One can witness a rise in charitable billionaires such as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, who instead of

getting rid of their wealth through taxes decide how their fortunes are best spent. Bill Gates, one of the
richest people on Earth, found the Melinda and Gates Foundation with the realization that he has more
money than he fairly should. Organization such as these are often not entirely efficient when it comes to
philanthropy because they get in the way of the government’s own efforts. The Melinda and Gates
Foundation created smaller schools to enhance quality education, but reports turned out to be quite
opposite. The schools made no significant difference in student performance and the programme was not
a complete success, leaving the school and state finances burdened. Hence, one can say that the world of
philanthropy now seems to resemble more with the capitalist economy (economist).

The term philanthrocapitalism, first coined in 2006, frames philanthropy as more profit oriented with a
number of investors and some social return. The power of charity is transformed into a proper business
model for “market-based solutions characterized by efficiency and quantified costs and benefits” (Rhodes
and Bloom). The practices from business corporations are extracted and applied to charitable work and
this process is often funded by filthy businesspeople. The CEO would lead this philanthropy the same
way they would conduct affairs in the businesses they own. Philanthropy with capitalism can have
different forms as well. There are some economies where genuine innovative solutions are found to social
problems in order to create wealth but in most rich countries, philanthropy is used to “maintain the
political status quo that allows them to cream off the nation’s wealth” (Bishop).

The Economist was the first to introduce the term philanthrocapitalism and Matthew Bishop, one of its
editors, and Michael Green, a former policy maker at the UK’s Department for International
Development brought together this concept in their book on how the rich have the power to save the
world. Especially the wealthy business who belong from the world of finance or technology aim to bring
“hard-nosed strategy”, “performance metrics”, “innovative financing models” and “increased control of
grantee decision making” to philanthropy (McGoey). One historian, Stanley Katz, believes that making
philanthropy more result oriented can be taken far back in history that many new scholars fail to realize.
Earlier philanthropists such as John D Rockefeller always aimed to apply the practices and methods of
business administration to their charitable deeds. Thus, the term itself might be new in writing but not one
in the practical world. The difference between such philanthrocapitalism and the one being practiced in
today’s age is the significant amount of “philanthropic spending” (McGoey). People are getting wealthier
and many philanthropic foundations are being set with every passing year.

America’s foundations have made remarkable progress in terms of their programmes, long-term
investments and clear goals. Yet, there are some flaws such as the lack of effort in reducing the
unjustifiably high administration costs and the inability to measure the results and the effectiveness of
their investments. The head of Edna McConnell Clark Foundation described these foundations as
“autocratic, elitist, arrogant and pampered” whereas Joel Fleischman believes that they are secretive about
their failures and keep “reinventing the wheel” (economist). There are many factors that recent
foundations tend to change. Individual programmes now gain more funding and to avoid unwanted
overheads, grants are often short-term. Ebay’s Omidyar Foundation which is now Omidyar Network
opted for a different mechanism unlike traditional foundations. Their mission of “individual self-
empowerment” is above all for-profit or non-profit projects which is why the philanthropist has a team
that invests after analyzing the project’s output and whether or not it aligns well with its social mission
(economist).

Thus, the charitable foundations have become more demanding, controlling and accountable in terms of
the work or projects being carried out. A professor, Garry Jenkins, states this to be far off from a benign
shift that would save the world through “business thinking and market methods” (Rhodes and Bloom).
The essence of philanthrocapitalism now lies in the ability to take over the value of charity by business
gains. It is no surprise that there are many self-interested, capitalized motives underlying the heavily
funded charitable activities. The concept of philanthrocapitalism is fascinating to examine because charity
is no longer a matter of giving money to help but the art of giving is being reshaped and a small group of
people change enormous lives with their businesses.

The phenomenon of philanthrocapitalism, in today’s world, is a rising trend that has been adopted by
numerous influential business personnel and entrepreneurial philanthropists. Having gone global, the
philanthrocapitalism movement has been seen to be embraced by the recently wealthy, not just in
developed nations, but in emerging economies as well [CITATION Bis \l 1033 ]. Many of these
individuals tailor their philanthropic endeavors to suit local needs and cultural circumstances as well.
When looking in particular at the practical benefits and effects of the philanthrocapitalism movement, it is
vital to take a look at both sides of the equation, and get a clear view of how beneficial this phenomenon
truly is. Criticism regarding the actions of the biggest and most prominent names within this movement
has been widespread, and has attacked such organizations for their increased self-interest and the
questionable impact it has had on the society they aim to provide for.

The most prominent examples for philanthrocapitalism are provided to us within the table below
[ CITATION But19 \l 1033 ]. Within this list, the most primal example to look into would be that of
Bill Gates, one of the richest entrepreneurs around the globe. the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a
philanthropic organization that, over time, has made a relevant name for itself within the
philanthrocapitalism movement. Known as this era’s “most influential global health agenda setter”
[ CITATION Ann14 \l 1033 ], the Gates foundation is not only renowned for its wide budget and the
energy and life it has brought into the area of global health, but it is also widely scrutinized for issues
such as lack of accountability and transparency [ CITATION Ann14 \l 1033 ]. Critics have focused
their attention specifically on the fact that the foundation looks for quick, easy ways out with
collaborations that limit themselves primarily to the west, and majorly only serve to benefit the already
wealthy instead of the needy. Beckett, in a hailed piece within the Guardian, defines the philanthropy of
wealthy influential individuals such as Bill Gates “is designed to open doors in a celebrity-driven world
only”[ CITATION And15 \l 1033 ]