First published 2009 by Transaction Publishers
Published 2017 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright 2009 by Taylor & Francis.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2008031098
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Solomon, Lewis D.
Tech billionaires : reshaping philanthropy in a quest for a better world / Lewis D. Solomon.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4128-0847-7 (acid-free paper)
1. Philanthropists--United States--Case studies. 2. Charities--United States--Case studies. 3. Endowments--United States--Case studies. 4. Rich people--Charitable contributions--United States--Case studies. I. Title.
HV27.S65 2008
361.74092273--dc22 2008031098
ISBN 13: 978-1-4128-0847-7 (hbk)
For Walter F. LaFeber,
who guided me in the craft of writing
Tech Billionaires is an important book for the public at large and for the philanthropic community.
As Americans we are fascinated by extreme wealth. We try to imagine what life would be like if we took home the tens of millions each year that many corporate executives and baseball players make, let alone the hundreds of millions that are not uncommon for hedge fund managers and TV stars. How would we spend that much money beyond paying off our debt?
The annual lists of the 50 or 100 wealthiest people and their charity, more often than philanthropy, shows a pattern of giving that seems more directed to their naming rights than to social change. Here is [Sanford] Weill Cornell Medical College. The New York Public Library building has stood protected by its lions on Fifth Avenue in New York since 1911 without the names of philanthropists John Jacob Astor, James Lenox, and Samuel Tilden who made it happen. But in 2008 Blackstone Hedge Fund co-founder Stephen A. Schwarzman, whose wealth was estimated at $7.6 billion in 2007, got his name in five places for only $200,000 per plaque. Their gifts result in endowed and named chairs and special institutes at the already heavily endowed universities in the U.S. and around the world, and in named art collections in many museums. The donors receive recognition forever (unless, of course, they prove to have obtained their wealth through misbegotten gains, such as Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco notoriety, at which point the concrete comes out to fill in the letters, or the screw driver to remove the plaque). Society benefits, they the donors benefit, but social change is not their goal.
As an antidote to excess without apparent purpose, these chapters illuminate the drive of a group of tech billionaires to make the world a better place. Their wealth comes from activities that tread relatively lightly on the environment. Their motivation does not seem to arise from a need to account for previous sins, as was the case with some of the earlier large philanthropic donors, and many today.
Philanthropy also has a fascination with size: My endowment is bigger than yours and my giving is greater. The weekly list serve of the Foundation Center rarely includes a grant of less than $100,000, and the Chronicle of Philanthropys bi-weekly lists are weighted to larger grants. Obviously there are space limitations but grant size almost always seems to win out over substance.
In addition to the size of these new philanthropies, the speed with which they appeared and established their mark in fields where other donors were long established, and beyond, is remarkable. Money does talk. These newcomers were certainly not shy.
A full assessment of the style, substance, and effectiveness of these new funds, most of them only a decade or so old, will come in time. Not bound by philanthropic traditions they have moved quickly to define their space. Lewis Solomon has captured their story at a moment in time, and laid the groundwork for a fuller assessment in the years to come.
Reading the manuscript provoked me to think about some of the issues, old and new, that an assessment of the philanthropies of the billionaires, and philanthropy as a whole, will need to address.
What is the purpose of philanthropy?
I believe that the primary purpose of philanthropy is to hold institutions in society accountable to the needs of the commonweal. The goal is to assist in a variety of ways to ensure a functioning democracy that is environmentally sound, and socially and economically just.1 Charity is not philanthropy.
Foundations have generously responded to natural disasters, as evidenced by the funds made available to Hurricane Katrina victims. But how much was done to awaken a still indolent government that has failed its people?
What is the nature of change?
Philanthropy should be able to define the nature of the changes to be achieved along a continuum:
Within the social and economic system lies amelioration, mitigation, adaptation, and reformation;
Outside the system lies transformation and revolution.
Embedded in both of the two questions is the issue of government by philanthropy. This is where the larger foundations, including the tech billionaires, provide funds for services that could/should be the responsibility of governments or intergovernmental organizations. Pressing governments to act in a nonpartisan way about an issue is legal. But now the tech philanthropies can set an agenda of their own that could skew the agendas of governments and intergovernmental institutions that have a more open process. Gates has been criticized by the World Health Organization for stifling a diversity of views among scientists and wiping out the world health agencys policy-making function [on malaria].2 Their grants for health in Africa are admirable given the weakness of governments in the region, but are they sustainable? Can they build physical and financial infrastructures that will carry on when the grants leave? If history is a reliable guide, the outlook is not promising.
What use is made of the foundationsassets and the billionaires assets to add value to their grant dollars?
At most foundations there is an artificial wall between investment and grantmaking.3 Jeff Skoll, Pierre Omydar, and Google.org appear to have seen the value added, whereas for Bill Gates there have been problems.4 That may result from the absence of a bright line between Microsoft and the Gates Foundation. But these billions need to be used twice: to provide the money for grants and to add value to these grants through the investment process and shareowner activity.