Jada McKenna debunks the myth that billionaires or foundations can replace large-scale government funding. She explains that while helpful, private donors rightfully see systemic support as a government responsibility and are unwilling to fill massive, structural funding gaps themselves, sticking instead to their own strategies.
Related Insights
Extreme wealth creates a dangerous societal rift not just through inequality, but by allowing the ultra-rich to opt out of public systems. They have their own concierge healthcare, private transportation, and elite schools, making them immune to and ignorant of the struggles faced by the other 99.9%, which fuels populist anger.
The idea that a billionaire can "spend" their net worth is flawed. Their wealth is primarily in company stock; liquidating it would crash the price and signal a lack of confidence. This misunderstanding of wealth versus income fuels unrealistic proposals for solving global problems.
While seemingly positive, reliance on crowdfunding and volunteer efforts for basic needs like healthcare creates what author Alyssa Quart calls a "dystopian social safety net." These initiatives are a sign of societal and governmental failure, not a sustainable solution for systemic problems.
To combat aid diversion in crisis zones, Jada McKenna proposes a counterintuitive solution: overwhelm the area with supply. By 'flooding the zone with food,' the aid becomes less scarce and therefore less valuable. This tactic disincentivizes theft and reduces dangerous swarming of delivery trucks by desperate crowds.
Sir Ronald Cohen critiques the philanthropic model, arguing that relying on donations keeps charitable organizations small, underfunded, and perpetually begging for capital. This prevents them from achieving the scale needed to solve massive problems, a flaw that impact investing aims to correct by creating self-sustaining models.
The most effective government role in innovation is to act as a catalyst for high-risk, foundational R&D (like DARPA creating the internet). Once a technology is viable, the government should step aside to allow private sector competition (like SpaceX) to drive down costs and accelerate progress.
The focus of billionaire philanthropy has shifted from building physical public works (like libraries) to funding NGOs and initiatives that aim to fundamentally restructure society, politics, and culture according to their ideological visions.
The loss of US aid didn't just defund specific projects; it dismantled an entire operational 'architecture.' The collapse of shared resources, like UN-funded logistics and transportation, created cascading failures across the sector, showing how the entire humanitarian value chain can depend on a single keystone funder.
A critical flaw in philanthropy is the donor's need for control, which manifests as funding specific, personal projects instead of providing unrestricted capital to build lasting institutions. Lasting impact comes from empowering capable organizations, not from micromanaging project-based grants.
Unlike traditional UN agencies, Gavi operates as a public-private alliance. Its key innovation is not just fundraising but acting as a market-shaper. By guaranteeing consistent, large-scale purchases, Gavi gives private manufacturers the predictability needed to invest in capacity, ultimately lowering costs and ensuring supply security.
