1

SEEDS of Philanthrocapitalism
How the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is Damaging the Future of African Agriculture

Alex Wheeler
CEP 2018
 2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Abstract 4

History 5

Context 6

Philanthrocapitalism 8
- The Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation
- Critiques

Water Efficient Maize for Africa 16

 3

Introduction:

I am currently interning with Community Alliance for Global Justice (CAGJ), a

grassroots nonprofit based in Seattle. When first approaching the senior project, I had
so many ideas that it became overwhelming. Then, I decided to commit to a
“client-based project” that would benefit my internship site (CAGJ) as well as provide an
interesting project to work on. My supervisors mentioned that they wanted more
research on the model of “philanthrocapitalism” to better understand how philanthropy
affects their work. CAGJ supports local economies and movements for food sovereignty
all over the world. Part of the work includes holding the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
accountable for their investments into African agriculture. The foundation gives
substantial support to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) hence CAGJ
has a project called “AGRA Watch”. I wanted to learn more about this hidden yet
omnipresent model of “philanthrocapitalism” that is shaping the world around us, so I set
out to gather more information and write a research paper on the topic. The following
pages are my findings.
 4

Abstract:

Philanthrocapitalism is a pervasive phenomenon in our global society, yet many

are unaware of its consequences. At the heart of philanthrocapitalism is the neoliberal
assumption that private development and applying business principles to philanthropy
will produce the best results for communities in need. ​But what are the hidden and
long-term effects of philanthrocapitalism? My internship site, Community Alliance for
Global Justice, is critically examining the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and their
impact on agriculture in Africa. Characteristic of philanthrocapitalist organizations, the
Gates Foundation posits market solutions as the fix for poverty and inequality and
envisions a system of African agriculture based on biotechnology, high inputs and
market competition. By evaluating current literature on philanthrocapitalism, examining
the specific ways in which the Gates Foundation impacts African agriculture, and
working with CAGJ to host an educational event, I developed a research paper
including suggestions for alternative models of philanthropy. My hope is to raise
awareness around the impacts of philanthrocapitalism and encourage people to be a
part of alternative movements for community change.
 5

History

To understand how modern philanthropists came to be, we must look back into
U.S. history. The Gilded Age was a period of rapid industrialization and inequality
spanning the late 19th to early 20th century. Those who made their fortunes in this
expanding economy were commonly known as “robber barons”, implying that they
would often use extra-legal means to gain more money for themselves. Andrew
Carnegie, founder of U.S Steel, was notorious for cutting his workers’ pay in tandem
with the ebb and flow of corporate profits. In Spring of 1892 in response to a 35% wage
cut, workers went on strike for months. Carnegie brought in the U.S National Guard,
who killed several workers who were protesting, built a fence to keep out the strikers.
Eventually, workers were brought in to break the strike and those protesting were forced
back to work. In the face of harsh criticism, Carnegie argued that the massive wealth in
his hands would ultimately serve a greater good than in the hands of the government
(“The Philanthropy Hustle”; Hall, p 46). In an effort to lessen the public’s outrage,
wealthy individuals like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller requested charters to
establish charitable foundations and redistribute some of their wealth to society.
However, these men faced criticism from within the government including ​Theodore
Roosevelt, who said of Rockefeller’s charitable plans,​ ​“no amount of charity in spending
such fortunes can compensate in any way for the misconduct in acquiring them” (Hall, p
47). Yet in the end, they were ultimately awarded their charters and several foundations
were created during this period including the Russell Sage Foundation (1907), the
Carnegie Corporation (1911), and the Rockefeller Foundation (1913) (Hall).
 6

Modern Context / inequality and taxes

Fast forward to the early 21​st​ century, and the U.S is in an even greater state of
wealth inequality than the Gilded age. We’re living in a time of extreme wealth
inequality, which has allowed wealth to accumulate at the top, from which pillar
philanthropists give money that “trickles down” to the rest of us. In a recent report
published by Oxfam, eight men now possess the same amount of wealth as the poorest
half of the world (Hardoon, p2 ). This situation is not natural, it was created by human
policies. As recent as 1980, the top U.S Federal income tax rate on regular income was
60% (“Top U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates on Regular Income and Capital Gains”).
With the new 2018 Republican tax plan, the highest bracket will pay 37% federal
income tax (Berger). The lessened taxes on the wealthiest members of society has
allowed wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few, leaving the majority of Americans
(and the poorest members of the world) with little. Rather than view this wealth
inequality as evidence of a failed system, some view it as an opportunity to take that
excess wealth and spend it strategically on projects promoting social good.
Recent scholars have also made the connection between the theory of
neoliberalism and the development of philanthrocapitalism (Metcalf; Mitchell;
Morvaridi;). Friedrich Hayek created the theory of neoliberalism in 1936, envisioning a
reality where everything is dictated by economic competition. Building on Adam Smith’s
“invisible hand” of the market, neoliberalism demands that governments not just leave
the economy alone but take an active role in supporting the success of business
(Metcalf). In the 1980’s and 1990’s, governments in the West started to cut government
services, encouraging “small government” and the role of private charities in filling social
services. For instance, in 2010, then conservative Prime Minister David Cameron
launched his “Big Society” campaign that included small grants for local projects where
community members were stepping up to help their neighbors. In his kickoff speech he
chastised centralized bureaucracy, “It’s time for something different, something bold -
something that doesn’t just pour money down the throat of wasteful, top-down
 7

government schemes.” He called on charities and individuals to step up, claiming

government, “must foster and support a new culture of voluntarism, philanthropy, social
action” (Cameron). Critics of the plan pointed out that along with his enthusiastic launch
for a “Big Society”, Cameron initiated £25 billion in spending cuts that threatened local
charities funding and hence, their ability to support their communities (Mason).
 8

PHILANTHROCAPITALISM
Gates foundation introduction

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BAMGF) is a tax-exempt, private

foundation directed by Bill Gates Senior and Melinda Gates. Their $40.3 billion
endowment sits in the Foundation Trust which investments in a variety of for-profit
corporations (some of which undermine the foundations stated goals for human and
environmental health) (“Foundation Fact Sheet”). Bill Gates has been an active
proponent for the wealthy, he created the “Giving Pledge” encouraging billionaires to
give away at least half of their wealth. Gates was even able to convince ex-Berkshire
Hathaway founder Warren Buffett to move a portion of his wealth into the Gates
Foundation. As an institution based in Seattle, the foundation has had a tremendous
impact funding the University of Washington, health centers, and underperforming
schools across the state. Bill Gates also carries an enormous amount of celebrity power
as the founder of tech giant Microsoft.
As the largest foundation in the world, their areas of grant-making span global
health, development, policy & advocacy, agriculture, financial services, gender equality,
sanitation, and U.S programs focused on: education, economic mobility, postsecondary
success, and Washington state specific initiatives. Although they employ a variety of
methods to achieve their goals, the foundation is distinctly philanthrocapitalist. In the
following paragraphs, I will demonstrate how the foundation’s practices fit within this
larger ideology of philanthrocapitalism.

Philanthrocapitalism

The term philanthrocapitalism first appeared in an article in the Economist

describing how business executives were starting to turn their attention away from the
corporate world and toward the more philanthropic ventures. Many were intrigued by the
idea of making money and achieving a purported social good ("the birth of
 9

philanthrocapitalism"). The term has come to mean anything that incorporates charitable
practices and making money for investors. There are two main definitions for the term:
private foundations becoming more capitalist, and the idea that capitalism itself can be
harnessed to produce social good.Matthew Bishop and Michael Green penned the book
"Philanthrocapitalism: how the rich can save the world and why we should let them"
advocating for philanthropists to be given full reign in pursuing their projects for social
good. For my purposes here, I will focus on the ways in which private foundations have
shifted their behavior towards becoming more capitalist. I have identified three main
characteristics: increased business partnerships, emphasis on data driven
grant-making, and a market orientation as a solution for solving poverty and inequality.

Business Mentality
The first and most defining characteristic is an overarching emphasis on a
business mentality. Under the model of philanthrocapitalism, having corporations as
partners on the projects they fund is seen as an asset rather than a conflict of
interest.This is a familiar exercise of the idea that it’s okay to make money and help
people in the process. In 2014, the Gates Foundation donated $11 million to
MasterCard to start up “Mastercard Labs for Financial Inclusion” that will connect
Kenyans to financial services from their cell phones (Firpo). This decision was
motivated by a desire to increase access to basic banking services for everyday
Kenyans. An additional $8 million will also be made available for the second half of the
project.
The foundation aims to increase financial services for the poor by, “generating
economy-wide efficiencies by digitally connecting large numbers of poor and
low-income people to one another and to financial services providers, government
services, and businesses” (“Financial Services for the Poor”). MasterCard has claimed
that the initial costs of establishing the company in East Africa are too great, and the
risk of failure is too great for the company to undertake by themselves. That is why the
 10

foundation is providing this grant, then after three years if the project is a success,
MasterCard will take on the full cost.
However, critics have claimed that this donation serves the interests of a private
corporation, not Kenyans. Economic sociologist Linsey McGoey has been an outspoken
critic of the Gates Foundation and laid out several arguments in her book, “No Such
Thing as a Free Gift”. McGoey wrote several pieces in news outlets when this grant was
announced, reminding the public that the grant to MasterCard is a gift that helps them
reduce corporate overhead, and allow one of the world’s wealthiest companies to offset
the cost of expanding in a new market. Additionally, McGoey adds that, “foundation’s
donations are just that: donations. For the corporations, they’re a freebie. For US
taxpayers, they are a drain on public money” (“The Philanthropy Hustle”). ​Under the
logic of philanthrocapitalism, corporations are seen as partners rather than actors in a
larger system perpetuating inequality.

Efficiency and data

The second main principle is that grant-making should be driven by efficiency,
data, and tangible outcomes. Philanthropists claim they are bringing an increased
business mentality and efficiency from the corporate world, to the nonprofit board room.
One area where this emphasis on data and efficiency is clear, is the support for charter
schools from the Gates, Walton, and Broad Family Foundations. The Gates foundation
model for education includes charter schools, emphasis on quality teachers, a larger
class size, and increasing access to online learning.
In her book “No Such Thing as a Free Gift”, economic sociologist Linsey McGoey
compares the philanthropists of the early 20​th​ century to our modern-day do-gooders
and finds overlapping similarities. So what today’s philanthropists are claiming as
innovation, is actually a practice shared by the first robber barons of the modern age.
Scholars have criticized the decision to focus on charter schools as ignoring the
structural issues of the system and instead focusing on individual empowerment. Bill
Gates has emphasized that charter schools are superior because they allow a) choice
for parents b) better quality instruction and c) rigorous testing. Yet these changes fail to
 11

address problems in the environment and the lack of funding under-performing schools
have to deal with. A study from 1965 found that up to two-thirds of a child’s performance
in school is attributed to their environment (ie income of their family, school funding,
poverty). Even the best teachers and latest technology will not help students if they’re
trying to learn while hungry or their families doesn’t have the resources to pay for extra
materials and tutoring.

Market based solutions

The third characteristic of philanthrocapitalism is that it often encourages
grantees to generate market – based solutions to their problems (despite systemic
social, cultural, and economic barriers). UW Geography scholars Mitchell and Sparke
argue that a “triple movement” is at work in the world of philanthropy which
“opportunistically shores up global market practices and rationalities through local
projects that at once acknowledge and cover for market failure while simultaneously
cultivating new market subjects” (Mitchell, p 726). In this way, philanthropies are
targeting communities that have been failed by the government and market and are
offering them market solutions to their problems

Other Critiques of philanthrocapitalism

There are several concerns that have emerged from critical scholars of
philanthrocapitalism. First, is that mega foundations (like the BAMGF) undermine
democratic processes due to a lack of accountability and increasing plutocracy. Private
philanthropies affect the public yet are not accountable to the public because the
agenda is guided by the donors. Technically speaking, philanthropies are barred from
making campaign contributions but “educating” lawmakers is allowed, and foundations
have provided indirect support for candidates by funding groups that do political work.
One example is the Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation’s keen support for charter schools in
New Jersey. After receiving pushback from the community, the ​foundation agreed to
 12

give $430,000 to the New Jersey Board of Education on the condition that Governor
Chris Christie remain in office (Braun). The foundation being aware of the discrete
nature of their activities even wrote into the policy that the state education department
only be referred to as “the grantee”. ​"TBF reserves the right not to be included in
Grantee’s publicity," reads one provision that also requires that "all public
announcements of this grant by Grantee, including without limitation, oral, print,
electronic or other announcements, must be coordinated with TBF. Grantee must
contact the Senior Director of Communications on TBF’s staff to obtain and obtain
approval of Grantee’s plans"(Braun).
The second critique of philanthrocapitalism is that it reduces support of
government services. It is continuing the neoliberal trend of privatizing services in the
belief that it's the responsibility of private charities and “neighbors” to take care of one
another instead of demanding protections from the government. Both the Reagan and
Bush administration cut government spending while encouraging the private and
nonprofit sector to dispense social services through local, voluntary organizations (Hall,
2006). Additionally, Prime Minister David Cameron set forth his plan for a “Big Society”
where local communities and charities would increase their civic participation to cover
for Cameron’s 25 billion pounds in spending cuts.
The last critique of philanthrocapitalism is that it increases plutocracy. Living in a
capitalist country like the United States, wealthy people are seen as talented and
hardworking, the winners of a meritocratic system (rather than the beneficiaries of a
rigged game). In addition to praise for being wealthy, those who choose to give some of
that wealth away in the form of philanthropy also enjoy social capital and public praise
as benevolent people. That’s what makes criticizing philanthropists difficult, they are
generally seen as creating positive change in our society, and the rest of us
(non-wealthy) should not as they say, “look a gift horse in the mouth”. Tech geniuses
like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are lauded for their innovations that have changed
lives in the technology industry. This praise also carries over into the world of
philanthropy where the business elite are trusted to have sound advice on making
 13

decisions across health, education, agriculture, development sectors, and more. Crucial
to the success of any philanthropic venture is the social and cultural environment that
celebrates the wealthy for their success and good works. Joann Barkan from Dissent
magazine argues that in a society already overrun by the power of the 1% in politics,
philanthropies reinforce plutocracy by allowing the wealthy to exert influence wherever
they desire with minimal regulatory limitations (Barkan). Likewise, other scholars have
argued that philanthropy itself emboldens the wealthy with even more cultural capital
and prestige (​Morvaridi).​ Building on the work of Pierre Bourdieu, Morvaridi claims that
philanthropists are even making investments based on the social capital to be gained
from the transaction. Antonio Gramsci “vehemently believed that philanthropy was an
instrument of hegemony by which the capitalist class maintained its control of the
market” (“Capitalist Philanthropy and Hegemonic Partnerships” p 1193).

Gates Foundation approach to agriculture

Bill Gates is a keen proponent of technology, and in the field of agriculture, he is

especially excited about the potential for biotechnology to increase yield for African
farmers. The Gates foundation is joining the ranks of other Western philanthropies who
have funded industrial agriculture movements in developing countries. In 1943, the
Rockefeller foundation funded a research center in Mexico to focus on wheat cultivation
and later created the Consultative Group on International Research Group (CGIAR) in
1971 to promote the Green Revolution.
U.S. philanthropies were successful in securing the adoption of the Green
Revolution in India in the 1960s. Some farmers chose to leave their traditional farming
methods, and instead start to farm more like Americans, using high – yield seeds,
chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and intense irrigation. In the first few years, yields
increased as promised. However, the burden of having to purchase chemicals, seeds,
and equipment sent many Indian farmers into debt (Zwerdling ). Scholars have pointed
to how this style of agriculture has served to exacerbate poverty in the Global South as
 14

only those farmers with resources could purchase inputs, widening social inequality
(“Capitalist Philanthropy and the New Green Revolution for Food Security” p 245)
Others have identified biodiversity loss, erosion, and soil nutrient depletion as the result
of GR practices (Morvaridi).
Yet, Bill Gates insists upon funding many of the same agricultural practices that
spelled havoc for farmers in India, for small farmers across Sub-Saharan Africa. In
sub-Saharan Africa over 60 percent of the workforce is involved in agriculture
(FAO).The majority of African farmers are engaged in small scale agriculture which
presents a tremendous opportunity for private corporations to expand in the region, and
seize land and capital (Holt-Giménez, p 92).
There are three main strategies that the Gates foundation uses to achieve their
goal of a new Green Revolution. The first is through funding biotechnology research.
This is the type of “behind the scenes” work that biotech and seed companies must
undertake to produce hybrid and genetically modified seeds tolerant to drought and
pests. The argument here is that these companies have to take on massive risk and
expense in creating these products, risk that can be shouldered by philanthropy. For
instance, the BAMGF gave over $36 million in grants to the Donald Danforth Plant
Science Center for their Virus Resistant Cassava for Africa (VIRCA) Project. The
Danforth Center is a large research institution employing over 100 scientists and
conducting several projects in the areas of bioenergy, bioinformatics, and crop
improvements (among others). The VIRCA project was initiated to engineer cassava to
be resistant to Brown Streak Disease.
The second main way they execute their mission is through funding
organizations encouraging industrial agriculture for small farmers. The most substantial
investment the foundation has made is through the Alliance for a Green Revolution in
Africa (AGRA), to whom they’ve donated over $625 million dollars. AGRA works in
several levels across the food system. They provide financial services to small and
medium scale farmers, work with governments to modify policy, and convene strategic
partners including foundations (“Our Approach”).
 15

Their third and most critical component of the Gates agriculture strategy is
funding public relations efforts. Due to the heavy opposition to the implementation of
genetically modified seeds (and agribusiness companies that threaten to takeover
African agriculture), the foundation has poured millions into various media outlets and
public relations enterprises. An highly effective example of this type of campaigning is
the Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS), one of the leading pro-GM outlets in the U.S.
CAS was started at Cornell University in 2014 with a $5.6 million grant from the
BAMGF. The alliance creates media packets, videos, and blogs, and holds trainings,
conferences and courses in an effort to “provide accurate information about agricultural
biotechnology” and empower “science champions around the world with the tools and
skills needed to communicate effectively about science and promote evidence-based
decision-making” (“Our Mission”). In the summer of 2015 and 2016 they recruited
journalists and PR specialists from all over the world to participate in a 12-week training
program to learn how to effectively promote GM technology.
 16

Water Efficient Maize for Africa program

The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) program is a public/ private
partnership coordinated by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation. The
program started in Uganda in 2008, with the final phase of the program wrapping up in
2017. WEMA is meant to “provide valuable economic, agronomic and environmental
benefits to millions of farmers by helping them produce more reliable harvests under
moderate drought conditions and better grain quality due to reduced insect damage”
(AATF). The project has two major components: a conventional hybrid maize breeding
program and creating genetically modified drought tolerant maize varieties. The
Monsanto corporation will be donating and the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT) will be donating seeds royalty free in an effort to make
the seeds more affordable for farmers, “CIMMYT and Monsanto respectively grant to
AATF a personal, non-transferable, non-exclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free license to
each of the drought-tolerant maize lines to be developed in the project” (AATF). For the
conventional breeding program, Monsanto is donating their drought tolerant strains of
maize known as their TELA and DroughTego while national research institutions donate
their best germplasm for crossing (“Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)”).
Monsanto is also donating their genetically modified seeds with the drought resistance
gene “MON 810” and pest resistant gene MON87460.
These seeds were tested in confined field trials across five countries: Kenya,
Uganda, South Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania. Few countries in sub-Saharan Africa
allow the commercial sale of GMOs in their country, presenting a huge opportunity for
Monsanto to demonstrate the benefits of their drought and pest resistant seeds and a
reputation with small farmers in order to persuade lawmakers to allow GM seeds.
Currently, only South Africa allows the commercial sale of genetically modified seeds. In
October, Uganda passed the National Biosafety Act of 2017 which (upon approval from
President Yoweri Museveni) will allow the general release of GM crops (Ongu).
 17

The WEMA conventional hybrids are drought tolerant white maize varieties. In Kenya,
the first hybrid variety (WE 1101) was officially released in June 2013. The AATF claims
that there are 21 WEMA hybrids currently available in Kenya yet only WE 1011 was
verified as being on the shelves of seed companies. In Tanzania, 11 hybrids were
released. “The WEMA website lists a total of 10 WEMA TEGO conventional hybrids
available in Uganda.” In Mozambique, three varieties WE 2101, WE 3128 and WE 3127
are awaiting commercial sale. (“The Water Efficient Maize for Africa Project: Profiteering
not Philanthropy” p 16). In South Africa the Agricultural Research Council (ARC)
registered 10 DroughtTEGO TM hybrids with “predominant characteristics of drought
tolerance and high yield potential under optimal moisture conditions” (ARC and Grain
Crop Institute 2016). Across the five countries, an estimated​ 250,000 households have
purchased hybrid seeds through WEMA (Bouscaren).
The WEMA project is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Howard
Buffett Foundation and the United States International Agency for Development
(USAID). Thus far, these three groups have contributed over $84 million to the project.
The Gates Foundation has also contributed $95 million dollars in grants to the African
Agricultural Technology Foundation. They’ve donated 24 million to the African Biosafety
Network of Expertise which lobbies African governments to pass GM friendly laws.
Additionally, several years ago Community Alliance for Global Justice found that the
Gates Foundation held $23 million worth of stock in Monsanto.

Critiques

The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), has raised several concerns over the
WEMA project. First, there is a big disparity between what Monsanto claims will be the
yield increase from their seeds and their actual results. On their website they claim that,
“Farmers using DroughtTEGO hybrids have been able to harvest 20 to 35 percent more
grain under moderate drought conditions as compared to the seeds they had historically
planted” (“Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)”). Yet in their application to the
 18

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Monsanto reported a reduction in

losses around 6% as compared with non-GE varieties (Gurian-Sherman, p 18). ACB is
arguing that there is massive amount of money and resources being poured into this
technological fix that may only be yielding a small benefit for farmers. An overarching
critique of the Gates Foundation, particularly their work in agriculture is an emphasis on
technocratic solutions. The solutions that receive the most funding (and publicity) from
the foundation are those focusing on new biotechnologies and innovations to increase
yield per acre. More fundamental changes such as land reform, infrastructure
development, and irrigation are left unaddressed in favor of more attractive, shiner
solutions. These solutions are also managed through a variety of research institutions,
professionals and government bureaucracies, contributing to the belief that agricultural
expertise is the domain of scientists, and not a practice that has been refined for
hundreds of years by indigenous communities.
The most substantial argument from the African Centre for Biodiversity against
WEMA is that is a “Trojan horse” for Monsanto to enter these countries and influence
biosafety laws. Mark Edge, Director of Collaborations for Developing Countries for
Monsanto, spoke with Illinois NPR about the companies’ motivations for joining WEMA,
“your choice is can you go in now, and you know that you’re not going to make much
money in it but can you lay those foundations for 10 or 15 years from now where it’s
going to be” (Bouscaren). Monsanto clearly understands that while they they may be
donating their seeds for free, farmers will become dependent on their products, and
they can have a role in shaping the future of agriculture in sub-saharan Africa to best
suit their company.
 19

References
Barkan, Joanne. “How to Criticize “Big Philanthropy” Effectively. Dissent. April 9, 2014.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/how-to-criticize-big-philanthropy-effectivel
y

Berger, Rob. “The New 2018 Federal Income Tax Brackets & Rates”. ​Forbes. ​N.p., 17
Dec.
2017.​www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2017/12/17/the-new-2018-federal-inco
me-tax-brackets-rates/#791b3137292a​. Accessed 15 May. 2018.

“The birth of philanthrocapitalism”. ​The Economist​ N.p., 23 Feb. 2006. Web. 13 Dec.
2017.

Bouscaren, Durrie.“Altruism Or PR? How Monsanto Plans To Snag A Foothold In

African Seed Markets”.​ Will radio Illinois. ​15, Dec. 2016.
https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/altruism-or-pr-how-monsanto-plans-to-snag-a-fo
othold-in-african-seed-market​. Accessed 11 May 2018.

Braun, Bob. “Private education grant tied to Gov. Christie staying in office”.​The
Star-Ledger. ​December 13, 2012.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2012/12/private_education_grant_tied_t.html

Cameron, David. “Big Society Speech”. UK Gov. 19 July. 2010. Web.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/big-society-speech​. ​Accessed 16 May. 2018.

“Financial Services for the Poor”. ​Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Growth-and-Opportunity/Financial
-Services-for-the-Poor​. Accessed 1 May. 2018.

Firpo, Janine. “Striving to Impact 100 Million: The Launch of a New Digital Financial
Services Innovation Lab in East Africa”. ​Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation​. 3
Dec. 2014.
https://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2014/12/Striving-to-Impact-100-Million-
The-Launch-of-a-New-Digital-Financial-Services-Innovation-Lab-in-East-Africa#.
WjOCXlQ-fVo​ Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

“Food sovereignty”. ​La Via Campesina, ​https://viacampesina.org/en/food-sovereignty/​.

Accessed 6 Jan, 2018.
 20

“Foundation Fact Sheet”. ​Bill & Melinda Gates foundation,

www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-Factshe
et​ Accessed 13 Dec 2017.

Gurian-Sherman, Doug. ​High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering Is Not Solving
Agriculture’s Drought Problem in a Thirsty World​. Union of Concerned Scientists,
2012, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep00061.

Hall, Peter Dobkin. “A Historical Overview of Philanthropy, Voluntary Associations, and

Nonprofit Organizations in the United States, 1600–2000.” ​The Nonprofit Sector:
A Research Handbook, Second Edition​, Yale University Press, New Haven;
London, 2006.

Hardoon, Deborah.​ An Economy for the 99% .​Oxfam. 16 Jan. 2017. Web. 15 March.
2018. ​https://oxf.am/2FOD0hK

Holt-Giménez, Eric, and Miguel A. Altieri. “Agroecology, Food Sovereignty and the New
Green Revolution.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2012, pp. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture, 01 January 2012.

Mason, Rowena.“Cameron says Tories’ £25bn spending cuts are necessary and
reasonable”. ​The Guardian​. N.p., 4 Jan. 2015.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/04/cameron-defends-tories-25billion-pou
nds-spending-cuts​ Accessed 16 May. 2018.

McGoey, Linsey. “The Philanthropy Hustle”. ​Jacobin​. N.p., 10, Nov. 2015.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/philanthropy-charity-banga-carnegie-gates
-foundation-development​. Accessed 20 Dec. 2018.

McGoey, Linsey.​ No Such Thing as a Free Gift : the Gates Foundation and the Price of
Philanthropy​. Verso, 2015.

Metcalf, Stephen. “Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world”. ​The Guardian​.
N.p., 18 Aug. 2017.
www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-th
e-worl​ Accessed 10 May. 2018.
 21

Mitchell, Katharyne, and Matthew Sparke. “The New Washington Consensus: Millennial
Philanthropy and the Making of Global Market Subjects.” Antipode, vol. 48, no. 3,
2016, pp. 724–749.

Morvaridi, Behrooz. “Capitalist Philanthropy and Hegemonic Partnerships.” Third World

Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 7, 2012, pp. 1191–1210.

Morvaridi, Behrooz. “Capitalist Philanthropy and the New Green Revolution for Food
Security.” International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, vol. 19, no.
2, 2012, pp. 243–256.

Ongu, Isaac. “Uganda Parliament adopts GMO law in a monumental victory for science
allies”. ​ ​Cornell Alliance for Science. ​N.p., 4 Oct. 2017,
allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/10/uganda-parliament-adopts-gmo-law-i
n-a-monumental-victory-for-science-allies/​ Accessed 17 May. 2018.

“Our Approach”. ​AGRA​. ​https://agra.org/our-approach/​. Accessed 20 Nov. 2017.

“Our Mission”. ​Cornell Alliance for

Science.​https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/about/mission/​ Accessed 18 Nov.
2017.

Strom, Stephanie. “Big Gifts, Tax Breaks, and a Debate on Charity”.​The New York
Times​. Sept 6, 2007.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/business/06giving.html

Thompson, Carol. “Philanthrocapitalism: appropriation of Africa's genetic wealth”

Review of African Political Economy, 41:141, 389-405, DOI:
10.1080/03056244.2014.901946

“Top U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates on Regular Income and Capital Gains”. ​Data 360,
www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=475​. Accessed 15 May. 2018.

“The Water Efficient Maize for Africa Project: Profiteering not Philanthropy​”. African
Centre for Biodiversity. ​10 Aug. 2017.
acbio.org.za/en/water-efficient-maize-africa-project-profiteering-not-philanthropy
 22

“Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)”. ​Monsanto.

monsanto.com/company/outreach/water-efficient-maize-africa/​.​ Accessed 11
May. 2018.

Zwerdling, Daniel. “'Green Revolution' Trapping India's Farmers In Debt” ​NPR​. N.p., 14
April.
2009.​www.npr.org/2009/04/14/102944731/green-revolution-trapping-indias-farme
rs-in-debt​. Accessed 2 May. 2018.