top of page

Ops & Asks

The Musings Of A Houston Fundraiser

The Impossible Math of Philanthropy: A Response to the New York Times Article

Writer's picture: Juliana M. Weissbein CFREJuliana M. Weissbein CFRE

Philanthropy, in its ideal form, is about more than just charity. It is about solving systemic issues, addressing inequality, and creating a better world for everyone. But as the recent New York Times article “The Impossible Math of Philanthropy” delves into, it’s also a complicated, messy equation. And sometimes, no matter how much good intention is behind it, philanthropy ends up falling short—or worse, reinforcing the very systems it aims to dismantle.


In this piece, Hans Taparia and Bruce Buchanan break down the tension between the enormous wealth held by a small group of philanthropists and the impact their charitable giving actually has. With headlines about billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg giving away billions to charity, it might seem like philanthropy is solving major global issues. But when you dig deeper, it’s clear that the math doesn’t always add up.


The Disconnect Between Wealth and Impact

One of the key points the article raises is the disconnect between the scale of wealth and the actual societal impact of these philanthropic efforts. It’s easy to say that if someone like Gates gives billions to global health initiatives, the world should see measurable improvements. And indeed, we have seen progress in certain areas, such as the reduction of certain diseases like polio and malaria. But for all the good that has come from these donations, they don’t fundamentally challenge the systems of power and inequality that perpetuate these problems in the first place.


When ultra-wealthy individuals control the flow of charitable dollars, the very essence of power remains in their hands. What we see is often an attempt to patch over the structural issues with solutions that are surface-level. Instead of addressing the root causes of poverty, inequality, or climate change, these philanthropic efforts can sometimes treat symptoms. Whether it’s a big foundation funding schools in low-income areas or disaster relief after a major hurricane, these acts can be lifesaving—but they often don’t go far enough to challenge the broader systems of exploitation that lead to these crises in the first place.


The Role of Tax Breaks and Corporate Interests


Another striking issue raised in the article is the connection between philanthropy and tax breaks. Billionaires and corporations often use charitable giving to offset their taxes, sometimes leaving the public to foot the bill for the very same societal issues they are attempting to solve. This creates a system in which philanthropy doesn't always feel like a true altruistic endeavor, but rather a strategic move that benefits both the giver and the receiver—but not necessarily in a way that’s sustainable or transformative.


Take, for instance, large tech companies that donate to causes related to education or the environment while simultaneously contributing to the digital divide or increasing carbon footprints. Are they really helping, or just buying social goodwill to offset their own role in creating inequality or environmental degradation? The line between genuine altruism and self-interest becomes blurry.


The Myth of the “Benevolent Billionaire”

One of the most glaring themes of the article is the myth of the "benevolent billionaire." The idea that billionaires can solve society’s problems with a few large charitable donations is alluring, but it doesn’t acknowledge the broader role these billionaires play in creating and perpetuating the very inequalities that philanthropy seeks to address. It’s easy to write a check and feel good about it, but there’s a significant difference between writing a check and engaging in the deep, systemic work necessary to change the underlying power dynamics.


Philanthropy can be a force for good, but it can also be used to maintain the status quo, keeping wealth and power in the hands of a few. Just because someone gives money away doesn’t mean they’re solving the structural issues that lead to poverty, racial injustice, or environmental destruction. In fact, philanthropy can sometimes obscure these larger problems by focusing on the temporary alleviation of symptoms rather than pushing for real political and economic change.


A Call for Systemic Change

Ultimately, the Times article underscores the need for a shift in how we think about philanthropy. It's not enough to just write checks or fund small-scale programs that don’t fundamentally challenge the status quo. Instead, philanthropy should be about addressing the root causes of injustice, inequality, and environmental harm. It should involve collaboration with grassroots movements, public policy advocacy, and, crucially, efforts to dismantle the systems of power that perpetuate societal problems in the first place.


The future of philanthropy needs to be more transparent and accountable, especially when it comes to large-scale donors. If we’re serious about creating a more just world, we need to stop treating charity as a “fix” and instead start building solutions that challenge the underlying issues head-on. As the article suggests, the math of philanthropy may always be impossible if we’re trying to solve deeply entrenched problems without also confronting the root causes that created them.


Conclusion: Rethinking Philanthropy’s Role

While the issues raised in the New York Times article are important, they invite us to ask whether the very framework of philanthropy is inherently flawed. If we’re only ever addressing the surface-level symptoms of societal ills, are we truly making progress? The philanthropic model often assumes that wealth accumulation is a natural outcome of merit, and that the wealthy are best positioned to fix society’s problems. But this overlooks the uncomfortable truth that extreme wealth often arises from exploitative systems that perpetuate inequality.


So, when billionaires redistribute their wealth, are they addressing the systems they themselves have benefited from, or merely putting a Band-Aid on a much deeper wound? This isn't to dismiss philanthropy’s positive impact—there are undoubtedly significant benefits to many of these efforts—but we must critically examine whether they offer long-term solutions or whether they are, in fact, enabling the continuation of the very systems that create inequality. True social change may require more than just redistribution—it may require dismantling the very structures that allow for such extreme wealth in the first place.


What do you think? Does philanthropy as it currently exists have the potential to solve systemic issues, or are we looking at a flawed model that requires rethinking entirely?


 

Juliana M. Weissbein, CFRE is a respected leader and decision influencer in regard to fundraising operations best practices. With over a decade of experience, Juliana thrives on professional growth, team success, measurable results, and inspiring fundraisers to utilize data-based strategies. Juliana currently serves as the Associate Director of Development Operations at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She has served as an AFP Global Board Member, AFP Global's 2019 Outstanding Young Professional Fundraiser and is a member of the AFP Global Women's Impact Initiative. Juliana is immediate past chair of the AFP New York City chapter’s Emerging Leaders Committee and currently serves on the chapter’s board chairing their mentorship program. She resides in Houston, TX and never turns down a good kombucha.

16 views

Comments


Drop Me a Line, Let Me Know What You Think

Thanks for submitting!

© 2022 by Juliana M. Weissbein, CFRE

bottom of page