemic-race-and-ethnicity-42ca645d713108d5c852ee3d024b6361">philanthropy shock waves</a> in the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/mackenzie-scott-bezos-donation/index.html">past two years</a>, and it’s still too early to know what effect she is having.</p>
<p>I hope that these donors and the wealthy people not on this list start responding to broader public concerns. The effects of the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/long-covid-labor-market-missing-workers/">COVID-19 pandemic</a>, issues around <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-first-battle-in-the-culture-wars-the-quality-of-diversity-164016">race, ethnicity</a> and <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/01/14/some-gender-disparities-widened-in-the-u-s-workforce-during-the-pandemic/">gender</a> and <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110215/brief-history-income-inequality-united-states.asp">inequality</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-flood-maps-show-us-damage-rising-26-in-next-30-years-due-to-climate-change-alone-and-the-inequity-is-stark-175958">climate change</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-sore-loser-effect-rejecting-election-results-can-destabilize-democracy-and-drive-terrorism-171571">protecting our democracy</a> are not going away. </p>
<p><strong>Johnson</strong>: The fact that social and racial justice were not among the top priorities of the biggest donors in 2021 makes me wonder to what extent the concerns about systemic inequality, driven by events in 2020, will remain a priority for big donors in the future.</p>
<p>Conversations among wealthy givers and major foundations about race, income inequality and the vulnerability the COVID-19 pandemic exposed <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/cf7e59ab-0a50-47a2-9086-d5efa021bc64">have certainly persisted</a>. And Scott is still supporting justice-oriented causes, as a gift announced by its recipient in February 2022 makes clear. Scott gave $133.5 million to Communities in Schools, a nonprofit that meets the <a href="https://www.the74million.org/get-to-know-communities-in-schools-inside-mackenzie-scotts-133-million-donation-to-americas-top-organization-focused-on-preventing-student-dropouts/">academic, economic and other needs of K-12 students</a>. </p>
<p>It remains to be seen to what extent America’s other big donors will follow her lead.</p>
<p><em>The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has provided funding for The Conversation U.S. and provides funding for The Conversation internationally.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Campbell is vice chair of the Conrad and Virginia Klee Foundation, in Binghamton, New York, which has provided support for the student philanthropy course he teaches. He is also a member of the board for the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth J. Dale has received funding from the Ford Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation via Indiana University and The Giving USA Foundation for her research on philanthropy. The views expressed in this essay are strictly her own and do not reflect policy stances of Seattle University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jasmine McGinnis Johnson is a visiting fellow with the Urban Institute, Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. Also, Jasmine is a board member of the Association of Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.</span></em></p>Three scholars weigh in regarding the priorities of these wealthy American donors, who gave less to social service and racial justice groups than in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.David Campbell, Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkElizabeth J. Dale, Associate Professor of Nonprofit Leadership, Seattle UniversityJasmine McGinnis Johnson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, George Washington UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1607272021-05-13T13:41:46Z2021-05-13T13:41:46ZBill and Melinda Gates: philanthropy caught in the crosshairs of society’s obsession with celebrity<p>When does an extremely normal event become global headline news, and when does a “historic achievement for humanity” fail to create much of a ripple in the news cycle? When the key players in both stories are high-profile philanthropists.</p>
<p>Just like almost half (44.6%) of their fellow US citizens, Bill and Melinda Gates’ marriage has ended in divorce. Unlike most people, the couple’s philanthropic efforts in global public health have saved and extended millions of lives. For example, they’re credited with helping eradicate <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191024163941/http://polioeradication.org/news-post/two-out-of-three-wild-poliovirus-strains-eradicated/">most types of polio</a>, a disease that caused a thousand children to be paralysed every day as recently as the 1980s. Philanthropy scholars were repeatedly asked to discuss the divorce announcement last week, but phones were remarkably silent after the polio announcement 18 months ago.</p>
<p>The current news cycle’s fascination with the Gates’ divorce – Was there a prenup? How will properties and assets be divided? What prompted the split? – is part of a contemporary pattern of viewing big giving through the prism of celebrity. It leads to a focus on donors’ lifestyles, personalities, relationships and motives at the expense of deeper engagement with the details of philanthropic acts and their impact on beneficiaries.</p>
<p>This phenomenon is by no means confined to the Gates however. Last year’s single biggest donor, author MacKenzie Scott, gave away almost $6 billion to a range of progressive causes with <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-ways-mackenzie-scotts-5-8-billion-commitment-to-social-and-economic-justice-is-a-model-for-other-donors-152206">few strings attached</a>. Yet the scale and method of her giving failed to attract as much attention as her “spectacularly public” divorce from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and her philanthropy was interpreted as <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/12/mackenzie-scott-redefines-fuck-you-money">“f***-you money”</a> designed to show up her less philanthropic ex-spouse.</p>
<h2>Celebrity influence</h2>
<p>Our <a href="https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/academics/ba/celebrity-philanthropy.html">teaching</a> on the intersection of philanthropy with popular culture highlights how often elite giving is viewed through the lens of celebrity. Media representations do not just contain information about events, they also shape our perceptions and affirm wider conceptions about aspects of social life. When big donors only hit the headlines because of private matters or cynicism about their charitable intent, it impedes public understanding of philanthropy, encourages scepticism, and <a href="https://www.academia.edu/36978441/What_Is_and_Is_Not_Philanthropy_docx?email_work_card=view-paper">can inhibit giving</a>.</p>
<p>Rich donors typically identify their primary reason for giving as a personal connection to, and belief in a cause, as well as a desire to “make a difference” and lead <a href="https://www.dsc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Look-Inside-Richer-Lives.pdf">meaningful and enjoyable lives</a>. These motives are the same for <a href="https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/vsr/2013/00000004/00000002/art00002">non-rich givers</a> – most people give some money and time to causes they know and care about. This key finding, that the generous rich are not that dissimilar to the rest of us, is distorted by the focus on celebrity, resulting in an emphasis on gossip over good work when big givers are involved.</p>
<h2>The future of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation</h2>
<p>What do we know, then, about the philanthropic consequences of the Gates’ divorce? The couple posted the same statements <a href="https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1389316412259270657">on Twitter</a> that the marriage is irrevocably over but that their philanthropic effort is intact. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1389316412259270657"}"></div></p>
<p>The foundation has confirmed that the couple will remain co-chairs and trustees of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with “no changes” to their roles or the organisation. <a href="https://www.nytimespost.com/charity-experts-no-changes-expected-at-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-after-divorce/">Continuity</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-56981033">business as usual</a> are the most likely outcomes for the foundation for a number of reasons.</p>
<p>The Gates describe themselves as being motivated by genuine concern for the causes they support. When asked “Why are you really giving your money away? What’s in it for you?” Bill says that it’s meaningful work that he enjoys. Melinda adds that philanthropy also aligns with how they were raised and how they are raising their children, which is to try and leave the world <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter">better than they found it</a>. </p>
<p>Melinda also noted that these values aren’t unique but shared with most donors and volunteers. The foundation’s funding areas already reflect both Bill and Melinda’s distinct interests and concerns: global health, education, climate change and gender equity, among others. The couple’s <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/annual-letters">annual letters</a> depict these as inter-connected issues that require ongoing holistic efforts. There is room to advance both of their personal philanthropic interests within the foundation’s umbrella.</p>
<p>The Gates’ philanthropy is much bigger than the two of them. The foundation is <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/foundation-fact-sheet">highly professional</a>, includes offices around the world, employs over 1,600 staff, and functions through multiple complex partnerships with private and public sector organisations. There’s also a key third player in Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who chose not to add his name to the foundation when <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5512893&t=1620737738989">he doubled its assets in 2006</a> but is the third trustee. Expensive dismantling of the foundation is also unnecessary as the plan has always been to “spend out” the money and close within 20 years of the trustees’ deaths.</p>
<p>Falling out of love need not annihilate all other shared ventures. Divorce is a common fact of life, after which many separated people work together to raise families and run businesses. The couple describe themselves as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/04/melinda-gates-could-become-worlds-second-richest-woman">“equal partners”</a> in their philanthropic work, dedicating full-time attention to the foundation for almost as many years as they’ve spent raising their three children. There’s little reason their shared philanthropic commitments would change along with their relationship status.</p>
<p>Clearly, Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates are extremely recognisable “people of interest”, but interest in, and reaction to, the end of their marriage says more about their celebrity status than the future of their philanthropy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Centre for Philanthropy at the University Kent, directed by Beth Breeze, receives funding from Pears Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Genevieve Shaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our preoccupation with the personal relationships of big donors is overshadowing charitable efforts.Beth Breeze, Director, Centre for Philanthropy, University of KentGenevieve Shaker, Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUILicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1525142021-02-16T13:27:51Z2021-02-16T13:27:51ZPrivate planes, mansions and superyachts: What gives billionaires like Musk and Abramovich such a massive carbon footprint<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384314/original/file-20210215-15-mhgqp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C640%2C4354%2C2275&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Yachts, such as Roman Abramovich's "Eclipse," make up the biggest share of emissions for billionaires who own one.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FranceAbramovichYacht/a99f3cdf8e2e40618bbdee0262846922/photo?Query=roman%20AND%20yacht&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=63&currentItemNo=1">AP Photo/Lionel Cironneau</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tesla’s Elon Musk and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos <a href="https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#6280bc883d78">have been vying for the world’s richest person ranking</a> all year after the former’s wealth <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/?list=rtb/&sh=29743f5f7999">soared a staggering US$160 billion</a> in 2020, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2021/01/14/elon-musk-is-the-richest-person-in-the-world-again/?sh=20268a057c14">putting him briefly in the top spot</a>. </p>
<p>Musk isn’t alone in seeing a significant increase in wealth during a year of pandemic, recession and death. Altogether, the world’s billionaires <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2020/12/16/the-worlds-billionaires-have-gotten-19-trillion-richer-in-2020/?sh=c44b6de7386f/">saw their wealth surge</a> over $1.9 trillion in 2020, according to Forbes.</p>
<p>Those are astronomical numbers, and it’s hard to get one’s head around them without some context. As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=d8efMHsAAAAJ&hl=en">anthropologists who study</a> energy and consumer culture, we wanted to examine how all that wealth translated into consumption and the resulting carbon footprint. </p>
<h2>Walking in a billionaire’s shoes</h2>
<p>We found that billionaires have <a href="https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references">carbon footprints</a> that can be thousands of times higher than those of average Americans. </p>
<p>The wealthy own yachts, planes and multiple mansions, all of which contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. For example, a superyacht with a permanent crew, helicopter pad, submarines and pools emits about 7,020 tons of CO2 a year, according to our calculations, making it by the far worst asset to own from an environmental standpoint. Transportation and real estate make up the lion’s share of most people’s carbon footprint, so we focused on calculating those categories for each billionaire. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384403/original/file-20210216-18-6dka3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To pick a sample of billionaires, we started with the 2020 <a href="https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/">Forbes List</a> of 2,095 billionaires. A random or representatives sample of billionaire carbon footprints is impossible because most <a href="https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/87931/the-most-reclusive-rich-people-ever">wealthy people shy away from publicity</a>, so we had to focus on those whose consumption is public knowledge. This excluded most of the superrich in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2020/04/08/the-countries-with-the-most-billionaires-in-2020/?sh=2fcc19024429">Asia and the Middle East</a>. </p>
<p>We combed 82 databases of public records to document billionaires’ houses, vehicles, aircraft and yachts. After an exhaustive search, we started with 20 well-known billionaires whose possessions we were able to ascertain, while trying to include some diversity in gender and geography. We have submitted our paper for peer review but plan to continue adding to our list.</p>
<p>We then used a wide range of sources, such as the <a href="https://www.eia.gov">U.S. Energy Information Administration</a> and <a href="https://www.carbonfootprint.com">Carbon Footprint</a>, to estimate the annual CO2 emissions of each house, aircraft, vehicle and yacht. In some cases we had to estimate the size of houses from satellite images or photos and the use of private aircraft and yachts by <a href="https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:0f4b102a-c077-4568-993b-e01fd0f67268?collection=education">searching the popular press</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102775">drawing on other studies</a>. Our results are based on analyzing typical use of each asset given its size and everything else we could learn.</p>
<p>We did not try to calculate each asset’s “<a href="https://circularecology.com/embodied-carbon.html">embodied carbon</a>” emissions – that is, how much CO2 is burned throughout the supply chain in making the product – or the emissions produced by their family, household employees or entourage. We also didn’t include the emissions of companies of which they own part or all, because that would have added another significant degree of complexity. For example, we didn’t calculate the emissions of Tesla or Amazon when calculating Musk’s or Bezos’ footprints. </p>
<p>In other words, these are all likely conservative estimates of how much they emit.</p>
<h2>Your carbon footprint</h2>
<p>To get a sense of perspective, let’s start with the carbon footprint of the average person. </p>
<p>Residents of the U.S., including billionaires, <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country=%7EUSA">emitted about 15 tons of CO2 per person</a> in 2018. The global average footprint is smaller, at just about 5 tons per person. </p>
<p>In contrast, the 20 people in our sample contributed an average of about 8,190 tons of CO2 in 2018. But some produced far more greenhouse gases than others. </p>
<p><iframe id="Cwa6d" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Cwa6d/8/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The jet-setting billionaire</h2>
<p>Roman Abramovich, <a href="https://www.headspacegroup.co.uk/orphan-to-billionnaire-roman-abramovich/">who made most of his $19 billion fortune</a> trading oil and gas, was the biggest polluter on our list. Outside of Russia, he is probably best known as the <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1296796/Chelsea-News-Roman-Abramovich-Contacts-Kai-Havertz-Transfer-Rumours-Gossip">headline-grabbing</a> owner of London’s Chelsea Football Club. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Roman Abramovich rests his hands on his face as he watches his Chelsea soccer team play." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384330/original/file-20210215-15-15bg68n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Roman Abramovich.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/IsraelAbramovich/c9a0632021ac4238973f3fa28159e76b/photo?Query=roman%20AND%20abramovich&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=207&currentItemNo=27">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Abramovich cruises the Mediterranean in his superyacht, <a href="https://www.autoevolution.com/news/roman-abramovichs-eclipse-holds-its-own-as-worlds-most-expensive-superyacht-141067.html">named the Eclipse</a>, which at 162.5 meters bow to stern is the second-biggest in the world, rivaling some cruise ships. And he hops the globe on a <a href="https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/inside-chelsea-owner-roman-abramovichs-80-million-private-jet.php">custom-designed Boeing 767</a>, which boasts a 30-seat dining room. He takes shorter trips in his Gulfstream G650 jet, one of his two helicopters or the submarine on his yacht.</p>
<p>He maintains homes in many countries, including a mansion in London’s Kensington Park Gardens, a chateau in Cap D’Antibes in France and a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204518504574418871692477730">28-hectare estate in St. Barts that once belonged to David Rockefeller</a>. In 2018, he left the U.K. and <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/chelsea-owner-roman-abramovich-immigrates-to-israel-after-uk-visa-woes/">settled in Israel</a>, where he became a dual citizen and bought a home in 2020 for $64.5 million.</p>
<p>We estimate that he was responsible for at least 33,859 metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2018 – more than two-thirds from his yacht, which is always ready to use at a moment’s notice year-round. </p>
<h2>Massive mansions and private jets</h2>
<p>Bill Gates, currently the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#6280bc883d78">world’s fourth-richest person</a> with $124 billion, is a “modest” polluter – by billionaire standards – and is typical of those who may not own a giant yacht but make up for it with private jets. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384331/original/file-20210215-19-uga12c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill Gates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Co-founder of Microsoft, he retired in 2020 to manage the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest charity, with an endowment of $50 billion. </p>
<p>In the 1990s, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/crazy-facts-about-bill-gates-house-2016-11">Gates built Xanadu</a> – named after the vast fictional estate in Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” – at a cost of $127 million in Medina, Washington. The giant home covers 6,131 square meters, with a 23-car garage, a 20-person cinema and 24 bathrooms. He also owns at least five other dwellings in Southern California, the San Juan Islands in Washington state, North Salem, New York, and New York City, as well as <a href="https://therealdeal.com/miami/2019/07/02/trust-tied-to-bill-gates-drops-21m-on-wellington-horse-farm/">a horse farm</a>, <a href="https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht-owners/bill-gates/private-jet/">four private jets, a seaplane and “a collection” of helicopters</a>. </p>
<p>We estimated his annual footprint at 7,493 metric tons of carbon, mostly from a lot of flying.</p>
<h2>The environmentally minded tech CEO</h2>
<p>South African-born Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors and SpaceX, has a surprisingly low carbon footprint despite being the world’s second-richest person, with $177 billion – and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/elon-musk-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-with-a-carbon-tax.html">he seems intent on setting an example for other billionaires</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Elon Musk's left and right hands express a thumbs up gesture." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384321/original/file-20210215-13-1c61tf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elon Musk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/GermanyMusk/5fa059f17f134cd18966c7671f8b3bda/photo?Query=elon%20AND%20musk&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=1006&currentItemNo=8">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He doesn’t own a superyacht and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/02/why-elon-musk-says-taking-vacations-will-kill-you.html">says he doesn’t even take vacations</a>.</p>
<p>We calculated a relatively modest carbon footprint for him in 2018, thanks to his eight houses and one private jet. This year, his carbon footprint would be even lower because in 2020 he <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/01/elon-musk-sells-all-california-real-estate-moves-to-texas">sold all of his houses</a> and promised to <a href="https://www.gq.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/elon-musk-now-says-he-wants-to-sell-his-possessions-and-go-homeless/news-story/34573e982b338480ed52817bd98f395d">divest the rest of his worldly possessions</a>. </p>
<p>While his personal carbon footprint is still hundreds of times higher than that of an average person, he demonstrates that the superrich still have choices to make and can indeed lower their environmental impact if they so choose.</p>
<p>His estimated footprint from the assets we looked at was 2,084 tons in 2018.</p>
<h2>The value of naming and shaming</h2>
<p>The aim of our ongoing research is to get people to think about the environmental burden of wealth.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/world/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity#:%7E:text=The%20richest%2010%20percent%20(approx,of%20humanity%20(7%20percent).">plenty of research</a> <a href="https://wid.world/document/chancel-l-piketty-t-carbon-and-inequality-from-kyoto-to-paris-wid-world-working-paper-2015-7/">has shown</a> that rich countries and wealthy people produce far more than their share of greenhouse gas emissions, these studies can feel abstract and academic, making it harder to change this behavior. </p>
<p>[<em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>We believe “shaming” – for lack of a better word – superrich people for their energy-intensive spending habits can have an important impact, revealing them as models of overconsumption that people shouldn’t emulate. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/5-celebrities-busted-as-part-of-droughtshaming-1882065398.html">Newspapers, cities and local residents made an impact</a> during the California droughts of 2014 and 2015 by “drought shaming” celebrities and others who were wasting water, seen in <a href="https://pagesix.com/2015/05/09/3941513">their continually green lawns</a>. And the Swedes came up with a new term – “<a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/flight-shame-europe-sweden-a4120231.html">flygskam</a>” or flying shame – to raise awareness about the climate impact of air travel. </p>
<p>Climate experts say that to have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-08/the-world-is-moving-toward-net-zero-because-of-a-single-sentence">countries must cut their emissions</a> in half by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050. </p>
<p>Asking average Americans to adopt less carbon-intensive lifestyles to achieve this goal can be galling and ineffective when it would take about 550 of their lifetimes to equal the carbon footprint of the average billionaire on our list.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Billionaires have carbon footprints hundreds of times higher than the average American. Two scholars tried to put a number on it.Richard Wilk, Distinguished Professor and Provost's Professor of Anthropology; Director of the Open Anthropology Institute, Indiana UniversityBeatriz Barros, Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1440162020-09-11T13:26:20Z2020-09-11T13:26:20ZHow tech billionaires’ visions of human nature shape our world<p>In the 20th century, politicians’ views of human nature shaped societies. But now, <a href="https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian">creators of new technologies</a> increasingly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/28/bezos-zuckerberg-us-tech-billions">drive societal change</a>. Their view of human nature may shape the 21st century. We must know what technologists see in humanity’s heart.</p>
<p>The economist <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/thomas-sowell/a-conflict-of-visions/9780465002054/">Thomas Sowell</a> proposed two visions of human nature. The <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/290730/the-blank-slate-by-steven-pinker/">utopian vision</a> sees people as naturally good. The world corrupts us, but the wise can perfect us. </p>
<p>The tragic vision sees us as inherently flawed. Our sickness is selfishness. We cannot be trusted with power over others. There are no perfect solutions, only imperfect trade-offs.</p>
<p>Science <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/290730/the-blank-slate-by-steven-pinker/">supports the tragic vision</a>. So does history. The <a href="https://www.littlebrown.co.uk/titles/david-andress/the-terror/9780349115887/">French</a>, <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/timothy-snyder/bloodlands/9780465032976/">Russian</a> and <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/maos-great-famine-9780802779281/">Chinese</a> revolutions were utopian visions. They paved their paths to paradise with 50 million dead.</p>
<p>The USA’s founding fathers held the tragic vision. They <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/290730/the-blank-slate-by-steven-pinker/">created checks and balances</a> to constrain political leaders’ worst impulses.</p>
<h2>Technologists’ visions</h2>
<p>Yet when Americans founded online social networks, the tragic vision was forgotten. Founders were trusted to juggle their self-interest and the public interest when designing these networks and gaining vast data troves.</p>
<p>Users, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23736992.2018.1477047">companies</a> and <a href="https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf">countries</a> were trusted not to abuse their new social-networked power. Mobs were <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/">not constrained</a>. This led to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3292522.3326034">abuse</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2018.1477047">manipulation</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eubios.info/UNESCO/precprin.pdf">Belatedly</a>, social networks have adopted <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2018/Serving_Healthy_Conversation.html">tragic visions</a>. Facebook <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17575158/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-interview-full-transcript-kara-swisher">now acknowledges regulation</a> is needed to get the best from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1">social media</a>. </p>
<p>Tech billionaire Elon Musk dabbles in both the tragic and utopian visions. He thinks “<a href="https://sonix.ai/resources/full-transcript-joe-rogan-experience-elon-musk/">most people are actually pretty good</a>”. But he supports <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-rogan-elon-musk-podcast-transcript-may-7-2020">market, not government control</a>, wants competition to <a href="https://surfcoderepeat.com/elon-on-governments">keep us honest</a>, and <a href="https://sonix.ai/resources/full-transcript-joe-rogan-experience-elon-musk/">sees evil in individuals</a>. </p>
<p>Musk’s tragic vision <a href="https://www.spacex.com/">propels us to Mars</a> in case short-sighted selfishness destroys Earth. Yet his utopian vision assumes people on Mars could be entrusted <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBfi2AcGrTY&list=PLKof9YSAshgyPqlK-UUYrHfIQaOzFPSL4&index=4">with the direct democracy</a> that America’s <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/">founding fathers feared</a>. His utopian vision also assumes giving us tools to <a href="https://neuralink.com/">think better</a> won’t simply enhance our Machiavellianism.</p>
<p>Bill Gates leans to the tragic and tries to create a better world within humanity’s constraints. Gates <a href="https://news.microsoft.com/2008/01/24/bill-gates-world-economic-forum-2008/">recognises our self-interest</a> and supports market-based rewards to help us behave better. Yet he believes “creative capitalism” can tie self-interest to our inbuilt desire to help others, benefiting all. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Peter Tiel stood in front of screen displaying computer code." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357446/original/file-20200910-25-174iq53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357446/original/file-20200910-25-174iq53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357446/original/file-20200910-25-174iq53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357446/original/file-20200910-25-174iq53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357446/original/file-20200910-25-174iq53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357446/original/file-20200910-25-174iq53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357446/original/file-20200910-25-174iq53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Peter Thiel considers the code of human nature.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/heisenbergmedia/14051014116/">Heisenberg Media/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A different tragic vision lies in the writings of Peter Thiel. This billionaire tech investor <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt6qq?turn_away=true">was influenced by</a> philosophers <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/">Leo Strauss</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/carl-schmitt-nazi-era-philosopher-who-wrote-blueprint-for-new-authoritarianism-59835">Carl Schmitt</a>. Both believed evil, in the form of a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Cloaked-in-Virtue-Unveiling-Leo-Strauss-and-the-Rhetoric-of-American-Foreign/Xenos/p/book/9780415950893">drive for dominance</a>, is part of our nature.</p>
<p>Thiel dismisses the “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt6qq?turn_away=true">Enlightenment view of the natural goodness of humanity</a>”. Instead, he approvingly cites the view that humans are “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt6qq?turn_away=true">potentially evil or at least dangerous beings</a>”. </p>
<h2>The consequences of seeing evil</h2>
<p>The German philosopher <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/ie/academic/subjects/philosophy/philosophy-texts/nietzsche-beyond-good-and-evil-prelude-philosophy-future?format=PB">Friedrich Nietzsche warned</a> that those who fight monsters must beware of becoming monsters themselves. He was right.</p>
<p>People who believe in evil are more likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.037">demonise, dehumanise, and punish</a> wrongdoers. They are more likely to support violence <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213496282">before</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213500997">after</a> another’s transgression. They feel that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213500997">redemptive violence</a> can eradicate evil and save the world. Americans who believe in evil are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213500997">more likely to support</a> torture, killing terrorists and America’s possession of nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Technologists who see evil risk creating coercive solutions. Those who believe in evil are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213496282">less likely to think deeply</a> about why people act as they do. They are also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.037">less likely to see</a> how situations influence people’s actions. </p>
<p>Two years after 9/11, Peter Thiel founded <a href="https://www.palantir.com/">Palantir</a>. This company creates software to analyse big data sets, helping businesses fight fraud and the US government combat crime.</p>
<p>Thiel is a Republican-supporting libertarian. Yet, he appointed a Democrat-supporting <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/">neo-Marxist</a>, Alex Karp, as Palantir’s CEO. Beneath their differences lies a shared belief in the inherent dangerousness of humans. Karp’s PhD thesis argued that we have a fundamental aggressive drive towards <a href="https://www.boundary2.org/2020/07/moira-weigel-palantir-goes-to-the-frankfurt-school/">death and destruction</a>.</p>
<p>Just as believing in evil is associated with supporting pre-emptive aggression, Palantir doesn’t just wait for people to commit crimes. It <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170293847A1">has patented</a> a “crime risk forecasting system” to predict crimes and has <a href="https://harvardcrcl.org/minority-report-why-we-should-question-predictive-policing/#:%7E:text=The%20predictive%20policing%20system%20Palantir,'t%20completely%20new%2C%20either.&text=Predictive%20policing%20tries%20to%20make,take%20steps%20to%20prevent%20it.">trialled predictive policing</a>. This has <a href="https://harvardcrcl.org/minority-report-why-we-should-question-predictive-policing/#:%7E:text=The%20predictive%20policing%20system%20Palantir,'t%20completely%20new%2C%20either.&text=Predictive%20policing%20tries%20to%20make,take%20steps%20to%20prevent%20it.">raised concerns</a>.</p>
<p>Karp’s tragic vision acknowledges that Palantir needs constraints. He stresses the judiciary must put “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zHUXGd4gJU">checks and balances on the implementation</a>” of Palantir’s technology. He says the use of Palantir’s software should be “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zHUXGd4gJU">decided by society in an open debate</a>”, rather than by Silicon Valley engineers.</p>
<p>Yet, Thiel cites philosopher Leo Strauss’ suggestion that America <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt6qq?turn_away=true">partly owes her greatness</a> “to her occasional deviation” from principles of freedom and justice. Strauss <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt6qq?turn_away=true">recommended hiding</a> such deviations under a veil. </p>
<p>Thiel <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt6qq?turn_away=true">introduces the Straussian argument that</a> only “the secret coordination of the world’s intelligence services” can support a US-led international peace. This recalls Colonel Jessop in the film, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/">A Few Good Men</a>, who felt he should deal with dangerous truths in darkness.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9FnO3igOkOk?wmode=transparent&start=39" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Can we handle the truth?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seeing evil after 9/11 led technologists and governments to overreach in their surveillance. This <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data">included using the formerly secret XKEYSCORE computer system</a> used by the US National Security Agency to colllect people’s internet data, which is <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/how-peter-thiels-palantir-helped-the-nsa-spy-on-the-whole-world/">linked to Palantir</a>. The American people rejected this approach and <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/03/us-modest-step-curb-spy-excesses">democratic processes</a> increased oversight and limited surveillance.</p>
<h2>Facing the abyss</h2>
<p>Tragic visions pose risks. Freedom may be unnecessarily and coercively limited. External roots of violence, like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.07.007">scarcity</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309619/">exclusion</a>, may be overlooked. Yet if <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/06/against-edenism">technology creates economic growth</a> it will address many external causes of conflict.</p>
<p>Utopian visions ignore the dangers within. Technology that only changes the world is insufficient to save us from our selfishness and, as I argue in a forthcoming book, <a href="https://oneworld-publications.com/spite-hb.html">our spite</a>.</p>
<p>Technology must change the world working within the constraints of human nature. Crucially, <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1321655/000119312520230013/d904406ds1.htm#rom904406_6">as Karp notes</a>, democratic institutions, not technologists, must ultimately decide society’s shape. Technology’s outputs must be democracy’s inputs.</p>
<p>This may involve us acknowledging hard truths about our nature. But what if society does not wish to face these? Those who cannot handle truth make others fear to speak it. </p>
<p>Straussian technologists, who believe but dare not speak dangerous truths, may feel compelled to protect society in undemocratic darkness. They overstep, yet are encouraged to by those who see more harm in speech than its suppression.</p>
<p>The ancient Greeks had a name for someone with <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781403986689">the courage to tell truths that could put them in danger</a> - the parrhesiast. But the parrhesiast needed a listener who promised to not to react with anger. This <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781403986689">parrhesiastic contract</a> allowed dangerous truth-telling.</p>
<p>We have shredded this contract. We must renew it. Armed with the truth, the Greeks felt they could <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781403986689">take care of themselves and others</a>. Armed with both truth and technology we can move closer to fulfilling this promise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon McCarthy-Jones receives funding from the US-based Brain and Behavior Research Foundation</span></em></p>What world will tech billionaires move us towards if they believe that humans are fundamentally dangerous?Simon McCarthy-Jones, Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Trinity College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1375612020-05-21T21:34:32Z2020-05-21T21:34:32Z5 ways to help stop the ‘infodemic,’ the increasing misinformation about coronavirus<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332889/original/file-20200505-83764-1p0vd6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1356%2C667&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been one of the targets of misinformation during the pandemic and was falsely accused of helping spread the COVID-19 virus to sell a vaccine.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/index.fwx">(Reaching the Last Mile Forum via AP Images)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Everyone is responsible for slowing the spread of the disease. Every action counts. This is also the case in the fight against misinformation, which intrudes on the overabundance of news, mixing facts, rumours and fake news. The World Health Organization (WHO) has described this phenomenon as an <a href="https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200202-sitrep-13-ncov-v3.pdf">infodemic</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/983399/">Our research on social media propaganda</a> shows that bystander inaction can encourage the proliferation of fake news. Anyone with access to the internet can contribute to the war on misinformation; for example, many are already doing so by creating <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ymMuCtowLk">videos or songs</a> with prevention messages.</p>
<h2>As dangerous as the virus</h2>
<p>According to the WHO, the COVID-19-related infodemic is just as dangerous as the virus itself. False preventive measures, such as <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52544187">traditional African treatments</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-there-are-no-miracle-foods-or-diets-that-can-prevent-or-cure-covid-19-136666">fake remedies</a>, like eating garlic, drinking warm water with lemon slices or <a href="http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/437608/Alcohol-and-COVID-19-what-you-need-to-know.pdf">adulterated alcohol</a>, hinder the fight against the illness.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://theconversation.com/qanon-conspiracy-theories-about-the-coronavirus-pandemic-are-a-public-health-threat-135515">conspiracy theories</a> accusing <a href="https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/world/china-lab-rejects-covid-19-conspiracy-claims-but-virus-origins-still-a-mystery-442901/">China of manufacturing the virus</a>, blaming <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/conspiracy-theorists-burn-5g-towers-claiming-link-to-virus-1.4905039">5G cell towers</a> for spreading the disease or falsely accusing business magnate <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/04/19/bill-gates-is-now-a-target-of-covid-19-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories/#4902858f6227">Bill Gates</a> of causing the epidemic to sell us a vaccine may have consequences that go beyond public health.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330152/original/file-20200423-47810-1h6y069.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330152/original/file-20200423-47810-1h6y069.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330152/original/file-20200423-47810-1h6y069.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330152/original/file-20200423-47810-1h6y069.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330152/original/file-20200423-47810-1h6y069.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330152/original/file-20200423-47810-1h6y069.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330152/original/file-20200423-47810-1h6y069.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protester holds up a sign against U.S. business mogul and philanthropist Bill Gates at a protest against the Colorado governor’s containment order to stop the spread of the new coronavirus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/David Zalubowski)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Such rumours, myths and exaggerated facts <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid19-social-media-both-a-blessing-and-a-curse-during-coronavirus-pandemic-133596">fuel new forms of xenophobia online</a> and offline. Many people of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/us/coronavirus-racist-attacks-against-asian-americans/index.html">Chinese or East Asian</a> origin are being insulted, assaulted or denied services. <a href="https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/covid-19-infodemic-exacerbates-existing-religious-and-racial-prejudices/">Religious, minority</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52490430">elite</a> groups are being blamed online for its spread.</p>
<h2>Feeding confusion</h2>
<p>Internet users who share memes, videos or photos that <a href="https://theconversation.com/laughter-in-the-time-of-a-pandemic-why-south-africans-are-joking-about-coronavirus-133528">make fun of the virus</a>, even without any harmful intent, also risk spreading misinformation. There is a danger of <a href="https://theconversation.com/false-information-fuels-fear-during-disease-outbreaks-there-is-an-antidote-131402">fuelling panic and confusion in the population</a>. People no longer know who to trust and become more vulnerable to manipulation and <a href="https://cyber.gc.ca/en/news/staying-cyber-healthy-during-covid-19-isolation">cybercrime</a>.</p>
<p>Another source of confusion is Beijing’s attitude. Western governments, led by <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/the-more-transparent-china-is-on-covid-19-the-better-for-all-merkel/story-aAaB3S5HY04pJDkQ4qc0FJ.html">German Chancellor Angela Merkel</a>, have questioned the Chinese government about the origins of the virus and the real extent of the pandemic in China. Despite Beijing’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/china-denies-cover-up-as-wuhan-coronavirus-deaths-revised-up-50">denials of hiding anything</a>, the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/china-coronavirus-whistleblowers-speak-out-vanish-2020-2">disappearance of Chinese whistleblowers is fuelling speculation</a>, whether it is true or not.</p>
<h2>Countering misinformation</h2>
<p>Several measures have been put in place to curb the circulation of fake news. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/how-to-fight-the-covid-19-infodemic-lessons-from-3-asian-countries/">Asian countries</a> did not hesitate to enforce criminal prosecutions related to the COVID-19 infodemic. </p>
<p>In Québec, fact-checking services such as the <a href="http://www.scientifique-en-chef.gouv.qc.ca/en/dossiers/chercheurs-et-sphere-publique/detecteur-de-rumeurs/">Rumour Detector</a> are available to the public. The WHO uses its existing network called <a href="https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication">EPI-WIN</a> to track down misinformation in several languages. It also asks technology giants to filter out false news and promote information from credible sources.</p>
<p>Google <a href="https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/covid-19-how-were-continuing-to-help/">removes misleading information about COVID-19 from YouTube, Google Maps, its development platforms such as Play, and in advertisements</a>. Twitter checks, among other things, <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19.html">accounts that are credible sources of information about COVID-19 and monitors conversations to ensure that the keywords searched for on the virus provide access to reliable information</a>.</p>
<p>The WHO has also launched a health alert on <a href="https://www.whatsapp.com/coronavirus/who">WhatsApp</a> and a <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-launches-a-chatbot-powered-facebook-messenger-to-combat-covid-19-misinformation">chatbot on Facebook Messenger</a> to provide accurate information about the virus.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling-%E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19">United Nations</a> is sparing no effort either in tackling misinformation and cyber-frauders who exploit the crisis. The United Nations Development Program supports the <a href="https://www.poynter.org/coronavirusfactsalliance/">#CoronaVirusFacts Alliance</a>, which brings together more than 100 fact-checkers from over 45 countries in the <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/">International Fact-Checking Network</a>.</p>
<h2>Protect yourself</h2>
<p>The infodemic is as real as COVID-19. As with the virus, we must take every precaution to protect ourselves and our loved ones. If it is not stopped quickly, fake news shared on social media quickly becomes viral and can influence a large number of users.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-faqs-can-people-without-symptoms-spread-covid-19-how-long-does-it-live-on-surfaces-what-cleaning-products-kill-the-virus-134945">An invisible virus</a>, which sometimes causes no symptoms, is difficult to control. While physical distancing, hygienic measures and the wearing of masks currently seem to be the best means of limiting the spread of COVID-19, vigilance is also one of the best ways of eradicating false and fake news.</p>
<p>First of all, it only takes <a href="https://santemontreal.qc.ca/en/public/coronavirus-covid-19/">a few clicks</a> to <a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters">detect false information</a>. Second, to obtain credible information, several resources exist. The <a href="https://www.poynter.org/coronavirusfactsalliance/">COVID-19 Poynter resources</a>, the <a href="https://www.google.com/covid19/">COVID-19 Alert on Google</a>, the <a href="https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/health-issues/a-z/2019-coronavirus/answers-questions-coronavirus-covid19/">Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Québec website</a> offered by the Government of Québec and the <a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters">WHO online information platform</a> are examples of sites to consult as needed.</p>
<p>Remaining critical when overwhelmed by an immeasurable amount of information from thousands of sources is a great challenge. People may wonder how they can play a meaningful role when even multinational corporations and governments are unable to mitigate the scope of the infodemic.</p>
<h2>Reducing the spread</h2>
<p>Fact-checking and rational debate are essential to combat the COVID-19-related infodemic, but these strategies <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/attempts-at-debunking-fake-news-about-epidemics-might-do-more-harm-than-good/">can have adverse effects</a>.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/5/eaaw7449/tab-article-info">study on the Zika virus</a> showed that attempts to flush out misinformation did not reduce misconceptions about the virus, but rather reduced people’s confidence in the accuracy of WHO’s epidemic information. One of the reasons given is that some people cling to simplistic explanations rather than deciphering complex information in a chaotic environment, where little factual information is available on the sources of the new threat and how to protect against it. </p>
<p>But acting against misinformation in the infodemic is everyone’s responsibility. Without trying to demystify every piece of false news, we can always reduce its scope. Here are <a href="https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/983399/">five measures to prevent the spread of misinformation</a>:</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1257&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1257&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337175/original/file-20200523-124822-989i6b.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1257&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Nadia Naffi)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<ol>
<li><p>Be critical when you look at social media.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t leave false information in your online networks. You can politely ask the person who shared it to remove it.</p></li>
<li><p>Report the false information to the platform administrators.</p></li>
<li><p>When in doubt, take the time to verify the shared information.</p></li>
<li><p>Make more noise than people who share false information.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>With these simple gestures, and by often sharing credible information, you and your network will be less exposed to the dangers of the infodemic.</p>
<p>Social media users are spending more time online than ever before. It is imperative that they do their part to stop the spread of false and fake news, which will likely continue to proliferate even beyond the end of this containment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137561/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nadia Naffi receives funding from the National Bank to support the work of her Chair in Educational Leadership. The Chair focuses on educational technology, learning and development, and lifelong learning in the era of digital transformation and artificial intelligence. She is affiliated with the Centre de recherche et d'intervention sur l'éducation et la vie au travail (CRIEVAT), the Observatoire international sur les impacts sociétaux de l'IA et du numérique (OBVIA), the Centre de recherche et d'intervention sur la réussite scolaire (CRIRES), Milieux Institute for Arts, Culture and Technology, and the Educational Informatics Lab (EILAB)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ann-Louise Davidson et Houda Jawhar ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.</span></em></p>The World Health Organization says the abundance of misinformation swirling around COVID-19 is as dangerous as the virus itself. There are ways to fight this, however.Nadia Naffi, Assistant Professor, Educational Technology, Holds the Chair in Educational Leadership in the Innovative Pedagogical Practices in Digital Contexts, Université LavalAnn-Louise Davidson, Concordia University Research Chair, Maker culture; Associate Professor, Educational Technology, Concordia UniversityHouda Jawhar, Research assistant, Educational Technology, Concordia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1375592020-05-04T12:12:12Z2020-05-04T12:12:12ZA majority of vaccine skeptics plan to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine, a study suggests, and that could be a big problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332047/original/file-20200501-42946-1veuxwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C41%2C3930%2C2409&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Dr. Anthony Fauci said that a vaccine could be available as early as January 2021.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Virus-Outbreak-You-Talkin-to-Me/3547f92a6bc44adeb4740e152e6cc149/10/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon/File</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The availability of a vaccine for the novel coronavirus will <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/how-close-are-we-to-a-covid-19-vaccine/">likely play</a> a <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/12/999117/blueprint-what-it-will-take-to-live-in-a-world-with-covid-19/">key role</a> in determining when Americans can return to life as usual. Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on April 30 announced that a vaccine could even be <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/30/848478507/fauci-says-its-doable-to-have-millions-of-doses-of-covid-19-vaccine-by-january">available by January 2021</a>.</p>
<p>Whether a vaccine can end this pandemic successfully, however, depends on more than its effectiveness at providing immunity against the virus, or how quickly it can be produced in mass quantities. Americans also must choose to receive the vaccine.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-covid-19-herd-immunity-2020-4">some</a> <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic">estimates</a>, 50% to 70% of Americans would need to develop immunity to COVID-19 – either naturally, or via a vaccine – in order to thwart the spread of the virus. If these estimates are correct, that could mean that nearly twice as many Americans would need to elect to receive a COVID-19 vaccine than those who currently opt to be vaccinated against seasonal influenza. <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1718estimates.htm">Just 37%</a> of American adults did so in 2017-2018, even in the midst of a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.htm">historically severe</a> flu season.</p>
<p>Making matters more complicated is the possibility that people who hold skeptical views about vaccine safety – sometimes referred to as “anti-vaxxers” – will not opt to receive the coronavirus vaccine. According to some estimates, about <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/19/5-facts-about-vaccines-in-the-u-s/">one-fifth</a> to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027795361830340X">two-fifths</a> of Americans express reservations about vaccine safety. If most of these individuals forego receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, they could potentially jeopardize the recovery process.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h6caeTcHfW4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>One of us is a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&authuser=2&user=0JH3YoUAAAAJ">doctoral candidate</a>, and the other is a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&authuser=2&user=v6UjvxIAAAAJ">professor</a>, who both study vaccine resistance. We conducted a study, which is currently undergoing peer review, where we estimate the number of Americans who report being willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, once it becomes available. We also investigate the reasons some Americans might refuse the vaccine. </p>
<p>We found that about one-fifth of Americans, and more than half of people who hold skeptical views toward vaccine safety, may be unwilling to pursue vaccination. Although most Americans do plan to get vaccinated, noncompliance rates may be high enough to pose a threat to collective immunity. </p>
<h2>Is coronavirus changing minds about vaccine safety?</h2>
<p>On the one hand, a pandemic may be encouraging anti-vaxxers to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/health/anti-vaxxers-coronavirus-intl/index.html">change their minds</a>. One reason so many Americans doubt vaccine safety is due to <a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/france-low-level-of-trust-in-vaccines-study-4688605-Jun2019/">complacency</a> – the idea that, because high rates of vaccine compliance have kept us safe from diseases that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-anti-vaccine-movement-is-forgetting-the-polio-epidemic/381986/">once reached</a> epidemic proportions in the U.S., segments of the population can hold anti-vaccine views without endangering public health.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OYit9V11hCI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dr. Anthony Fauci explains research for a COVID-19 vaccine.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consistent with this view, research finds that when people are concerned that once nearly eradicated diseases might reemerge to reach epidemic levels, people are <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Anxious_Politics.html?id=gDc8rgEACAAJ">more likely to trust recommendations</a> from public health experts. Additionally, <a href="https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018/chapter-5-attitudes-vaccines#&gid=2&pid=1">cross-national survey research</a> suggests that people who live in parts of the world where the threat of epidemics is more likely tend to hold more positive views toward vaccines than the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Studies based on in-depth interviews with parents further suggest that parents who chose not to vaccinate their children are often willing to accept treatments for children with <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003122419899604">life-threatening illnesses</a>. </p>
<p>On the other hand, however, it could be the case that anti-vaxxers remain suspicious of a COVID-19 vaccine, when it becomes available. <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-vaxxer-fear-coronavirus-vaccine/">Prominent anti-vaccine websites</a> have already begun circulating misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine – such as the idea that a vaccine has existed for years and has been kept from public consumption. Additionally, recent research suggests that anti-vaccine views are tied to deeply held <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953619303934">psychological and moral aversions</a> to inoculation, implying that attitudes may be difficult to change.</p>
<h2>What do anti-vaxxers say now?</h2>
<p>We set out to investigate this important question. In a demographically representative survey of 493 U.S. adults conducted on April 15, 2020, we investigated whether people who hold skeptical views toward vaccine safety plan to receive a vaccine against COVID-19. </p>
<p>Specifically, we asked respondents whether they would be willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19 once a vaccine becomes available. Nearly a quarter (23%) of respondents said that they would not.</p>
<p>Additionally, and consistent with the view that even a global pandemic may not persuade anti-vaxxers to get vaccinated, we find that 62% of people who are skeptical of vaccines said that they will forego COVID-19 vaccination.</p>
<p>To assess this, we measured vaccine skepticism by asking respondents three questions about whether they find vaccines to be safe, effective and/or important – which is how vaccine skepticism is <a href="https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018/appendix-country-level-data">typically measured</a>. Respondents indicated whether they thought each characteristic described vaccines “quite a bit,” “a moderate amount,” “a little bit” or “not at all.” We then averaged the score across the three to create a scale of vaccine skepticism.</p>
<p>Nearly one-fifth (19%) of respondents were more vaccine skeptical than not. Among vaccine skeptics, 62% stated that they would not get vaccinated against COVID-19. By contrast, just 15% of those more supportive of vaccines than skeptical said that they would not get the COVID-19 vaccine.</p>
<p>We also asked respondents if they self-identified as anti-vaxxers, and nearly 16% said they did. For those that identified as anti-vaxxers, 44% said they would not vaccinate against COVID-19, compared to 19% of people who did not identify as anti-vaxxers.</p>
<p><iframe id="n0a4q" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/n0a4q/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>A threat to collective immunity?</h2>
<p>We believe that these findings, although preliminary, suggest that many people who hold anti-vaccine beliefs may jeopardize the effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available, due to issues of noncompliance. Furthermore, it appears that anti-vaccine sentiment is at least as widespread as it was before the pandemic began.</p>
<p>We caution that a drawback of this study is that it doesn’t directly measure changes in vaccine sentiment over time. However, the levels of anti-vaccine sentiment found in this data are comparable to similar levels of anti-vaccine sentiment in the American public before the pandemic, according to <a href="https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018/appendix-country-level-data">previous</a> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/19/5-facts-about-vaccines-in-the-u-s/">studies</a>. Tracking public attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine can help public health agencies better understand who plans to receive the vaccine, and why some people might choose to refuse it.</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As most of the world early awaits a vaccine for COVID-19, a smaller group of people scoffs. They could spell real trouble in the effort to build widespread immunity.Kristin Lunz Trujillo, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, University of MinnesotaMatt Motta, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Oklahoma State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1364482020-04-20T16:56:41Z2020-04-20T16:56:41ZCoronavirus: why we should be sceptical about the benevolence of billionaires<p>The coronavirus pandemic has produced a <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-has-sparked-an-unprecedented-level-of-philanthropy-134858">surge in philanthropic giving</a> from some of the world’s wealthiest people. Bill and Melinda Gates, longstanding champions of global health, have <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bill-gates-pledges-billions-to-find-coronavirus-vaccine-hjktjm8hm">committed funds</a> to research the disease and manufacture a vaccine when one becomes available. </p>
<p>Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, has pledged US$1 billion (£816 million) for “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/07/twitter-chief-to-donate-quarter-of-his-fortune-to-coronavirus-fight">global COVID-19 relief</a>”. Then there are <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/16/africa/jack-ma-donate-masks-coronavirus-africa/index.html">Jack Ma</a>, <a href="https://www.lksf.org/together-as-oneli-ka-shing-foundation-gives-250000-surgical-face-masks-to-social-welfare-organisations/">Li Ka-Shing</a>, <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-soros-hungary/george-soros-gives-1-million-euros-to-budapests-coronavirus-fight-idUKKBN21H14Y">George Soros</a>, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/03/19/giorgio-armani-and-17-other-italian-billionaires-donate-more-than-28-million-to-fight-coronavirus-in-italy/">Giorgio Armani</a> and <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/03/tech/jeff-bezos-food-bank-donation-coronavirus/index.html">Jeff Bezos</a> – other examples of billionaires giving staggering amounts of money to help alleviate the suffering caused by this global crisis. It is not surprising that they have enjoyed widespread praise and acclaim. </p>
<p>Indeed, it is well deserved. But the situation also illustrates a profound imbalance in society. </p>
<h2>Master and servant</h2>
<p>Consider for a moment whether you would agree to be a slave. Let’s say a kindly benefactor offered you a better standard of living than that which you currently enjoy, or can realistically aspire to, and credibly promises to treat you very well. The only condition is that they would own you. </p>
<p>Would you accept the offer? My suspicion is that most people would not. </p>
<p>Slavery is incontrovertibly wrong, though it is important to understand why. The depictions we see in popular culture often emphasise the cruelty and exploitation. These are terrible, but they are not at the core of what’s wrong with owning another person. </p>
<p>If they were, then we would not have a problem with the idea of a kindly benefactor. The real problem with slavery lies in its structure as a social relationship, specifically with the distribution of power. </p>
<p>Philosophers like <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/%7Eppettit/">Philip Pettit</a> have spent the past few decades putting forward a conception of liberty that uses slavery as the archetype of “unfreedom”. Unlike Thomas Hobbes or Isaiah Berlin, he doesn’t think of freedom as the absence of interference, but the absence of arbitrary interference. </p>
<p>Pettit argues that the problem with slavery is not that the slave is interfered with in a cruel or exploitative way, but simply that their owner has the capacity to interfere in their choices at will. Well treated slaves may be in an enviable condition compared with abused slaves, but they still have no control over an owner’s power to interfere. This is what it means to be dominated.</p>
<p>Even in circumstances where an owner is benevolent, the slave will be aware that their choices are based on the master’s tacit permission. And if we are worried about domination, we must worry about billionaire philanthropy. </p>
<p>This becomes acute in times of crisis, because it leaves matters of life and death in the hands of a few powerful individuals who lack any constraints on their power other than their own conscience. Freedom is at risk when the imbalance of wealth and power is so stark. How healthy can it be that so many people in the world are utterly dependent on the generosity of billionaires?</p>
<p>The provision of healthcare for millions of people rests on their goodwill and nothing else. They choose what to give, how to give it and who to give it to. They establish large organisations that have a profound influence on public bodies. </p>
<p>The Gates Foundation, for example, is the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/who-funds-world-health-organization-un-coronavirus-pandemic-covid-trump/">largest funder of the World Health Organization</a> after the United States. The foundation’s influence shapes the global health agenda in a way that has been already <a href="https://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-giving-ethics">been described</a> as a “cartel”. Now that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52289056">Donald Trump appears set to stop American funding</a> for the WHO, the foundation will be even more important. Indeed, it has already committed an additional <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/16/bill-gates-coronavirus-contribution-trump-who-189984">US$150 million</a>. </p>
<h2>Power and influence</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/27/coronavirus-politics-lockdown-hobbes">This crisis has laid bare</a> the raw power of the state as millions of people have been forced into quarantine and isolation. Even in such times of crisis, we try to minimise that arbitrary power through checks and balances, the rule of law, and democracy. Yet few seem concerned about the power of private organisations. These are organisations that are as powerful as some states, but lack constraints and accountability. </p>
<p>In short, too many people in the world have to rely on the generosity of philanthropists – it’s a stark illustration of the gap between the very rich and the very poor, and the lack of freedom the very poor have.</p>
<p>These are not trivial issues. They will decide who lives and dies. </p>
<p>I do not think that most billionaire philanthropists have bad intentions, quite the opposite in fact, but that’s irrelevant. As I argue in my recent book <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647472">Global Poverty, Injustice and Resistance</a>, domination is a structural relationship. It is about the distribution of power between human beings. </p>
<p>If someone has the power to arbitrarily interfere in your choices, then you are not free. It does not matter if that interference is benevolent or malevolent or indeed if they choose not to interfere. It is about the capacity to arbitrarily interfere and nothing else. </p>
<p>You might say that the world is a better place for having billionaire philanthropists in it. That is true, but it is not enough. No one with such power can be above scrutiny. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328717/original/file-20200417-152563-9uwfjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328717/original/file-20200417-152563-9uwfjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328717/original/file-20200417-152563-9uwfjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328717/original/file-20200417-152563-9uwfjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328717/original/file-20200417-152563-9uwfjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328717/original/file-20200417-152563-9uwfjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328717/original/file-20200417-152563-9uwfjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money talks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/big-pile-money-american-dollar-bills-526524319">Shutterstock/kvsan</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#LifWor">A Theory of Justice</a>, the political philosopher John Rawls claimed that moral progress was made when people stopped killing captives in war and enslaved them instead. He is correct – it is better to be a slave than a corpse. But that does not mean anyone should be content with being a slave. </p>
<p>Once the COVID-19 pandemic has passed, we will take time to mourn our dead and celebrate everyone who helped save lives, including people like Bill and Melinda Gates. But then we should ask why so many lives depended upon the munificence of billionaires rather than transparent, accountable and adequately funded public agencies. </p>
<p>We should ask why we don’t have stronger international organisations that are not beholden to wealthy states or persons. We should ask why billionaires are allowed to endow immensely wealthy, tax-protected philanthropic trusts, rather than paying more taxes. We must ask why health was treated as a privilege, not a right.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gwilym David Blunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Generosity is good, but philanthropy can come at a significant social cost.Gwilym David Blunt, Lecturer in International Politics, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1238862019-10-22T10:21:03Z2019-10-22T10:21:03ZThese celebrities cause 10,000 times more carbon emissions from flying than the average person<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294523/original/file-20190927-185379-8ibymn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/single-aircraft-flying-among-clouds-blue-781176490">Mental_Visual/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The jet-setting habits of Bill Gates and Paris Hilton mean that they produce an astonishing 10,000 times more carbon emissions from flying than the average person. This was the conclusion of <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1ZwGl_3fvx2jaK">my research</a> mining their social media accounts (tweets, Instagram and Facebook posts) as well as those of a number of other celebrities for clues as to where they were in the world over the course of 2017 and how they got there. As such, this estimate is conservative – they may well have taken more flights and not volunteered the information to their millions of followers.</p>
<p>This highlights the insane disparity in carbon emissions between the rich and the poor. In 2018, an average human emitted less than <a href="https://www.iea.org/geco/emissions/">five tonnes</a> of CO₂ overall. But this hides vast differences in individual contributions. In the case of air travel – the most energy-intensive human activity, no other human activity consumes as much energy in such a short time – the global average is 115kg CO₂ per person per year. Yet the vast majority of humanity never fly. This average is created by the staggering emissions of the richest proportion of humanity. I calculated that Bill Gates, for example, causes at least 1,600 tonnes of CO₂ to be emitted into the atmosphere – and this is from flying alone.</p>
<p>Of course, it’s not only celebrities who are the problem. Recently published <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows">figures</a> reveal that 1% of English residents are responsible for nearly one-fifth of all flights abroad. Nearly half (48%) of the population, meanwhile, did not take a single overseas flight in 2018.</p>
<h2>Carbon inequality</h2>
<p>Calling out the extent of this disparity is key given that humanity has agreed to stabilise global warming at 2°C. To achieve this goal, emissions of greenhouse gases have to be reduced drastically. The Paris Agreement accepts that the burden should be better shared around: countries that emit a lot per citizen should make greater contributions to decarbonisation.</p>
<p>Of course, there will also be disparity within each country: some high emitters as well as some who hardly contribute to global warming at all. I wanted to find out just how central the highest emitters might be to this question – just how much of the burden we should expect them to take on. Celebrities, by definition, are influential and often wealthy. While anecdotal evidence suggests that they are also frequent fliers, it has been difficult to determine their contributions to global warming. Very wealthy people are rarely represented in household surveys. To find out, I tracked the jet-set lifestyles of <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1ZwGl_3fvx2jaK">ten celebrities</a> by analysing their ample social media presence.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/Bx_xf88B3Bf/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>I analysed Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts for travel information volunteered. To narrow down the research, only air travel was recorded, though of course celebrities also cover (additional) distances by car. Social media posts were evaluated for journey start and end points, the type of aircraft used and the distances travelled. This information was used to calculate likely fuel use and associated emissions.</p>
<p>The vast emissions caused by these individuals suggest that a very small share of humanity has a very significant role in global warming. This likely equally true for a much wider range of economic, cultural and political elites. </p>
<h2>Flight shame</h2>
<p>We have known for a while that the world’s richest 10% produce <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam">half of global carbon emissions</a>. But climate policies have so far tended to omit this issue of carbon inequality. </p>
<p>Worldwide, nations have focused on the decarbonisation of production within states, ignoring wild differences in consumption habits. And it’s increasingly looking like the climate crisis can’t be addressed while a small but growing group of super-emitters continue to increase their energy consumption and portray such lifestyles as desirable through their social media channels. Due to their wealth, these elites also <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/#6a72810d689f">exist outside</a> the market-based frameworks implemented to reduce emissions, such as carbon taxes, air passenger duties or carbon allowances for companies.</p>
<p>This is also the main issue highlighted by the growing youth movement demanding personal carbon accountability. As Greta Thunberg affirmed early on, “the bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty”. And flying, as a very energy-intensive activity, has been identified as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/26/greta-thunberg-train-journey-through-europe-flygskam-no-fly">particularly harmful</a> and socially undesirable. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294524/original/file-20190927-185383-w843pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294524/original/file-20190927-185383-w843pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294524/original/file-20190927-185383-w843pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294524/original/file-20190927-185383-w843pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294524/original/file-20190927-185383-w843pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294524/original/file-20190927-185383-w843pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294524/original/file-20190927-185383-w843pb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For the moment, aeroplanes are only ever green when they’re grounded.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Meyers/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en">FAL</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This has resulted in a major clash about the social and moral norms surrounding air travel. For decades, frequent fliers have been seen as living desirable lifestyles. To be a global traveller automatically infers a high social standing. Celebrities in particular have fostered this perspective through their communication of glamorous, globetrotting lifestyles. The ten celebrities studied in this research, for example, collectively reach out to 170m followers on Instagram alone.</p>
<p>But more and more people are beginning to question what is desirable, justifiable and indeed “normal” to consume. In the case of flying, this has come to be known as “flight shame”. In some circles, air travel is beginning to be framed as a destructive human activity. This is a major shift from the dominating production-oriented approach to climate change mitigation. The new focus on consumption challenges every individual to live within a sustainable personal carbon budget – and argues that this can be the most powerful way of forcing policy and industry change.</p>
<p>The implications of the flying habits of global superemitters are therefore far reaching. It is clear that governments need to follow the public and pay more attention to consumption in order to stem the growing class of very affluent people who contribute very significantly to emissions and encourage everyone else to aspire to such damaging lifestyles.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1123886">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123886/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefan Gössling does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The vast emissions caused by these individuals suggest that a very small share of humanity has a very significant role in global warming.Stefan Gössling, Professor in Service Management and Service Studies, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1190772019-06-26T12:50:35Z2019-06-26T12:50:35ZGates launches lobbying arm – higher education on agenda<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280527/original/file-20190620-149822-1odcaml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Gates looks to his wife Melinda as they are interviewed in Kirkland, Washington, in February 2019.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Bill-Gates-Philanthropy-Criticism/968290c029184636b7643c4efbc1087a/12/0">Elaine Thompson/AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bill and Melinda Gates have <a href="https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/448389-bill-and-melinda-launch-lobbying-shop">launched a lobbying group</a> in part to drive their agenda on education. </p>
<p>The move comes as <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-06-06/senate-negotiators-slog-through-higher-education-act-updates">Congress is negotiating</a> a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the main federal law concerning student financial aid.</p>
<p>The Gates Foundation has also recently <a href="https://www.postsecondaryvalue.org/">started up a commission</a> to determine the value of a college degree or certificate. If Gates lobbyists convince legislators to embrace the agenda of the Gates commission, then Congress may make it harder for students in certain majors to secure loans or grants. </p>
<p>In this way, I believe the Gateses <a href="https://postsecondary.gatesfoundation.org/updates/help-wanted-supporting-colleges-and-universities-on-the-road-to-transformation/">could transform</a> universities and colleges that presently offer a wide array of courses into vocational training centers that focus on immediately marketable skills. </p>
<p>I’m a political theorist who researches education policy. In my book on the <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/common-core">Common Core</a>, I describe how Bill and Melinda Gates <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html?utm_term=.3c14f99c5e11">funded and coordinated</a> the Common Core State Standards Initiative. I argue that the Gateses helped build an educational system that emphasizes a narrow set of reading, writing and math skills that can be tested on computers.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/448389-bill-and-melinda-launch-lobbying-shop">stated purpose</a> of the Gateses’ lobbying effort is to focus on – among other things – educational outcomes for black, Latino and rural students and move people from poverty to employment. </p>
<p>The Gates Foundation’s <a href="https://www.postsecondaryvalue.org/">Postsecondary Value Commission</a> gives some insight into what the Gateses mean by educational outcomes. The commission aims to create a way to measure the value of certain degrees or certificates. If legislators adopt this measurement tool, then they might only fund things that lead to an immediate economic payoff. </p>
<p>Though elite institutions of higher education will likely still provide students a liberal arts education, <a href="https://www.stevenspointjournal.com/story/news/2018/11/13/uw-stevens-point-majors-what-we-know-uwsps-restructuring-plan/1613600002/?utm_source=oembed&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=storylines&utm_content=news&utm_term=3020550002">regional state schools</a> could be under increasing pressure to cut majors such as history, French, geography, philosophy and political science. </p>
<h2>Why lobby now</h2>
<p>The Gates Foundation has been indirectly shaping K-12 education public policy for years. The group has given millions of dollars in grants to <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2012/06/OPP1061551">education groups</a>, <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2009/10/OPP1005845">think tanks</a>,
<a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2009/12/National-PTA-to-Mobilize-Parents-for-Common-Core-Standards">parent-teacher organizations</a>, <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2013/10/OPP1082141">teacher unions</a>, <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2013/02/OPP1075638">state departments of education</a> and <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/03/Draft-K12-Common-Core-State-Standards-Available-for-Comment">a governors association</a> to write, advocate for and implement the Common Core. Despite a <a href="https://theconversation.com/betsy-devos-said-common-core-was-dead-its-not-92800">revision and rebranding effort</a> in many states, the standards still shape how most students in America learn reading, writing and math.</p>
<p>Now that the Gateses have pivoted to lobbying, it signals to me they want to play a more aggressive role in the writing of legislation. </p>
<p>According <a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying">to the IRS</a>, charities – the kinds of organizations eligible for tax-deductible donations – can do some, but not too much, lobbying. In general, those groups can speak about issues for educational purposes but cannot advocate for the passage of particular laws or on behalf of <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-vow-to-destroy-johnson-amendment-could-wreak-havoc-on-charitable-world-72561">political candidates</a>. By launching a <a href="https://theconversation.com/hillary-clinton-is-starting-a-social-welfare-group-what-does-that-mean-78221">501(c)(4) nonprofit</a>, also known as a social welfare group, the Gateses can now talk directly with legislators about laws.</p>
<p>The Gateses chose <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Global-Policy-and-Advocacy/Rob-Nabors">Rob Nabors</a>, previously the Obama White House’s <a href="https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/448389-bill-and-melinda-launch-lobbying-shop">chief lobbyist</a>, to lead the new lobbying shop. <a href="https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/448389-bill-and-melinda-launch-lobbying-shop">According to Nabors</a>, the new group will not give money to political candidates. However by educating policymakers it does have the “potential to accelerate outcomes.” </p>
<h2>The Gateses’ plan for higher education</h2>
<p>Bill and Melinda Gates, I contend, are throwing a one-two punch with the launching of the Postsecondary Value Commission and the Gates Policy Initiative. The former seeks to identify whether <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-gates-funded-commission-aims-to-put-a-value-on-a-college-education-116930">certain majors are worth federal financial aid</a>; the latter may turn this framework into law. </p>
<p>“If we can provide that clear definition about college value, we definitely are hoping that it will affect the higher ed reauthorization act,” <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-05-16/gates-foundation-launches-major-higher-ed-initiative">Millie García</a>, president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and co-chair of the Gates commission, stated recently.</p>
<p>Through the Higher Education Act, the federal government <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45418.pdf">distributed</a> approximately US$29 billion in Pell Grants to roughly 7.2 million undergraduates in 2017. </p>
<p>If Congress adopts the Gates Foundation’s tool to measure the value of a college degree or certificate, then <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-accountability-efforts-in-higher-education-often-fail-91716">Congress could decide</a> that low earnings, or low loan repayment rates, disqualify students in certain programs from receiving federal financial aid. I contacted a spokesperson for the Gates Policy Initiative and was told “we don’t have anything further to say at this point.”</p>
<p>One member of the Gates commission, Anthony P. Carnevale, has explained how a <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/03/26/president-trumps-embrace-program-level-earnings-data-game-changing-opinion">focus on program-level outcomes</a> will streamline public university systems as they eliminate <a href="https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/">less lucrative majors</a> – such as early childhood education, performing arts and theology.</p>
<p>“Sad to say,” Carnevale explains, this disruption “could be brutally efficient for higher education. Industry change is almost always about what’s next, not what’s best for the workers and institutions directly affected. Just ask an auto worker.”</p>
<p>Many colleges and universities are <a href="https://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/hahn.pdf">economic anchors</a>, <a href="https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2017/12/univrel-culturalcenters.html">cultural centers</a> and <a href="https://nonprofitquarterly.org/madison-residents-and-alumni-forge-plan-to-build-universitys-strength/">sources of community pride</a>. I believe the “brutally efficient” disruption of those institutions could spark more <a href="https://madison.com/wsj/opinion/letters/scott-walker-s-cuts-to-uw-were-devastating--/article_edd16f5f-4403-5394-a9a7-200a67a36ac8.html">public backlash</a> than the Gateses expect.</p>
<p><strong><em>Editor’s note: The Gates Foundation is a funder of The Conversation Media Group.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119077/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Tampio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A political scientist warns that a new lobbying initiative launched by Bill and Melinda Gates could harm US higher education.Nicholas Tampio, Professor of Political Science, Fordham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1160232019-05-22T09:24:55Z2019-05-22T09:24:55ZPhilanthropy’s bad reputation could put big donors off giving – here’s why it matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275662/original/file-20190521-23826-vkpmnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the wake of the Notre Dame fire, critics argue the money donated to the Paris cathedral would have been better directed elsewhere.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Within hours of the Notre Dame Cathedral fire, half a billion Euros had been raised in donations by leading French business people and their families to help pay for its reconstruction.</p>
<p>The speed with which such enormous sums could be raised kicked off a <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/04/20/yellow-vest-protesters-say-notre-dame-donations-better-spent-fighting-poverty/">global discussion</a> about the rights and wrongs of that philanthropic reaction, largely focused on whether a building, however important, should be prioritised over the needs of the poor in Paris and beyond. </p>
<p>But the philanthropic response to the Notre Dame fire also highlighted a less discussed issue: how major donors are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/18/billionaires-donations-notre-dame-france-inequality">negatively depicted</a> in media coverage. And the impact this might have on the willingness of private philanthropists to step forward in future. </p>
<h2>‘Billionaire backers’</h2>
<p>In countries with a <a href="https://www.giarts.org/sites/default/files/Underdeveloped-National-Study-of-Challenges-Facing-Nonprofit-Fundraising.pdf">stronger culture of philanthropy</a>, notably the US, big giving is presented in a more positive and aspirational light. But historic and contemporary analysis of UK newspapers, <a href="https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/events/event/?eventid=91598">recently presented at the University of Liverpool</a>, shows a sustained pattern of making philanthropy problematic.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/events/event/?eventid=91598">Research</a> conducted in collobration with my University of Kent colleague Hugh Cunningham, finds that adjectives used to describe philanthropists in The Times in the 19th-century include “puffing”, “pseudo”, “sham”, “false” and “unscrupulous”. The 21st-century adjectival equivalents include “ruthless”, “tax-ruse”, “sinister”, “status-seeking” and “self-righteous”. The consistency over time shows that wealth and power is always an uneasy combination, even when wielded for good. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/opinion/sunday/wealth-philanthropy-fake-change.html">Debates are ongoing</a> about the extent to which rich donors are complicit in the structures that generate both the available wealth that makes philanthropy possible, and the existence of social and environmental problems that make philanthropy necessary. But such debates focus only on the alleged culpability of those who give, while non-givers – choosing mega-yachts over mega-donations – are curiously absent from the discussion. </p>
<p>Bernard Arnault, chairman and CEO of LVMH Moët Hennessy, the world’s leading luxury products group, was <a href="https://www.voguebusiness.com/companies/luxury-fashion-companies-charitable-donations">reported to have told</a> the latest shareholder’s meeting: “It’s pretty dismaying to see that in France you are criticised even for doing something for the general interest.” He might also have added: where’s the criticism of those who kept their heads below the philanthropic parapet?</p>
<h2>Global giving</h2>
<p>In the absence of a centralised database of wealthy people who could give but don’t, the Forbes list of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#3246e2fe251c">2,153 global billionaires</a> comes in pretty handy. As of May 2019, there are 191 signatories to <a href="https://givingpledge.org/">The Giving Pledge</a>. This is a public commitment by billionaires to give away at least half of their wealth either during their lifetime or in their will. This means that just under 9% of global billionaires are serious philanthropists. So why all the focus on their motives and actions, rather than the other 91%?</p>
<p>The most famous names on the global billionaire list who have also signed the Giving Pledge are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Both give via the <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org">Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation</a>, whose biggest grants are focused on eradicating diseases that kill children in poor countries. A major initiative involves joining forces with the World Health Organisation to try to eradicate polio. After US$11 billion of funding – including US$3 billion from the Gates Foundation – worldwide <a href="http://polioeradication.org">cases of polio have been cut by 99.9%</a>. In 1988, 1,000 children a day were paralysed by polio, but 30 years later, after 2.5 billion children have had the vaccine, polio is now virtually eliminated. </p>
<p>Whatever benefits Gates and Buffett gain from their philanthropy, such as enhanced reputations or access to elite networks, the good achieved for wider society is clear. And yet this goes remarkably unnoticed in public discussions about philanthropy. </p>
<p>Indeed, when Warren Buffett first joined forces with the Gates’ in 2006 – because he believed collaboration was more efficient and effective than establishing an eponymous foundation – the UK media reaction was far more muted, including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/28/comment.policy">one report in The Guardian</a> which began: “When the world’s second-richest man gives most of his money to the world’s richest man we do well to count our spoons.” That evocative phrase, attributed to Samuel Johnson in the 18th century, means to make sure that nothing has been stolen by suspicious house guests. </p>
<h2>Under suspicion</h2>
<p>The commonplace use of words that raise suspicion about big donors highlights the reputational problem faced by philanthropists today. But there’s also a potential problem for the rest of us. As seen in the aftermath of the fire at Notre Dame, when unpredictable events occur, individuals can make large amounts of funding available more quickly than either the state or the private sector. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/philanthropy/whatwedo/charityresearch/couttsmilliondonor.html">My ongoing research</a> is focused on understanding why philanthropy has an image problem. I have been interviewing rich donors for over a decade and many are confused and hurt by the widespread suspicions about their motives. In another <a href="https://theresalloyd.co.uk/publication/why-rich-people-give-2004/">UK study of rich donors</a>, one asks: “Why are the media nasty? They don’t do good news, they are snide and they pander to jealousy.” Another notes: “I am afraid of the media, it’s always negative…They have great power and there’s no right of reply.”</p>
<p>Philanthropy should, of course, be scrutinised as well as celebrated, but as our study of media coverage shows, ill-chosen words can not only hurt the donors but also possibly put them off donating again – and helping those in need – in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Breeze has received funding from Pears Foundation and The Leverhulme Trust. </span></em></p>Those who don’t give often face less media scrutiny.Beth Breeze, Director, Centre for Philanthropy, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1033112018-09-19T10:42:02Z2018-09-19T10:42:02ZOne big problem with how Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos are spending a small share of their fortune<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236744/original/file-20180917-158237-toh54i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos are becoming bigger donors.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Bezos-Political-Contribution/a79c6af9fbf9492d9d87790708b522d6/23/0">Invision and AP/Evan Agostini</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie Bezos, recently announced a <a href="http://fortune.com/2018/09/13/bezos-day-one-fund/">plan to spend US$2 billion</a> of their $164 billion fortune on homeless shelters and preschools.</p>
<p>Since Jeff Bezos has <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2018/jeff-bezos-riches-philanthropy/">taken flack</a> for giving away far less of his money than some other billionaires, such as <a href="https://givingpledge.org/">Bill Gates</a>, the announcement may look like a sign that this tech titan is becoming more generous. The announcement also responds to <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2018/jeff-bezos-focus-space-spending-sparks-questions-philanthropy/">criticism</a> of the $1 billion per year that Bezos already spends on Blue Origin, his space travel experiment.</p>
<p>But as a political theorist who studies the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dR2idGYAAAAJ&hl=en">ethics of philanthropy</a>, I think Bezos’s charitable turn raises grave concerns about the pervasive power of business moguls.</p>
<h2>Disturbing trend</h2>
<p>The Bezos family’s philanthropy is following an unsettling pattern in terms of its timing. <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/business/amazon-caught-in-political-cross-fire-as-market-value-nears-1-trillion">Amazon’s market value had recently topped $1 trillion</a>, raising more questions than ever around Amazon’s overwhelming size and power.</p>
<p>This wasn’t the first time that Bezos effectively redirected attention from Amazon’s immense clout with a big announcement about philanthropy. When news broke in 2017 that <a href="https://theconversation.com/amazon-dives-into-groceries-with-whole-foods-five-questions-answered-79638">Amazon was acquiring Whole Foods</a>, raising new concerns about the company’s retail domination, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-jeff-bezos-gets-wrong-and-right-with-his-populist-philanthropy-79740">Bezos made a dramatic public appeal</a> through Twitter for advice on how to focus his giving.</p>
<p>The timing may have been coincidental both times, but the suspicion that philanthropy distracts the public from questionable conduct or economic injustice is a familiar worry. Since the days of <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3111897">robber barons</a> like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, social critics have charged that philanthropy is <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2006/11/looking_the_carnegie_gift_horse_in_the_mouth.html">a wolf in sheep’s clothing</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://socialistreview.org.uk/402/philanthropy-capitalist-art-deception">This cynical view holds</a> that magnificent acts of generosity are nothing more than cunning attempts to consolidate power. Like dictators who use “<a href="https://people.howstuffworks.com/bread-circuses.htm">bread and circuses</a>” to pacify the masses, the super-rich give away chunks of their fortunes to shield themselves from public scrutiny and defuse calls for <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-americans-finally-start-fighting-back-against-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-89427">eliminating tax breaks</a> or raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236743/original/file-20180917-158237-1cltz3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Demonstrators protested against Amazon and Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO, shortly before he announced plans to make $2 billion in charitable donations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Jeff-Bezos-Charitable-Fund/d54d22591f5746179c34dbc056207b58/2/0">AP Photo/Cliff Owen</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Good intentions are not enough</h2>
<p>Today, political theorists who study philanthropy – like <a href="https://polisci.osu.edu/people/saunders-hastings.1">Emma Saunders-Hastings</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=g4wULUsAAAAJ&hl=en">Rob Reich</a> – tend to think the problem is more complicated. They accept that many philanthropists are sincere in their desire to help others, and the solutions donors develop are sometimes remarkably innovative.</p>
<p>But they also contend that noble intentions and strategic thinking aren’t enough to make philanthropy legitimate. And <a href="https://www.academia.edu/37041651/The_Effective_Altruists_Political_Problem">my own research reaches</a> a similar verdict.</p>
<p>That’s because massive donations can perpetuate inequality and threaten democracy in several ways.</p>
<p>Dramatic acts of charity by the ultra-wealthy may reduce pressure on governments to tackle poverty and inequality comprehensively. Depending on private benefactors for access to basic necessities can reinforce social hierarchies. And when the elite spend their own money on essential public services like housing the homeless and education for low-income children, <a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/philanthropy_and_the_growth_of_charter_schools">it lets the rich mold social policy</a> to their own preferences or even whims. </p>
<p>In other words, even if Bezos has great ideas, no one elected him or hired him to house the homeless and educate kids before they enter kindergarten. Great wealth is not a qualification for all jobs.</p>
<h2>Tax privilege</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-new-estate-tax-rules-could-reduce-charitable-giving-by-billions-94879">tax deductibility</a> of the donations made by the richest Americans can exacerbate these concerns because it effectively subsidizes their giving. Some scholars argue that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2011.00414.x">the point of tax incentives</a> is to encourage donations for things the government can’t or shouldn’t support directly – like maintaining a church property.</p>
<p>Observers, including MarketWatch reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/kari_paul/status/1040290871676203009">Kari Paul</a> and Guardian columnist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/14/jeff-bezos-low-income-people-pay-amazon-workers-better">Marina Hyde</a>, have noted that if people like Bezos and the businesses they lead were to stop fighting for low tax rates, democratically elected officials would have more money to spend tackling big problems like homelessness and other urgent priorities.</p>
<p>By making tax-deductible donations, they argue, Bezos is effectively diverting tax dollars to fuel his private judgments about public policy.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1040290871676203009"}"></div></p>
<h2>Questions about accountability and generosity</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.academia.edu/37431699/Of_Sovereignty_and_Saints_When_Is_the_Private_Provision_of_Public_Goods_Illegitimate">My research indicates</a> that using tax deductions to supply essential public services, such as education and housing assistance, may be a misuse of this privilege because it has the potential to <a href="https://edsource.org/2018/las-choice-in-charter-wars-board-members-say-they-will-seek-bridge-builder-as-next-schools-chief/592802">undermine democratic control</a>.</p>
<p>Members of the public have a vital interest in being able to oversee the provision of goods and services that support their most basic needs. This kind of accountability is possible only when these needs are served by democratic governments, not rich benefactors operating in their place.</p>
<p>And Bezos’s behavior as a businessman has raised other questions about his generosity and respect for democracy. When Amazon’s hometown of Seattle proposed to tackle runaway housing costs with a tax on the city’s largest employers, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/">Amazon resisted</a>. The city backed off after the company threatened to scale down its Seattle operations if the bill passed.</p>
<p>It may seem odd that someone who opposed a tax intended to help cover housing costs for his low-income neighbors would want to spend part of his fortune on housing. But to me it makes sense, because in my view, Jeff Bezos’s beef isn’t with his duties to help the least fortunate, but with the limits on economic power that democracy requires.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103311/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ted Lechterman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The US$2 billion that the Amazon founder and his wife are donating to help the homeless and educate young kids may appear selfless. But this money may also soften calls to raise taxes on the rich.Ted Lechterman, Postdoctoral Fellow, Goethe University Frankfurt am MainLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/923272018-03-08T11:43:52Z2018-03-08T11:43:52ZWhy big bets on educational reform haven’t fixed the US school system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208970/original/file-20180305-146655-wsrnt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After years of claiming they want to fix what's wrong with public schools, education reformers are still hunting for solutions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bored-girl-reading-tablet-elementary-school-388664521?src=HUmf6AMELNI8qkdthRy6XQ-1-2">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Gates Foundation is regrouping after its latest school improvement disappointment, but it’s not bowing out of the education reform business.</p>
<p>As the philanthropic powerhouse led by Bill and Melinda Gates explained in their latest annual letter to the public, it ended its effort to <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2018/02/teacher_evaluation_efforts_haven't_shown_results_bill_melinda_gates.html">overhaul teacher evaluation systems</a> after determining that these efforts were failing to generate intended results. </p>
<p>“We haven’t seen the large impact we had hoped for,” the <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter">Microsoft founder and his wife wrote</a> in the note they published in February. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208568/original/file-20180301-152590-c02qlm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill Gates, speaking at the 2009 ‘Get Schooled’ conference his foundation co-sponsored.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Gates-Influence/d51045ef69414c65ba0c56960485448f/3/0">AP Photo/Jae C. Hong</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s a familiar storyline. Again and again, policymakers and philanthropists have teamed up to reform public education, only to find that their bold projects have fallen short.</p>
<p>Like other educational policy scholars, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=d-pest4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">we have observed</a> this pattern for years. And we have identified a few reasons why school reform efforts so persistently get lackluster results, despite consistent bipartisan support and roughly <a href="https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/got-dough-how-billionaires-rule-our-schools">US$4 billion a year</a> in philanthropic funding derived from <a href="https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/04/11/plutocracy-bill-gates-philanthropy-washington-state/">some of the nation’s biggest fortunes</a>.</p>
<h2>Shiny objectives</h2>
<p>The Gates Foundation (which is a strategic partner of The Conversation US and provides funding for The Conversation internationally) poured <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2017/10/gates_ends_investment_in_teacher_evaluation_what_does_it_mean.html">at least $700 million</a> into upgrading teacher evaluation systems between 2008 and 2013, before quietly pulling the plug. The move echoed a similar about-face that occurred decade ago, when the funder acknowledged that the $2 billion it had spent on <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-plot-against-public-education-111630">making America’s large high schools smaller</a> hadn’t achieved the desired results.</p>
<p>But Gates is hardly the only major philanthropist to come up short. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan spent $100 million of their own money to improve the Newark school system, in an effort that attracted another <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/16/what-did-zuckerbergs-100-million-buy-newark-bit-progress/769536001/">$100 million from other donors</a>. Their goal in New Jersey, according to journalist Dale Russakoff, was to “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2015/09/21/442183080/assessing-the-100-million-upheaval-of-newarks-public-schools">develop a model for saving public education in all of urban America</a>.” The results, chronicled in Russakoff’s 2016 book “<a href="https://www.hmhco.com/shop/books/The-Prize/9780544810907">The Prize</a>,” were mixed at best. Though <a href="https://cepr.harvard.edu/evaluating-newark-school-reform">some education scholars have detected improvements</a> in Newark, and <a href="http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/press-releases/nps-parcc-results-show-continued-improvement/">test scores</a> have edged up since the experiment, it generally <a href="https://theconversation.com/lessons-from-newark-why-school-reforms-will-not-work-without-addressing-poverty-48212">failed to meet the funders’ lofty goals</a>.</p>
<p>Leaders in government have also been active in the school reform game. </p>
<p>Ever since 1983, when the Reagan administration published its “<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html">A Nation at Risk</a>” report bemoaning the quality of American public education, politicians have rallied public support for plans to overhaul the nation’s education system. Over the past quarter century, they have backed the creation of <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19492">curricular standards</a> and <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html">high-stakes standardized tests</a>. And they have championed <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-meyerson-billionaire-charters-20170526-story.html">privately operated charter schools as a replacement for traditional public schools</a>, along with vouchers and other subsidies to defray the cost of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-marksjarvis-529plans/column-using-529-funds-to-pay-for-private-school-check-new-rules-idUSKBN1FD384">private school tuition</a>.</p>
<p>Along the way, reformers – those in government and the philanthropic world alike – have made big promises that American voters have often found <a href="https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/citizen-magazine/education/a-good-night-for-school-reform-march-2014">irresistible</a>, even though these grandiose proposals have tended to fall short.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lOfioQR6WTI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Former PBS NewsHour education correspondent John Merrow sums up his book ‘Addicted to Reform,’ which describes the pitfalls of the K-12 reform movement.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not wavering</h2>
<p>Many other billionaires support education reform efforts, including the families of <a href="http://laschoolreport.com/eli-broad-giant-of-education-philanthropy-is-retiring/">homebuilder and insurance mogul Eli Broad</a>, <a href="http://cashinginonkids.org/brought-to-you-by-wal-mart-how-the-walton-family-foundations-ideological-pursuit-is-damaging-charter-schooling/">late Walmart founder Sam Walton</a> and <a href="https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-education/2016/12/a-look-at-betsy-devos-charitable-giving-217695">Education Secretary Betsy DeVos</a>. </p>
<p>Individually, their projects have differed. While Gates has favored small schools and teacher evaluation, Broad’s foundation has emphasized <a href="https://broadfoundation.org/the-broad-prize-for-public-charter-schools/">charter schools</a> and <a href="https://www.broadcenter.org/broad-academy/">training school superintendents</a>. Collectively, however, they have sought to transform the way schools look and operate.</p>
<p>All have encountered setbacks. Still, the larger ethos of reform hasn’t changed, and none of these billionaires appear to be wavering in their efforts.</p>
<p>For their part, lawmakers have been equally committed to large-scale reform. From George W. Bush’s <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml">No Child Left Behind</a> to Barack Obama’s <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html">Race to the Top</a> and the <a href="https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=ft">Every Student Succeeds Act</a> that he signed into law in 2015, the federal government has taken a highly interventionist approach to education policy. Educators, scholars and policymakers now almost universally regard No Child Left Behind as <a href="https://blog.ed.gov/2015/12/secretary-duncan-finally-a-fix-to-no-child-left-behind/">a washout</a>. And many critiques of Obama-era reform efforts have been equally <a href="https://www.alternet.org/education/dismal-failure-arne-duncans-race-top-program">blistering</a>. But the core approach to federal education policy has not markedly changed.</p>
<p>The chief reason that all this activity has produced so little change, in our view, is that the movement’s populist politics encourage reformers to make promises beyond what they can reasonably expect to deliver. The result, then, is a cycle of searing critique, sweeping proposal, disappointment and new proposal. Indeed, the Gates Foundation announced in October 2017 that it would carry on with its education reform efforts, <a href="https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/10/19/gates-foundation-announces-new-17b-for-k-12.html">putting $1.7 billion</a> into new strategies to bolster K-12 education.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208971/original/file-20180305-146661-n8p42h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Betsy DeVos, shaking hands at a school choice rally a few weeks before she became education secretary in 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/DeVos-School-Choice/556a1f9c988d423db1a57a34fa67c3f9/2/0">AP Photo/Maria Danilova</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Cookie cutters</h2>
<p>Beyond this dysfunctional cycle, the other big reason the school reform movement has consistently come up short has to do with an approach that is both too narrow and too generic.</p>
<p>Ever since 1966, when Johns Hopkins University sociologist <a href="http://pages.jh.edu/jhumag/0400web/18.html">James S. Coleman</a> determined in his government-commissioned report that low-income children of color benefit from learning in integrated settings, most education researchers have agreed that economic inequality and social injustice are among the most powerful drivers of educational achievement gaps. What students achieve in a school, in other words, reflects their living conditions outside its walls.</p>
<p>Yet rather than addressing the daunting issues like persistent poverty that shape children’s lives and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/">interfere with their learning</a>, education reformers have largely embraced a management consultant approach. That is, they seek systems-oriented solutions that can be assessed through bottom-line indicators.</p>
<p>This approach fails to address the core problems shaping student achievement at a time when researchers like <a href="https://cepa.stanford.edu/sean-reardon">Sean Reardon</a> at Stanford University find that <a href="https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible">income levels are more correlated with academic achievement</a> than ever and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-rich-are-the-rich-if-only-you-knew-89682">gap between rich students and less affluent kids</a> is growing.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hXZM4Qur76I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sean Reardon, a Stanford University professor, discusses the gap between how low-income and rich students perform academically.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time, reformers have tried to enact change at the largest possible scale. To work everywhere, however, education reforms must be suitable for all schools, regardless of their particular circumstances. </p>
<p>This cookie-cutter approach ignores educational research. Scholars consistently find that schools don’t work that way. We believe, as others do, that successful schools are thriving <a href="https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2012/02/06/a-new-model-schools-as-ecosystems/">ecosystems</a> adapted to local circumstances. One-size-fits-all reform programs simply can’t have a deep impact in all schools and in every community.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for the Gates Foundation and their allies, successful K-12 reform probably requires abandoning this one-size-fits-all approach. That, however, is unlikely to happen. “We’ve learned a lot about what works in education, but the challenge has been to replicate the successes widely,” Bill and Melinda Gates wrote in <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter">their letter</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OnfzZEREfQs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Gates, discussing teacher quality in a 2009 TED talk.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Entrepreneurial outsiders</h2>
<p>Perhaps this flawed approach to education reform has survived year after year of disappointing results because policy leaders, donors and politicians tend not to challenge each other on the premise that the ideal of school reform requires a sweeping overhaul – even though they may disagree about the best route.</p>
<p>Additionally, many leading reformers generally subscribe to the ethos of <a href="http://www.thomastoch.com/wp/2011/education-entrepreneurs-on-the-potomac/">educational entrepreneurism</a>. They consider visionary leadership as essential, even when leaders have <a href="https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1706/1456">scant relevant professional experience</a>. That was the <a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2017-02-16/how-betsy-devos-compares-to-former-education-secretaries">case with DeVos</a> before she became President Donald Trump’s education secretary and it seems to be true of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/g13733977/laurene-powell-jobs-facts/">Laurene Powell Jobs</a>. The widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, a <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Laurene_Powell_Jobs">supporter of the Democratic Party</a> who worked on Wall Street before starting a family, is now out to <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/laurene-powell-jobss-mission-to-disrupt-high-school.html">revamp</a> American high schools. As outsiders operating within a complex system, however, reformers often fail take the messy real-world experiences of U.S. schools into account. </p>
<p>Finally, the reformers see <a href="https://thinkgrowth.org/100-leadership-entrepreneurship-quotes-e2164dd42f77">failure as an acceptable part of the entrepreneurial process</a>. Rather than second-guess their approach when their plans come up short, they may just believe that they placed the wrong bet. As a result, the constant blare of pitches and promises continues. And it’s possible that none of them will ever measure up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92327/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jack Schneider's current work, on how school quality is conceptualized and quantified, has been supported by the Spencer Foundation and the Massachusetts State Legislature. He is the director of research for the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment, which is working to build an alternate model for educational measurement and accountability.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Menefee-Libey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The cycle of overpromising and disappointment has left donors, politicians and policymakers looking to improve K-12 public schooling with an underwhelming track record.Jack Schneider, Assistant Professor of Education, College of the Holy CrossDavid Menefee-Libey, Professor of Politics, Coordinator of Program in Public Policy Analysis, Pomona CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/929642018-03-06T20:27:25Z2018-03-06T20:27:25ZWhat is the influence of American foundations on universities in Africa?<blockquote>
<p>University of Cape Town, South Africa: $80,902,000<br>
Largest donor: Gates Foundation</p>
<p>University of Makere, Uganda: $42,352,000<br>
Largest donor: Rockefeller Foundation</p>
<p>University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa: $28,742,000<br>
Largest donor: Rockefeller Foundation</p>
<p>University of Ghana: $19,992,000<br>
Largest donor: Ford Foundation</p>
<p>University of Ibadan, Nigeria: $14,162,000<br>
Largest donor: MacArthur Foundation</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ecosystem of donors in the higher education sector in Africa includes many foundations and international agencies, along with several development funds and pan-African organizations. Compared to other international organizations or governmental agencies like the World Bank, USAID, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the British Council, the International Development Research Center of Canada, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Danish Agency for International Development, the United Nations Development Programme, and many others, foundations have several advantages that these other institutions lack: they are independent and are free from the pressure of achieving short-term results; they can take risks and have developed a high degree of expertise in specific areas.</p>
<p>Is it possible for foundations to create value in the field of higher education in Africa and to help universities transform and improve themselves? And how do they influence higher education in Africa?</p>
<h2>Higher education, an engine for development</h2>
<p>Because of the constant need for new skills in knowledge societies and the increasing obsolescence of industrial economies, higher education is once again being recognized as an engine of economic growth, <a href="https://theconversation.com/lafrique-est-forte-de-sa-jeunesse-mais-doit-investir-dans-leducation-79213">especially on the African continent</a>. However, the context in which African universities are evolving makes them increasingly precarious and they must adapt in order to survive, as was already demonstrated by William Saint in a <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/440091468006023087/pdf/multi-page.pdf">1992 report for the World Bank</a> on the revitalization of the higher education sector in Africa.</p>
<p>All things considered, what is the role of international philanthropy in this context?</p>
<p>The relationship between American grant-making institutions and their beneficiaries is by its nature unequal; therein lays the great dilemma of philanthropy. Nevertheless, universities are becoming increasingly important actors on the global market. Strong educational institutions can be a precious resource for countries trying to leverage their entrepreneurs and researchers onto the world stage, even if those institutions are structured according to a Western paradigm.</p>
<h2>Remarkable Initiatives</h2>
<p>Critics of philanthropy sometimes argue that foundations have <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/foundations-of-the-american-century/9780231146289">“too much” power</a> and point to the arrogance of donors, their <a href="https://www.russellsage.org/publications/legitimacy-philanthropic-foundations">lack of legitimacy</a>, their poor planning and ethical conduct, and, in some cases, their corruption.</p>
<p>While these questions are often raised in the United States with reference to educational reform, similar issues can easily be found in cases where American foundations finance educational initiatives outside the United States, such as the establishment of medical schools in China by the Rockefeller Foundation <a href="https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00652589/document">after World War I</a>, Ford’s financing of <a href="https://www.cairn.info/revue-vingtieme-siecle-revue-d-histoire-2002-4-page-65.htm">intercultural publications</a> after World War II through its publishing house established in 52 countries, or the development of higher education in Africa by the Carnegie Corporation during the period of decolonization.</p>
<p>Despite all this, the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/american-foundations/">achievements of these foundations are remarkable</a> considered the relatively small amount of money involved ($4 billion between 2003 and 2013 in Africa) and their capacity to leverage funds from outside sources.</p>
<h2>For a society of pluralistic knowledge</h2>
<p>Recently, several internationally-recognized philanthropic foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Kresge Foundation advocated for the <a href="http://www.foundation-partnership.org">importance of higher education in the economic development of Africa</a>.</p>
<p>This new goal reflects a strategic realignment in the ecosystem of international development organizations, at a time when the concept of “knowledge societies” – societies where the creation, usage, and transmission of knowledge becomes the key to economic and social development – <a href="https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/PHEA_CASE_STUDY.PDF">continues to gain recognition</a>.</p>
<p>By extending their reach and their expertise to higher education in Africa, these foundations have reaffirmed the role they play in the building of knowledge societies on a continental scale through their support of academic institutions, research centres, university networks, and specialized media like <a href="https://theconversation.com/africa/partners">The Conversation Africa</a>, financed by grants from the Gates Foundation and the Knight Foundation, among others.</p>
<p>They also have extended their vision for knowledge production to the rest of Africa through the reach of their programs. The areas of interest of these foundations for the higher education sector in Africa are varied. For example, Ford has sought to improve access to higher education while Rockefeller has focused on climate and the environment, Carnegie on libraries, MacArthur on human rights, and Mellon on the humanities.</p>
<h2>Mutual influences</h2>
<p>The close relationship between grant-making foundations and recipient universities in Africa not only suggests that these two types of institutions influenced one another over a long period of time, but also that they established a competitive sector that puts pressure on weaker institutions.</p>
<p>For example, the foundations in the <a href="https://www.globalpartnership.org/fr/blog/defis-et-perspectives-de-lenseignement-superieur-en-afrique">Partnership for Higher Education in Africa</a> went outside of their comfort zone and focused their efforts on Internet access, a priority identified by their beneficiaries.</p>
<p>In doing so, the foundations discovered an opportunity to use their influence and collective resources to generate change on a large scale. Improving bandwidth and reducing the cost of Internet access for universities were not typical initiatives for these foundations. Nevertheless, they were able to create an economy of scale by creating a consortium of universities willing to purchases bandwidth together, thus earning a <a href="https://www.fordfoundation.org/media/1760/2010-accomplishments-of-the-partnership-forhigher-education-in-africa.pdf">high-volume discount and passing those savings on to higher education and research institutions in Africa</a>.</p>
<h2>Towards an anglicized world?</h2>
<p>The preference of foundations for English is particularly clear in the higher education sector. According to the IRS 990 forms that are accessible on the <a href="https://foundationcenter.org/">Foundation Center website</a>, there are 97 foundations that have invested a total of $573.5 million in institutions of higher education in Africa between 2003 and 2013. During this period, 1,471 grants were made to 439 higher education institutions in 29 countries.</p>
<p>In the context of higher education, the primary language of instruction – the language that is used in class and to conduct research – is an important but complex factor. In many countries, the language of instruction varies between the primary, secondary, and university levels. Unsurprisingly, American foundations investing in higher education on the African continent target institutions where English is the primary language of instruction.</p>
<p>English is the primary language of instruction at more than <a href="http://books.openedition.org/editionsmsh/11133">90% of the institutions of higher education that have received grants from American foundations</a>; the equivalent figures for French and for Arabic are 4% and 3%, respectively.</p>
<p>In addition to institutions of higher education, the grants made towards the development of higher education in sub-Saharan African also include several major programs financed by these foundations in agriculture, health, and development.</p>
<p>In this sense, the universities constitute an important contribution to the socioeconomic development of the African continent by producing knowledge, skills, and innovation adapted to the African context. To see universities as engines of development or, in other words, as an integral component of the economic future of Africa reflects the various geopolitical strategies adopted by international donors, and especially American foundations.</p>
<h2>Unequal leadership</h2>
<p>Without any other competing funders or government oversight, foundations have easily been able to position themselves as leaders in the higher education sector, especially in former English colonies, as demonstrated by the success of grants made to<a href="https://www.scidev.net/afrique-sub-saharienne/politiques-publiques/article-de-fond/comment-l-universit-de-makerere-a-recouvr-son-pres.html"> Makerere University in Uganda</a> since the 1960s, making it a model for modernity on the continent.</p>
<p>American foundations have forged connections and gained access to the best institutions of higher education in Africa, as well as to a new generation of researchers and students, especially in places where English is the primary language of instruction.</p>
<p>Foundations have strategically positioned themselves in the ecosystem of international development organizations with the goal of defending the importance of higher education for the development of Africa. In addition, considering the role played by language and culture in the mechanisms of globalization and the fact that linguistic groups must compete with one another in the knowledge economy, the influence of American foundations in Africa reinforces the prominence of English as the lingua franca of development on the continent.</p>
<p>To their credit, the investments of American foundations have backed a large number of research initiatives throughout the African continent and have reinforced pan-African organizations. These foundations have attempted to revitalize and strengthen academic institutions and higher education networks in Africa, the success of which has yet to be measured.</p>
<p>The foundations were also in a position that enabled them to propose new policies and new reforms to these institutions. As a result, the influence of foundations on a small group of elite African universities could lead part of the university system, including, among others, top-tier Francophone institutions, to be dragged into a competition for which they are underequipped.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Fabrice Jaumont is the author of <a href="http://www.editions-msh.fr/livre/?GCOI=27351100583200">“Partenaires inégaux: fondations américaines et universités en Afrique”</a> published by Éditions de la MSH, and of <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137593467">“Unequal Partners: American Foundations and Higher Education Development in Africa”</a> published by Palgrave-MacMillan.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92964/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabrice Jaumont has received funding from various entities for his research and for the educational initiatives that he has fundraised for, including grants from several American foundations, French governmental agencies, corporations, and individual contributors. He is affiliated with Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme in Paris, FACE Foundation in New York, and the Embassy of France to the United States. His views are his own and in no way represent those of the organizations that he is affiliated to or that have supported his work.</span></em></p>American charitable foundations have gradually established themselves as key players in the African academic sector. If the benefits have been remarkable, there are risks as well.Fabrice Jaumont, Chercheur en philanthropie et sciences de l'éducation, Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (FMSH)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883552018-01-24T11:40:12Z2018-01-24T11:40:12ZThe world on a billionaire’s budget<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202482/original/file-20180118-158519-1gjdav5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C0%2C4888%2C2257&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Jeff Bezos is now the richest person in the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Amazon-Kindle/f65fc7c03c2e4d5d8eb5436257b970c2/1/1">Reed Saxon/AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world’s wealthiest are prospering. As of February 2017, there were <a href="https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/">about 2,000 billionaires in the world</a>. This micro-elite <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2017/03/20/forbes-2017-billionaires-list-meet-the-richest-people-on-the-planet/">controls over US$7.6 trillion</a>, an increase of 18 percent from 2016.</p>
<p>A billionaire’s spending power is difficult to grasp, both because <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12028">most people do not correctly intuit large numbers</a>, and because a billion dollars far outstrips most people’s experience.</p>
<p>What does a household budget look like to a billionaire? To find out, let’s scale down a billionaire’s income to $50,000, the <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-pinc.html">median American income</a>, adjusting budget items proportionally. </p>
<h2>A year in the life of Joe Billionaire</h2>
<p>To start, we need to estimate a billionaire’s annual income. </p>
<p>In the 30 years from 1987 to 2016, Bill and Melinda Gates amassed about $120 billion. This figure represents $80 billion in net worth and $40 billion controlled by their charitable foundation. The Gates’ average annual income for these years is $120 billion divided by 30, or $4 billion. (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a strategic partner of The Conversation US and provides funding for The Conversation internationally.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime">According to Forbes</a>, the wealth of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos increased last year from $72.8 billion to $108.7 billion. Despite billion-dollar hiccups caused by daily stock price fluctuations, Bezos’ 2017 wealth increase was at least $32 billion, over $1,000 per second around the clock.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=791&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202316/original/file-20180117-53310-1sfg53h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=994&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One cube represents the median U.S. worker’s income.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrew D. Hwang</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Gates and Bezos are extremes. But what about a more typical billionaire’s income?</p>
<p>Let’s assume a new fortune has been acquired over about one decade. Since the median worth on <a href="https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime">Forbes’ list</a> is about $2 billion, a ballpark estimate of annual income is one-tenth of this, or $200 million. </p>
<p>In absolute terms, $200 million per year is over $6 per second around the clock, equal to the <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx">global median annual income</a> every eight minutes. Each year, Joe Billionaire amasses 4,000 median American incomes. </p>
<p>In 2017, Jeff Bezos raked in 150 times more than Joe Billionaire – the equivalent of 600,000 median incomes.</p>
<h2>A billionaire’s household budget</h2>
<p>Because Joe Billionaire accumulates 4,000 median American incomes, a $4,000 expenditure for Joe Billionaire is the same fraction of income as $1 for a median American earner.</p>
<p>Let’s call $4,000 one “Joe buck,” or J$1. Joe Billionaire’s annual income is J$50,000. Thus, a $2,000-vacation package costs J$0.50, proportional to a half-dollar from a middle-class income.</p>
<p>At this scale, a generous annual food budget comes to J$3. One year’s tuition at a prestigious university costs J$15. An extended stay in a top-quality hospital might run J$50. For J$150, Joe Billionaire can pick up a large middle-class home in most parts of the United States. If that’s too modest, a week’s income buys a <a href="https://www.trulia.com/CA/Rancho_Palos_Verdes/">mansion in Rancho Palos Verdes, California</a>. Who needs student loans, health care and mortgages?</p>
<p>Joe Billionaire can and does purchase goods and services not available to the rest of us. J$2,500 <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/02/robert-mercer-trump-donor-bannon-pac-523366.html">builds a media mouthpiece</a>. Comparable political donations may be <a href="https://www.snopes.com/devos-family-campaign-contributions/">followed by a Cabinet appointment</a>.</p>
<p>Unlike a tithing purchase for you or me, a one-time J$5,000 donation for Joe Billionaire has no effect on spending power. We’re speaking of a scale where lavish living costs a few hundred Joe bucks. Next year will bring another J$50,000.</p>
<h2>Matters of perspective</h2>
<p>Ronald Reagan fomented outrage at <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html">one welfare recipient cheating the government of $8,000</a>, or J$2. Unfortunately, we are not proportionally outraged by theft and losses dwarfing the human scale.</p>
<p>By comparison, the Reagan-era <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Consequences">savings and loan scandal</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Aftermath">Enron scandal</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Impacts">mortgage-backed securities crisis</a> and the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-06/offshore-havens-show-policy-failures-at-home">annual losses to offshore tax havens</a> cost ordinary taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of millions of times more than one welfare cheat. That’s enough to drain or break even Jeff Bezos’ bank.</p>
<p>Public services are inexpensive by comparison. The 2017 budget for the <a href="https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget">National Institutes of Health</a> was about $33 billion; for the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/115/highlights/cu17_0508.jsp">National Science Foundation</a>, $7.5 billion; for the <a href="https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts-appropriations-history">National Endowment for the Arts</a>, $150 million. The 2017 <a href="https://budget.boston.gov/operating-budget/">Boston city budget</a> was just under $3 billion, including about $1 billion for public schools, $200 million for pensions and $78 million for the Public Health Commission.</p>
<p>Most Americans <a href="http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html">don’t understand</a> how inequitably <a href="https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM">American wealth is distributed</a>. Worldwide, wealth inequality is <a href="https://youtu.be/uWSxzjyMNpU">even more stark</a>.</p>
<p>We live in a world where two dozen of the wealthiest individuals could collectively fund health and science research for the United States, where any of the thousand billionaires could individually fund the NEA with no practical impact to their purchasing power. Participatory government may remain, but only the ultra-wealthy need apply.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88355/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew D. Hwang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are about 2,000 billionaires in the world, controlling over $7.6 trillion. How does that compare to the income of an average American?Andrew D. Hwang, Associate Professor of Mathematics, College of the Holy CrossLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/864352017-11-16T01:40:34Z2017-11-16T01:40:34ZThe two obstacles that are holding back Alzheimer’s research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194821/original/file-20171115-19772-2rishs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Family members often become primary caregivers for loved ones with Alzheimer's disease. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/son-take-care-his-father-who-731853349?src=5DL3Iqb5un-9jop31gXxjQ-1-1">tonkid/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thirty years ago, scientists began to unlock the mysteries regarding the <a href="https://www.alz.org/research/science/major_milestones_in_alzheimers.asp">cause of Alzheimer’s disease</a>. This knowledge ushered in an era of great enthusiasm that scientists could develop new therapies to either prevent Alzheimer’s or significantly slow the symptoms once present. </p>
<p>Despite continued progress and renewed hope that some therapies now in human trials will modify the course of the disease, the initial optimism of neuroscientists like me has been significantly tempered by reality. <a href="https://www.alz.org/research/science/major_milestones_in_alzheimers.asp">Numerous therapies</a>, most with sound scientific basis, have been tested and shown to be ineffective in humans with symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease.</p>
<p>Like the war on cancer, the war on Alzheimer’s disease is not going to be won in a single glorious “battle.” Instead, I believe incremental yet transformative progress will eventually lead to success. Unlike cancer, the scientific community does not yet have any “survivor stories” to buoy our efforts, and it will take a concerted effort by scientists, pharmaceutical companies, government and society to bring about the reality of ending Alzheimer’s disease. Only by recognizing and confronting all of the obstacles impeding development of Alzheimer’s therapies can we be confident that our battle will be successful. </p>
<p>As a physician-scientist and director of the University of Florida’s McKnight Brain Institute who began studying Alzheimer’s disease in medical school in the late 1980s, I appreciate the scope of the scientific advances we have collectively made. I have also come to the sobering realization that translating these advances into real therapies that will make a difference for patients suffering from this devastating disease is an incredibly complex issue which is not all about the science.</p>
<p>There are two significant, nonscientific obstacles – a shortage of funding and patent law – that will require concerted effort by scientists, concerned citizens, society and our lawmakers to overcome. </p>
<h2>Funding is improving, but still lagging</h2>
<p>Governments of industrialized nations have recognized research funding for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias is insufficient. This lack of funding is drawing wider notice. Indeed, Bill Gates recently made a public recognition of the need for more funding and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/bill-gates-50-million-combat-alzheimers-51116689">pledged US$50 million</a> to Alzheimer’s research.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194822/original/file-20171115-19841-4e4hks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194822/original/file-20171115-19841-4e4hks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194822/original/file-20171115-19841-4e4hks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194822/original/file-20171115-19841-4e4hks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194822/original/file-20171115-19841-4e4hks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194822/original/file-20171115-19841-4e4hks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194822/original/file-20171115-19841-4e4hks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill Gates in a Feb. 22, 2016 photo taken in New York City.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Gates-Alzheimer-s-Donation/72587125f2e3414f8197abe0806101f9/1/0">AP Photo/Seth Wenig</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just within the U.S., National Institute of Health funding has increased in the past five years from <a href="https://www.aging.senate.gov/press-releases/senator-collins-applauds-new-national-academies-of-sciences-report-on-preventing-cognitive-decline-and-dementia">$503 million per year to $1.391 billion</a> per year, and an increase of an additional <a href="https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2017/05/09/alzheimers-groups-welcome-40-increase-nih-research-funds-authorized-congress/">some $400 million</a> is being proposed for 2018.</p>
<p>To many, even $500 million per year may sound like a lot of funds, but given current costs to U.S. society of about <a href="http://act.alz.org/site/DocServer/2012_Costs_Fact_Sheet_version_2.pdf?docID=7161">$200-$250 billion per year</a> from Alzheimer’s, money spent on research is a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, compared to funding on cancer (<a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget">about $6 billion</a> per year from the NIH), I believe this additional funding is both appropriate and necessary.</p>
<p>Due to increasing number of Americans living longer lives, Alzheimer’s advocacy groups and others estimate that the number of individuals suffering from dementia may almost <a href="https://www.alz.org/documents_custom/trajectory.pdf">triple, from 5 million</a> to 13.5 million.</p>
<p>We are on the right track, but if we can spend $6 billion per year on cancer, we may need to spend that much on dementia to make a difference. </p>
<h2>Prevention an important but unrealized goal</h2>
<p>One of the challenges in treating the disease is that the brain is riddled with pathology by the time a person shows symptoms of Alzheimer’s. Many research efforts are therefore looking at prevention.</p>
<p>We now know that the pathologies driving the disease – protein deposits called amyloid plaques and neurofibrillay tangles – appear about 20 or more years before overt symptoms of dementia appear. </p>
<p>These gradually accumulate sequentially in the brain, with amyloid preceding abnormal tangle pathology, and tangle pathology seemingly more tightly linked to cognitive decline. </p>
<p>Thus, if we can prevent these deposits with small-molecule drugs, antibodies or even gene therapies, we might prevent Alzheimer’s disease. A number of studies are underway, but no preventative therapies exist.</p>
<p>Though lifestyle interventions such as exercise and “memory-enhancing” mind games are also being investigated as possible ways to stave off or slow down cognitive decline, there is no evidence that these actually alter the underlying pathology and little evidence that they slow the disease course. </p>
<p>I have seen too many people who lived the healthiest lifestyle and stayed intellectually and socially active throughout their lives, yet still developed Alzheimer’s. They are testament to why we need therapies that actually alter the pathobiological process underlying the disease. </p>
<h2>A surprise impediment: Patent law</h2>
<p>A major, largely unspoken block to testing and developing the best therapies for prevention is the current patent law. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/">Costs of running definitive clinical trials</a> necessary to test even a symptomatic therapy can exceed $1 billion, and the costs of prevention trials will far exceed that figure. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194825/original/file-20171115-19836-95yxyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194825/original/file-20171115-19836-95yxyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194825/original/file-20171115-19836-95yxyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194825/original/file-20171115-19836-95yxyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194825/original/file-20171115-19836-95yxyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194825/original/file-20171115-19836-95yxyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194825/original/file-20171115-19836-95yxyp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clinical trials can take years to complete.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/scientist-laboratory-628397483?src=ucKh9_BWdwnruOwyiVY-Dg-1-8">Atellier211/shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Prevention trials are likely to take five to 10 – or more – years before they yield an answer as to whether the drug or intervention is working. Patent protection and market exclusivity may already have expired by the time a drug is approved or have only a few years remaining. </p>
<p>This severely limits the ability for the pharmaceutical sector to invest in Alzheimer’s prevention studies: They cannot justify the cost from a business point of view. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IfZMG6Tj304?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dr. Todd Golde, director of the McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida, discusses Alzheimer’s research.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This presents a huge dilemma. Researchers, and those we hope to help, need private-sector investment, but the private sector does not have a clear financial incentive to conduct these studies. Scientists in pharmaceutical companies simply cannot make the business case for risking billions of dollars to develop and test Alzheimer’s prevention therapy that may or may not work, if it would be approved for use only after the patent protecting the therapy has expired. The company would never be able to recoup the development costs. </p>
<p>That’s why our society needs a new financial model for developing preventive therapies that encourage the long-term risky investments required. One model that could be considered would be for regulators to permit market exclusivity even without patent protection for a period of time that enables the company to make a typical return on investment for a “blockbuster” therapy. This could be negotiated on a case-by-case basis with a prespecified formula for the ROI.</p>
<h2>Toward a brighter future</h2>
<p>Even as we move toward prevention of Alzheimer’s, researchers recognize that we must continue efforts to help those currently suffering from the disease and those likely get the disease before we develop effective preventative measures.</p>
<p>As a field, researchers are learning from our past failures. Our knowledge of the disease is inexorably increasing, and our tools have never been better. </p>
<p>Moreover, the increased funding is attracting new researchers with new ideas that could potentially be the game changers. Because of these advances, I remain optimistic that not only will we prevent Alzheimer’s but we will be able to make a difference for those who will get the disease in the near future. Indeed, working together, we hope to change the lexicon around Alzheimer’s and related dementias from inevitable and untreatable to preventable and treatable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86435/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Todd Golde receives funding from the NIH (P01CA166009, U011AG046139, R01AG018454, P50AG047266, R21NS102926) . He is a cofounder of Lacerta Inc. He holds stock options and is a scientific advisor to Promis therapeutics. He has consulted for Abbvie and ELi Lilly in the past two years and has received funds for travel and speaking at Roche. He is a full time employee of the University of Florida, where he directs the McKnight Brain Institute, is a Professor of Neuroscience in Uf's College of Medicine. </span></em></p>The first clinical trial examining a drug to treat Alzheimer’s was begun 30 years ago. There is still no cure and no known way to prevent the disease. Two factors may contribute to that.Todd Golde, Director, Evelyn F. and William L. McKnight Brain Institute Director, 1Florida Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Professor, Department of Neuroscience, College of Medicine University of Florida, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/842402017-09-19T14:03:43Z2017-09-19T14:03:43ZCopying Bill Gates is a bad idea if you want to get rich<p>Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from college dropout to the top spot on the list of the world’s richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded. </p>
<p>We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within. </p>
<p>Many treat Gates and other highly successful people like him as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/24/what-you-can-learn-from-bill-gates-and-steve-ballmer.html">learn a lot</a> about how to succeed. But assuming life’s “winners” got there from performance alone is likely lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.</p>
<p>For example, Gates’s upper-class background and <a href="https://www.biography.com/people/bill-gates-9307520">private education</a> enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0141036257">0.01%</a> of his generation then had access to computers. His <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-helped-her-son-start-microsoft.html">mother’s social connection with IBM’s chairman</a> enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire. </p>
<p>This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft’s software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft’s favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft’s, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else. Microsoft’s success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude but <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2234208?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">the difference was really enabled by Gate’s early fortune</a>, reinforced by a strong <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/24/9331.abstract">success-breeds-success dynamic</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, Gates’s talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that’s not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186583/original/file-20170919-22620-1b12h9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186583/original/file-20170919-22620-1b12h9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186583/original/file-20170919-22620-1b12h9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186583/original/file-20170919-22620-1b12h9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186583/original/file-20170919-22620-1b12h9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186583/original/file-20170919-22620-1b12h9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186583/original/file-20170919-22620-1b12h9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">10,000 hours of this isn’t enough.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or “grit”, so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp/0544456238">a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule</a>. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grit-passion-resilience-secrets-success/dp/1785040200/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=4XDQTN0PE0TAGGCDDBNT">persistent, deliberate practices</a>. In fact, Gates’ 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager <a href="http://wisdomgroup.com/blog/10000-hours-of-practice/">has been highlighted</a> as one of the reasons for his success.</p>
<p>But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England. This wasn’t a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505752124&sr=1-1&keywords=bounce+syed">happened to retire in this particular suburb</a>.</p>
<p>Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the “10,000-hour rule”, performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship. Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn’t likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.</p>
<h2>The greater the success, the less we can learn</h2>
<p>We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the “winner”.</p>
<p>When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as “the harder I work the luckier I get” or “chance favours the prepared mind”, makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story. Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2017.0025">it overwhelms merits</a>.</p>
<p>With this in mind there’s a good case that we shouldn’t just reward or imitate life’s winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffet (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84240/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chengwei Liu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Exceptional people come from exceptional circumstances that can’t easily be replicated.Chengwei Liu, Associate Professor of Strategy and Behavioural Science, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/797402017-06-27T01:03:56Z2017-06-27T01:03:56ZWhat Jeff Bezos gets wrong (and right) with his populist philanthropy<p>Jeff Bezos, the world’s <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-29/bezos-rises-to-become-world-s-second-richest-with-amazon-surge">second-richest person</a>, trails his peers when it comes to generosity. <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/factfile/gifts_detail?GiftDonorJoin_a_DonorID=PGDON6731">His family’s donations</a> to hospitals, museums and universities rarely <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2017/bezos-family-makes-record-breaking-35m-donation-fred-hutch-fund-cancer-research/">make headlines</a>, and he hasn’t signed the <a href="https://givingpledge.org/">Giving Pledge</a>, a commitment by many of the world’s richest people to give away most of their wealth.</p>
<p>So when the Amazon founder recently turned to Twitter to signal that he might give most of his fortune away <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Jeff-Bezos-Says-Helping-the/240360">in an open call for advice</a>, it stunned philanthropic circles. Probably not coincidentally, this unusual appeal for advice surfaced shortly before news broke about Amazon’s buyout of Whole Foods. If that deal goes through, it will give Bezos’s fortune, pegged at US$75.6 billion by Bloomberg, <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-jeff-bezos-is-28-billion-richer-after-whole-foods-buyout-deal-2017-06-16">a $2.8 billion boost</a>.</p>
<p>As a scholar who studies the ethics of philanthropy, I think Bezos is bucking two big trends embraced by his super-rich peers: a commitment to long-term impact and a technocratic decision-making strategy.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"875418348598603776"}"></div></p>
<h2>A short-term focus</h2>
<p>Bezos noted on Twitter that he was specifically looking for good charities that could make a difference as soon as possible. This preference for short-term impact has puzzled many experts on giving. </p>
<p>As Stanford University political scientist <a href="http://bostonreview.net/forum/foundations-philanthropy-democracy?">Rob Reich</a> argues, the ability of big donors to make risky, long-term bets that benefit society is what justifies the tax breaks and the <a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/charity_regulation_needs_fixing">limited regulation</a> foundations enjoy. Policymakers can then adopt philanthropy’s successful innovations and implement them on a larger scale – like the 911 system, which the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/reid-hoffman-philanthropy/529650/">Robert Wood Johnson Foundation</a> invented and piloted in the 1970s.</p>
<p>By investing in medical research and experiments in education policy, for instance, today’s biggest givers, such as <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3054125/is-mark-zuckerberg-the-next-bill-gates">Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg</a> and their wives, Melinda Gates and Priscilla Chan, tend to help find solutions to challenges not met by the private sector or the government. By spurning long-term impact in favor of meeting urgent needs, Bezos is effectively rejecting the standard approach to large-scale giving. </p>
<p>Refreshingly, Bezos seemed to acknowledge that billionaires like him who are profiting from an ongoing global economic transformation have duties to those who have been left behind. He noted on Twitter that “helping people in the here and now – short term” could complement the long-term contributions that he sees his business ventures making to civilization. </p>
<p>But if Bezos believes that the most well-off players in an economic system are obliged to aid the least well-off, he may be undermining the case for philanthropy itself. As I explained in <a href="https://pulsearch.princeton.edu/catalog/10096811">my dissertation</a> on the role of private philanthropy in a liberal democracy, charitable donations are inherently worse than government spending at meeting basic needs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175379/original/file-20170623-23419-vkpyo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The super-rich rarely reach out to the crowd for ideas about what to do with their fortune.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/silhouettes-concert-crowd-front-bright-stage-550489705">dwphotos/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Listening to the rest of us</h2>
<p>Bezos’s appeal also made waves because of its apparent concession to <a href="http://histphil.org/2017/05/11/is-populist-criticism-of-philanthropy-justified/">populist criticism</a>, which targets philanthropy’s elitist elements. </p>
<p>Many big donors take a technocratic approach to their giving. They regard themselves as experts in the areas they address and sometimes get caught circumventing public opposition to their ideas. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/print/2012/oct/19/local/la-me-gates-group-20121019">group called the Communities for Teaching Excellence</a> that was largely funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation closed after critics accused the foundation of “astroturfing” – creating artificial grassroots organizations – to generate support for its education initiatives. (The BMGF is a funder of The Conversation Media Group.) And the foundation led by Eli and Edythe Broad once <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2012/12/private_education_grant_tied_t.html">secretly offered</a> New Jersey’s government grant money to bolster charter schools, a policy the Los Angeles billionaire couple champions.</p>
<p>By contrast, Bezos opted to delegate decision-making – at least initially – to users of Twitter, arguably the world’s largest forum for public deliberation.</p>
<p>Objectively speaking, conducting a straw poll over social media is not a fair or serious way to hear out the masses. Only about one in five Americans is <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/">active on Twitter</a>, and Bezos has not yet disclosed his methods for selecting winning responses. </p>
<p>Cynics may see Bezos’ public appeal as a strategy that creates the appearance of democratizing philanthropy without any of the constraints required when donors follow democratic procedures.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175380/original/file-20170623-22975-1p9ygd3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many of the world’s richest people are trying to give away their fortunes instead of hoarding all their money.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/faceless-businessmen-characters-money-icons-492755428">ihazdotca/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reconciling philanthropy and democracy</h2>
<p>But Bezos’ request for ideas, which within days had amassed more than 40,000 tweeted responses and considerable media coverage, might help reconcile the conflicts between philanthropy and democracy.</p>
<p>The term “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/us/26charity.html">philanthropopulism</a>” first surfaced a decade ago, as big donors sought new ways to make their giving more effective. Now, <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-110113-121908?journalCode=polisci">emerging research</a> on the wisdom of crowds shows that large numbers of minds often make better decisions than small numbers of experts. Perhaps, well-designed procedures for involving the public in giving decisions could help improve the quality of the gifts. </p>
<p>That might also help to respond to critics like <a href="https://ssir.org/book_reviews/entry/does_philanthropy_threaten_democracy">Stan Katz</a>, a historian who worries that today’s biggest donors are betraying the principles of American democracy. The ideal of democracy requires that everyone enjoy equal opportunities to influence matters of public concern. But as private wealth finances a widening array of public functions, and inequality proliferates, ordinary people are losing more and more control over their common affairs. </p>
<p>Katz observes that foundations – not voters – are behind the explosion of charter schools and high-stakes testing and the decline of teachers’ unions. His observations corroborate <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/23/critics-challenge-our-portrait-of-americas-political-inequality-heres-5-ways-they-are-wrong/?utm_term=.4f265b212f49">disturbing findings</a> by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page that the middle class no longer exerts any noticeable influence over public policy.</p>
<p>In the absence of national political will to contain economic inequality, a request for public input on big philanthropic decisions could restore some democratic control over public life. If Bezos can help catalyze this movement, it may be good news for philanthropy and democracy alike.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79740/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ted Lechterman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Amazon’s founder turned to Twitter to crowdsource ideas for his charitable giving. This populist approach and his preference for short-term results set Jeff Bezos apart from other mega-donors.Ted Lechterman, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford University McCoy Family Center for Ethics in SocietyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/757602017-04-19T22:33:43Z2017-04-19T22:33:43ZThe myth of the college dropout<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165910/original/file-20170419-2414-1uczzk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C57%2C3208%2C1772&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mark Zuckerberg is, quite famously, a college dropout. But his case is the exception – not the rule.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Paul Sakuma</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Facebook founder <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/mark-zuckerberg/">Mark Zuckerberg</a> was asked to give this year’s commencement address at Harvard, he <a href="https://twitter.com/harvard/status/839184579340685312?lang=en">asked for advice</a> from <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/">Bill Gates</a>.</p>
<p>Zuckerberg said, “They know we didn’t actually graduate, right?”</p>
<p>To which Gates replied, “Oh, that is the best part! They actually give you a degree!”</p>
<p>This recent exchange between two famous Harvard dropouts might lead you to think college doesn’t matter. Numerous media stories and even famous billionaires are <a href="http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1988080_1988093_1988082,00.htm">glamorizing dropouts</a> or encouraging kids to <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2017/03/03/peter-thiel-fellowship-college-higher-education-559261.html">skip college entirely</a>.</p>
<p>While it’s true there are successful college dropouts, statistically speaking, they are not the norm. As researchers in education and talent, we found that the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302874">vast majority</a> of the country’s success stories are college graduates, such as <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/sheryl-sandberg/">Sheryl Sandberg</a> (Harvard), <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/">Jeff Bezos</a> (Princeton) and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/marissa-mayer/">Marissa Mayer</a> (Stanford).</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"839184579340685312"}"></div></p>
<h2>The myth of the mega-successful college dropout</h2>
<p>In a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302874">recent study</a>, we investigated how many of the wealthiest and most influential people graduated college. We studied 11,745 U.S. leaders, including CEOs, federal judges, politicians, multi-millionaires and billionaires, business leaders and the most globally powerful men and women.</p>
<p>We also examined how many people graduated from an “elite school.” (<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000263">Our definition</a> included the eight Ivy League schools, plus many of the top national universities and liberal arts colleges consistently high in the <a href="https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges">U.S. News rankings</a> for both undergraduate and graduate education.)</p>
<p><iframe id="Egg6u" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Egg6u/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>We found about 94 percent of these U.S. leaders attended college, and about 50 percent attended an elite school. Though almost everyone went to college, elite school attendance varied widely. For instance, only 20.6 percent of House members and 33.8 percent of 30-millionaires attended an elite school, but over 80 percent of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/">Forbes’ most powerful people</a> did. For whatever reason, about twice as many senators – 41 percent – as House members went to elite schools.</p>
<p>For comparison, based on census and college data, we estimate that only about 2 to 5 percent of all U.S. undergraduates went to one of the elite schools in our study. The people from our study attended elite schools at rates well above typical expectations.</p>
<h2>Do elite schools matter?</h2>
<p>This year, elite schools saw an <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ivy-league-schools-have-gotten-even-more-selective-2017-04-01">increase</a> in applications and selectivity. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w17159">Research</a> suggests there is <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/what-is-an-elite-college-really-worth/521577/">no difference in adult income</a> between students who attended highly selective schools and students with similar SAT scores who attended less selective schools. At least for long-term earnings, where you go may not be critical, as long as you attend and graduate.</p>
<p>Yet, our data show that for students with talent and motivation to make it to the top of U.S. society, an elite college might just help you get there – whether it’s the networks you acquire or the brand on your resume.</p>
<p>While looking at over 11,000 successful leaders, we rarely encountered people who came from extremely poor or disadvantaged backgrounds. Helping <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2372732215621310">disadvantaged talented students</a> enter elite schools could promote <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-nation-at-risk-how-gifted-low-income-kids-are-left-behind-56119">diversity</a> among future leaders.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165912/original/file-20170419-2392-1ym9i49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Princeton University had a record-setting number of applicants for its class of 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/3gmYy">Sindy Lee / flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>College matters</h2>
<p>Admittedly, the educational path of the cream of the crop may not apply to most people. So, going to college <a href="https://qz.com/367077/frank-bruni-is-wrong-about-ivy-league-schools/">may not be the right or even the best path</a> for everyone. However, if you’re a student thinking about not going to college or considering dropping out, remember that even Gates and Zuckerberg got into college. Even if you’re not aiming for mega success, doing the work to get into and graduate from college today may <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302874">open important doors</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps in the future, college may not be as important to employers. But for now, college dropouts who rule the world are rare exceptions – not the rule.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75760/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While the media glamorizes famous college dropouts like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, the reality is that most successful people in the U.S. went to – and finished – college.Jonathan Wai, Research Scientist, Duke UniversityHeiner Rindermann, Professor of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Chemnitz University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/733952017-03-10T13:43:46Z2017-03-10T13:43:46ZCould Bill Gates’ plan to tax robots really lead to a brighter future for all?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159616/original/image-20170306-20746-aeouez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A fair deal?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/business-human-robot-hands-handshake-artificial-430692841?src=snDHg2ceeIG_GIATAjsPZg-1-3">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bill Gates has stated in <a href="https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/">an interview</a> that robots who take human jobs should pay taxes. This has some obvious attractions. Not only, as Gates says, will we be able to spend the money to finance jobs for which humans are particularly suited, such as caring for children or the elderly, but robots are also unlikely to complain about tax levels, they don’t use services financed by tax revenue such as education or the health services and they are most unlikely to salt away income and assets in a tax haven. What’s not to like?</p>
<p>Well, actually, you can’t tax robots any more than you can tax any other inanimate object – but Bill Gates’s suggestion does address some of today’s most important tax issues. What proportion of its tax revenue should a state raise from each of the three main tax bases; capital, labour and expenditure? And how can a state counteract tax avoidance by large companies and wealthy individuals? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nccryZOcrUg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Taxing robots would, in reality, be a tax on the capital employed by businesses in using them and might help to redress the long-term shift away from taxing capital. In 1981, the rate of corporation <a href="https://www.figurewizard.com/list-uk-corporation-tax-rates.html">tax was 52%</a>, although generous relief meant that the tax base was relatively narrow. This has now fallen to 20% and further reductions to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/corporation-tax-to-17-in-2020/corporation-tax-to-17-in-2020">17% are planned by 2020</a>. </p>
<p>By contrast, the principal expenditure tax, VAT, was originally set at 8% in 1973, but rose to 15% in 1979 and is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/vat-rates">now 20%</a>. This means that individuals are contributing a larger proportion of tax revenue than previously through taxes on salaries and expenditure and businesses are contributing less through taxes on their profits – even though they make use of the UK’s transport, financial and legal infrastructure and benefit from the education and healthcare provided to their employees.</p>
<h2>Fairer taxation</h2>
<p>One of the justifications for not taxing capital is that companies do not bear the economic cost of taxation through lower returns to their shareholders, but pass it on to labour and consumers through lower wages and/or higher prices. This argument is contentious.</p>
<p>Edward Kleinbard, Professor of Law and Business at the University of Southern California, observes that “unseemly scuffles” can ensue when this topic is discussed at academic conferences. But whereas academics can have a good punch-up, agree to differ and then retire to the bar for drinks, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/we-are-better-than-this-9780199332243?cc=us&lang=en&">Kleinbard cites</a> several US government departments and committees, who must make policy based on their assumptions, estimate that capital bears between 75% and 95% of the economic cost of corporation tax, meaning that they can only shift a small part of it onto labour and consumers. </p>
<p>Furthermore, when US Uncut in April 2011 issued a hoax press release <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ge-press-release-hoax-2011-4?IR=T">purporting to be from GE</a>, stating that it would hand back a US$$3.2 billion tax refund as “contrition for past abuses”, the company’s market capitalisation very briefly fell by around US$3.5 billion.</p>
<p>On this evidence, shareholders behave as though they believe that capital bears the economic cost of corporation tax through reduced dividends. If they did not believe this, why would they have cared? On the evidence of Kleinbard and the hoax, the theory that capital does not bear the economic cost of tax would therefore appear to be a rationalising discourse put forward by those who benefit from lower taxes on capital.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159962/original/image-20170308-24226-1cjxwsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159962/original/image-20170308-24226-1cjxwsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159962/original/image-20170308-24226-1cjxwsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159962/original/image-20170308-24226-1cjxwsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159962/original/image-20170308-24226-1cjxwsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159962/original/image-20170308-24226-1cjxwsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159962/original/image-20170308-24226-1cjxwsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fair share?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/robot-holding-coin-clipping-path-54759514?src=SDubD5VRLfEZvIYiTXxnag-1-23">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Taxing robots might also help to counteract tax avoidance, because the tax would be calculated by taxing a notional salary paid to the robot, and the company would be allowed to deduct this notional payment for the purpose of corporation tax. </p>
<p>Tax avoidance by large multinationals typically operates by transferring taxable profits from where they economically arise to tax havens, where their presence is often no more than a brass plate on a wall and a mailbox, or even, <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm">in the case of Apple</a>, to a company located in some mid-Atlantic limbo, whose profits were therefore not taxable in any tax jurisdiction. These companies pay the same rate of corporation tax as all other companies on their profits remaining in the UK or Ireland, but ensure that these are only a small fraction of their total profits.</p>
<p>In contrast, the robot tax, just like salaries, would be calculated on an amount notionally payable out of revenue and would be payable in the tax jurisdiction in which the robot was located. This would be where the revenue was economically generated and this location would be determined by economics rather than tax considerations.</p>
<h2>Is it even possible?</h2>
<p>Finally, Bill Gates puts forward the currently unfashionable view that governments have an important role to play in combating inequality. For the past 35 or 40 years the dominant view has been that this would be achieved through economic growth and should therefore be left to the private sector and the markets. </p>
<p>But Gates says that combating inequality will require large amounts of excess labour to be used to help those on lower incomes, that robots will free up this labour and that the impetus for the necessary changes must come from governments because business cannot or will not do this of their own accord.</p>
<p>Furthermore, he says that taxing robots will not discourage innovation. People are naturally anxious about the effects of such technology, but taxation is a better way of allaying these fears than the alternative of banning aspects of it.</p>
<p>Could taxation of robots ever happen? Certainly it could, but the $64,000 question is whether there is the political will to do it. It would take a major paradigm shift in our attitude towards taxation to see it as a possible force for good, rather than simply a dead weight and burden. However, in the 1960s and 1970s today’s attitude towards taxation would have been equally inconceivable. Never say never.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73395/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm James is affiliated with Liberal Democrats. </span></em></p>How to make economic sense of the robot revolution.Malcolm James, Senior Lecturer in Accounting & Taxation, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.