| I think the author is right to point out the problems inherent to today's philanthropic environment (e.g. less money donated to lesser impact, measured by a number of metrics, globally)—particularly the inefficient outcomes created by major donors' ability to demand tons of information on program performance at a net cost to those programs efficacy due to cycles spent on such reporting. (BTW, the phenomenon of insufficient and inefficient giving is only a "problem" if we agree that more wealth redistribution or a closing of existing wealth gaps is a good thing, so let's start there for this discussion and if you disagree let's discuss separately!). But a huge missing point here is the issue of channel saturation in major giving; even if giving could be made more effective, there is almost certainly a cap on how much money can be redistributed through existing philanthropic channels. IMO, new avenues for wealth redistribution have to be created, either outside of existing philanthropic channels or with major modification to existing ones as the author proposes. Frankly, all the media and academic coverage I've found on this topic is pretty light on details and there's very little funded research on this topic. It feels like there are a few directions to move towards to solve the saturation issue: [1] don't get this rich, give away in smaller numbers more frequently such that parties are not in the position of generating and giving away wealth in sums too high to be absorbed by existing channels, [2] find a way to get taxed, because the US government can spend your money, be OK with the fact that this spending may not be net beneficial to folks, [3] innovate and build huge infrastructure around creating new, possibly non-philanthropic channels (incubators, money giveaways that aren't predicated on productivity or outcomes, etc.). The issue with [3] is that it will still leave enough discretion up to the billionaire in question that funds may still not be distributed in a way or to a quantity that 1) maximizes possible impact or 2) distributes enough money to meaningfully address wealth inequality... Much to consider here. |