{"id":168670,"date":"2020-09-14T12:00:10","date_gmt":"2020-09-14T11:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=168670"},"modified":"2020-09-13T08:50:00","modified_gmt":"2020-09-13T07:50:00","slug":"how-philanthropy-benefits-the-super-rich","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/09\/how-philanthropy-benefits-the-super-rich\/","title":{"rendered":"How Philanthropy Benefits the Super-Rich"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote><p><em>There are more philanthropists than ever before. Each year they give tens of billions to charitable causes. So how come inequality keeps rising?<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/logo-philanthropy.jpg\" ><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-168671\" src=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/logo-philanthropy.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"225\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/logo-philanthropy.jpg 700w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/logo-philanthropy-300x169.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px\" \/><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>8 Sep 2020 &#8211; <\/em><span class=\"drop-cap\"><span class=\"drop-cap__inner\">P<\/span><\/span>hilanthropy, it is popularly supposed, transfers money from the rich to the poor. This is not the case. In the US, which statistics show to be the most philanthropic of nations, barely a fifth of the money donated by big givers goes to the poor. A lot goes to the arts, sports teams and other cultural pursuits, and half goes to education and healthcare. At first glance that seems to fit the popular profile of \u201cgiving to good causes\u201d. But dig down a little.<\/p>\n<p>The biggest donations in education in 2019 went to the elite universities and schools that the rich themselves had attended. In the UK, in the 10-year period to 2017, more than two-thirds of all millionaire donations \u2013 \u00a34.79bn \u2013 went to higher education, and half of these went to just two universities: Oxford and Cambridge. When the rich and the middle classes give to schools, they give more to those attended by their own children than to those of the poor. British millionaires in that same decade gave \u00a31.04bn to the arts, and just \u00a3222m to alleviating poverty.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"element element-rich-link element-rich-link--tag element--thumbnail element-rich-link--upgraded\" data-component=\"rich-link-tag\" data-link-name=\"rich-link-tag\">\n<div class=\"rich-link tone-news--item rich-link--pillar-news\">\n<div class=\"rich-link__container\">\n<div class=\"rich-link__image-container u-responsive-ratio\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"rich-link__header\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/aside>\n<p>The common assumption that philanthropy automatically results in a redistribution of money is wrong. A lot of elite philanthropy is about elite causes. Rather than making the world a better place, it largely reinforces the world as it is. <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/philanthropy\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\"  data-link-name=\"auto-linked-tag\" data-component=\"auto-linked-tag\">Philanthropy<\/a> very often favours the rich \u2013 and no one holds philanthropists to account for it.<\/p>\n<p>The role of private philanthropy in international life has increased dramatically in the past two decades. Nearly three-quarters of the world\u2019s <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/agenda\/2018\/05\/as-philanthropy-grows-what-are-the-rich-spending-their-money-on\/\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">260,000 philanthropy foundations<\/a> have been established in that time, and between them they control more than $1.5tn. The biggest givers are in the US, and the UK comes second. The scale of this giving is enormous. The Gates Foundation alone gave \u00a35bn in 2018 \u2013 more than the foreign aid budget of the vast majority of countries.<\/p>\n<p>Philanthropy is always an expression of power. Giving often depends on the personal whims of super-rich individuals. Sometimes these coincide with the priorities of society, but at other times they contradict or undermine them. Increasingly, questions have begun to be raised about the impact these mega-donations are having upon the priorities of society.<\/p>\n<p>There are a number of tensions inherent in the relationship between philanthropy and democracy. For all the huge benefits modern philanthropy can bring, the sheer scale of contemporary giving can skew spending in areas such as education and healthcare, to the extent that it can overwhelm the priorities of democratically elected governments and local authorities.<\/p>\n<p>Some of this influence is indirect. The philanthropy of Bill and Melinda Gates has brought huge benefits for humankind. When the foundation made its first big grant for malaria research, it nearly doubled the amount of money spent on the disease worldwide. It did the same with polio. Thanks in part to Gates (and others), some 2.5 billion children have been vaccinated against the disease, and global cases of polio have been cut by 99.9%. <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/commentisfree\/2020\/aug\/30\/the-guardian-view-on-african-success-a-step-closer-to-conquering-polio\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">Polio has been virtually eradicated<\/a>. Philanthropy has made good the failures of both the pharmaceutical industry and governments across the world. The Gates Foundation, since it began in 2000, has given away more than $45bn and saved millions of lives.<\/p>\n<p>Yet this approach can be problematic. <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/technology\/billgates\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\"  data-link-name=\"auto-linked-tag\" data-component=\"auto-linked-tag\">Bill Gates<\/a> can become fixed on addressing a problem which is not seen as a priority by local people, in an area, for example, where polio is far from the biggest problem. He did something similar in his education philanthropy in the US where his fixation on class size diverted public spending away from the actual priorities of the local community.<\/p>\n<p>Other philanthropists are more wilfully interventionist. Individuals such as Charles Koch on the right, or <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/news\/2018\/jul\/06\/the-george-soros-philosophy-and-its-fatal-flaw\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">George Soros<\/a> on the left, have succeeded in altering public policy. More than $10bn a year is devoted to such ideological persuasion in the US alone.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"img-2\" class=\"element element-image img--landscape element--showcase fig--narrow-caption fig--has-shares \" data-component=\"image\" data-media-id=\"39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\">\n<div class=\"u-responsive-ratio\"><picture><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=880&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=cc183a2a83e9753ae171bb3d601949d4 1760w\" media=\"(min-width: 1300px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 1300px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"880px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=880&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=807f35ded14484c90f564cd8066a4290 880w\" media=\"(min-width: 1300px)\" sizes=\"880px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=800&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=9cd9443befd5045db04dc42b5d7b4bed 1600w\" media=\"(min-width: 1140px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 1140px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"800px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=800&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=9c12f03aceffa11b1738ffc2c95ce07d 800w\" media=\"(min-width: 1140px)\" sizes=\"800px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=640&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=bb26849539532d41a651ff4ff2c3f049 1280w\" media=\"(min-width: 980px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 980px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"640px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=640&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=e144161483ee472c5782a80166413820 640w\" media=\"(min-width: 980px)\" sizes=\"640px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=620&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=aef0b038d379373d133e0113d024c389 1240w\" media=\"(min-width: 660px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 660px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"620px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=620&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=006972e9f1c4c9881262db7d5fb6c1a0 620w\" media=\"(min-width: 660px)\" sizes=\"620px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=605&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=216102271f507cf1c158273b264448b1 1210w\" media=\"(min-width: 480px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 480px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"605px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=605&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=833ec16d14867d9a11f02133518ddfa5 605w\" media=\"(min-width: 480px)\" sizes=\"605px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=445&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=af6f96224fe8e168261248d1f24d4793 890w\" media=\"(min-width: 0px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 0px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"445px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=445&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=7aec26ea8d4c9e0bfb43db6442cc14c1 445w\" media=\"(min-width: 0px)\" sizes=\"445px\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"gu-image aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\/0_105_3769_2262\/master\/3769.jpg?width=300&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=892d9964801620911d05386e8765d611\" alt=\"David Koch at an Americans for Prosperity summit in Washington DC in 2011.\" \/> <\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<figure id=\"img-2\" class=\"element element-image img--landscape element--showcase fig--narrow-caption fig--has-shares \" data-component=\"image\" data-media-id=\"39fc2aa69307618bf62318c2605e74455ebc4c79\"><figcaption class=\"caption caption--img caption caption--img\"><strong>David Koch at an Americans for Prosperity summit in Washington DC in 2011. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The result has been what the late German billionaire shipping magnate and philanthropist Peter Kramer called \u201ca bad transfer of power\u201d, from democratically elected politicians to billionaires, so that it is no longer \u201cthe state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich who decide\u201d. The Global Policy Forum, an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the United Nations general assembly, has warned governments and international organisations that, before taking money from rich donors, they should \u201cassess the growing influence of major philanthropic foundations, and especially the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation \u2026 and analyse the intended and unintended risks and side-effects of their activities\u201d. Elected politicians, the UN watchdog warned in 2015, should be particularly concerned about \u201cthe unpredictable and insufficient financing of public goods, the lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and the prevailing practice of applying business logic to the provision of public goods\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Some kinds of philanthropy may have become not just non-democratic, but anti-democratic. Charles Koch and his late brother, David, are undoubtedly the most prominent example of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/us-news\/2019\/aug\/23\/koch-brothers-agenda-key-donations-promotions\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">rightwing philanthropy at work<\/a>. But there are scores of others, most particularly in the US, who embrace causes which many find controversial and even distasteful. Art Pope has used the fortune he has amassed from his discount-store chain to push for a tightening of the law to prevent fraud in elections, even though such fraud is negligible in the US. Pope\u2019s move, which would require voters to show ID at the polls, effectively disenfranchises the 10% of the electorate who lack photo ID because they are too poor to own a car and are unlikely to go to the expense of getting a driving licence or other ID simply to vote. Such voters \u2013 many of them black \u2013 are statistically unlikely to vote for the arch-conservatives that Art Pope smiles upon.<\/p>\n<p>But do such philanthropic activities manipulate the democratic process any more than do the campaigns of the billionaire financier George Soros <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/news\/2018\/jul\/06\/the-george-soros-philosophy-and-its-fatal-flaw\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">to promote<\/a> accountable government and social reform around the world? Or hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer\u2019s funding of a movement to encourage more young people to vote on climate change? Or <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/technology\/2019\/jul\/14\/craigslist-craig-newmark-outrage-is-profitable-most-online-outrage-is-faked-for-profit\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">the attacks<\/a> by the internet billionaire Craig Newmark on fake news? In each case these rich individuals are motivated to intervene by something arising from their own lived experience. By what yardstick can we suggest that some are more legitimate than others?<\/p>\n<p>David Callahan, the editor of the <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.insidephilanthropy.com\/\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">Inside Philanthropy<\/a> website, puts it this way: \u201cWhen donors hold views we detest, we tend to see them as unfairly tilting policy debates with their money. Yet when we like their causes, we often view them as heroically stepping forward to level the playing field against powerful special interests or backward public majorities \u2026 These sort of \u00e0 la carte reactions don\u2019t make a lot of sense. Really, the question should be whether we think it\u2019s OK overall for any philanthropists to have so much power to advance their own vision of a better society.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"drop-cap\"><span class=\"drop-cap__inner\">T<\/span><\/span>he idea that a philanthropist\u2019s money is their own to do with as they please is deep-rooted. Some philosophers argue that each individual has full ownership rights over their resources \u2013 and that a rich person\u2019s only responsibility is to use their resources wisely. John Rawls, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, saw justice as a matter of fairness. He argued that citizens discharge their moral responsibility when they contribute their fair share of the taxes which governments use to take care of the poor and vulnerable. The better-off are then free to dispose of the rest of their income as they like.<\/p>\n<p>But what the rich are giving away in their philanthropy is not entirely their own money. Tax relief adds the money of ordinary citizens to the causes chosen by rich individuals.<\/p>\n<p>Most western governments offer generous tax incentives to encourage charitable giving. In England and Wales in 2019, an individual earning up to \u00a350,000 a year paid 20% of it in income tax. For those earning more, anything between \u00a350,000 and \u00a3150,000 was taxed at 40%, and anything above \u00a3150,000 was taxed at 45%. But gifts to registered charities are <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/donating-to-charity\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">tax free<\/a>. So a gift of \u00a3100 would cost the standard taxpayer only \u00a380, with \u00a320 being paid by the government. But the highest-rate taxpayer would need to pay out only \u00a355, because the state would provide the other \u00a345. Super-rich philanthropists, therefore, find themselves in a position where a large percentage of their gift is funded by the taxpayer. Thus it becomes far less clear whether the money philanthropists give away can rightfully be regarded as entirely their own. If taxpayers contribute part of the gift, why should they not have a say in which charity receives it?<\/p>\n<p>In Britain, the total cost to the state of the various tax breaks to donors in 2012 was <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/moneyweek.com\/17431\/the-trouble-with-charities-59520\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">estimated by the Treasury at \u00a33.64bn<\/a>. Tax exemptions for charities have existed in the UK since income tax was introduced in 1799, though charities had been largely exempt from certain taxes since the Elizabethan age. Indeed, British tax relief is still largely confined to the categories of charity set out in the 1601 Charitable Uses Act, which lists four categories of charity: relief of poverty, advancement of education, promotion of religion, and \u201cother purposes beneficial to the community\u201d. There are even fewer limitations on bodies wishing to become tax-exempt charities in the US, beyond a requirement not to engage in party politics.<\/p>\n<p>Both countries offer additional incentives where donations are made to endow a charitable foundation. This enables a philanthropist to escape liability for tax on the donation, yet also retain control over how the money is spent, within the constraints of charity law. The effect of this is often to give the wealthy control in matters that would otherwise be determined by the state.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the priorities of plutocracy, rule by the rich, and democracy, rule by the people, often differ. The personal choices of the rich do not closely match the spending choices of democratically elected governments. A <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu\/~jnd260\/cab\/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">major research study<\/a> from 2013 revealed that the richest 1% of Americans are considerably more rightwing than the public as a whole on issues of taxation, economic regulation and especially welfare programmes for the poor. Many of the richest 0.1% \u2013 individuals worth more than $40m \u2013 want to cut social security and healthcare. They are less supportive of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/news\/2018\/apr\/13\/how-much-is-an-hour-worth-the-war-over-the-minimum-wage\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">a minimum wage<\/a> than the rest of the population. They favour decreased government regulation of big corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wall Street and the City of London.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere is good reason to be concerned about the impact on democracy if these individuals are exerting influence through their philanthropy,\u201d wrote Benjamin Page, the lead academic on the study. The disproportionate influence of the mega-wealthy may explain, it concluded, why certain public policies appear to deviate from what the majority of citizens want the government to do. The choices made by philanthropists tend to reinforce social inequalities rather than reduce them.<\/p>\n<p>There is therefore a strong argument that the money donated by philanthropists might be put to better use if it were collected as taxes and spent according to the priorities of a democratically elected government. In which case, should the state be giving tax relief to philanthropists at all?<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"drop-cap\"><span class=\"drop-cap__inner\">T<\/span><\/span>he case for tax reform \u2013 to abolish these subsidies entirely, or ensure the rich can claim no more than basic tax payers can \u2013 has been made from both the right and the left. Tax breaks distort market choices, argues a prominent libertarian, Daniel Mitchell, of the Cato Institute, a thinktank funded by the conservative philanthropist Charles Koch. At the other end of the political spectrum, Prof Fran Quigley, a human rights lawyer at Indiana University, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commonwealmagazine.org\/limits-philanthropy\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">argues that<\/a> charitable tax deductions should be ended \u2013 to free up billions of dollars for increased public spending on \u201cfood stamps, unemployment compensation and housing assistance\u201d. But they should also end because they bolster the morally dubious illusion that charity \u201cconstitutes an effective and adequate response to hunger, homelessness, and illness\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Yet attempts by politicians to limit the amount of tax relief \u2013 let alone abolish it entirely \u2013 have met with public disapproval ever since William Gladstone tried to cut it in 1863. The same thing happened when the British government tried to address the issue in 2012. When chancellor George Osborne tried to limit the amount of tax relief the rich could claim on their giving, he provoked a mass outcry from philanthropists, the press and from charities. Similar attempts at reform by President Barack Obama in the US met the same fate.<\/p>\n<p>An alternative solution might be to impose restrictions on the kind of causes for which tax exemptions can be claimed. At the last election, the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn floated the idea of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/education\/2019\/sep\/22\/labour-delegates-vote-in-favour-of-abolishing-private-schools\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">removing charitable status<\/a> from fee-paying schools. Others go further. \u201cDonations to college football teams, opera companies and rare-bird sanctuaries are eligible for the same tax deduction as a donation to a homeless shelter,\u201d complains Quigley. One of the most thoughtful contemporary defenders of philanthropy, Prof Rob Reich, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University, who has described philanthropy as \u201ca form of power that is largely unaccountable, un-transparent, donor-directed, protected in perpetuity and lavishly tax advantaged\u201d, sees the answer in restricting tax relief to a hierarchy of approved causes.<\/p>\n<p>But who decides that hierarchy? The problem comes in finding a mechanism that would better align charitable giving with generally agreed conceptions of the common good. Of course, it could be left to the state. But as Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, told me: \u201cThat\u2019s giving the state a dangerously high level of discretion. The more the state takes on a role of moral scrutiny, the more I worry \u2026 and the history of the last 100 years ought to tell us that a hyper-activist state with lots of moral convictions is pretty bad for everybody.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Others have seen the solution as simply increasing taxes on the mega-rich. When the Dutch economic historian Rutger Bregman <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/business\/video\/2019\/jan\/30\/this-is-not-rocket-science-rutger-bregman-tells-davos-to-talk-about-tax-video\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">was asked at Davos in 2019<\/a> how the world could prevent a social backlash rising from the growth of inequality, he replied: \u201cThe answer is very simple. Just stop talking about philanthropy. And start talking about taxes \u2026 Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit, in my opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The idea of greater taxes on the rich is gaining purchase politically all over the world. During the Democratic party presidential primaries, several candidates set out proposals for raising taxes on the assets or income of the super-rich. The growing economic populism across Europe and in the US will increase that pressure. So will the need to increase public revenue to meet the cost of the coronavirus crisis.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"img-3\" class=\"element element-image img--landscape element--showcase fig--narrow-caption fig--has-shares \" data-component=\"image\" data-media-id=\"8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\">\n<div class=\"u-responsive-ratio\"><picture><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=880&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=0f6083cfb06ace7094aa8a216e7999ef 1760w\" media=\"(min-width: 1300px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 1300px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"880px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=880&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=27fdb0bb42bc930d023e23ed1b884e5a 880w\" media=\"(min-width: 1300px)\" sizes=\"880px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=800&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=36971eddc8b7c39c46c535ef1e22f58a 1600w\" media=\"(min-width: 1140px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 1140px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"800px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=800&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=6914049e2565453c32f3c721163ab729 800w\" media=\"(min-width: 1140px)\" sizes=\"800px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=640&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=ae85b5cb35d38d10ac2d96441efd1c4b 1280w\" media=\"(min-width: 980px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 980px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"640px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=640&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=fa5c6debe1aa0bf24c907fe14657c807 640w\" media=\"(min-width: 980px)\" sizes=\"640px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=620&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=5e4b622cef5ee036487384b430dae56f 1240w\" media=\"(min-width: 660px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 660px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"620px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=620&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=656c0671d1286f5d8cb174f0efbfd96f 620w\" media=\"(min-width: 660px)\" sizes=\"620px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=605&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=06daa47396ef8621ded3b791e52255b7 1210w\" media=\"(min-width: 480px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 480px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"605px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=605&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=a2884f18dca13c78c076e7dad03b1646 605w\" media=\"(min-width: 480px)\" sizes=\"605px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=445&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=3335952239d356f55d8817622d1b2bb5 890w\" media=\"(min-width: 0px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 0px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"445px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=445&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=78084a518fa5c6eb6077a8ccf00081eb 445w\" media=\"(min-width: 0px)\" sizes=\"445px\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"gu-image aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\/0_0_1864_1334\/master\/1864.jpg?width=300&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=f5efe9352cbb24dcf17554947e41d2d4\" alt=\"From left: Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett in New York in 2006.\" \/> <\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<figure id=\"img-3\" class=\"element element-image img--landscape element--showcase fig--narrow-caption fig--has-shares \" data-component=\"image\" data-media-id=\"8bab20ad2a88083932e757156034ade16a81b1c5\"><figcaption class=\"caption caption--img caption caption--img\"><strong>From left: Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett in New York in 2006. Photograph: Nicholas Roberts\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>A number of prominent philanthropists, including <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/business\/warrenbuffett\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\"  data-link-name=\"auto-linked-tag\" data-component=\"auto-linked-tag\">Warren Buffett<\/a> and Bill Gates, have publicly backed the idea. \u201cI\u2019ve paid more taxes than any individual ever, and gladly so. I should pay more,\u201d Gates has said. Buffett says \u201csociety is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I\u2019ve earned\u201d, so he has an obligation to give back to society. Another rich entrepreneur, Martin Rothenberg, founder of Syracuse Language Systems, spells out how public investment makes private fortunes possible. \u201cMy wealth is not only a product of my own hard work. It also resulted from a strong economy and lots of public investment, both in others and in me,\u201d he said. The state had given him a good education. There were free libraries and museums for him to use. The government had provided a graduate scholarship. And while teaching at university he was supported by numerous research grants. All of this provided the foundation on which he built the company that made him rich.<\/p>\n<p>All of this undermines the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. Indeed, some overtly acknowledge the existence of this social contract. In the UK, Julian Richer, founder of the hi-fi chain Richer Sounds, transferred 60% of the ownership of his \u00a39m company to his employees in a partnership trust in 2019. Asked why he had made this decision, he replied that the staff had demonstrated loyalty over four decades, so he was now \u201c<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/business\/2019\/may\/18\/richer-sounds-boss-julian-richer-has-no-regrets\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">doing the right thing<\/a>\u201d because that way \u201cI sleep better at night.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"drop-cap\"><span class=\"drop-cap__inner\">T<\/span><\/span>he growth in philanthropy in recent decades has failed to curb the growth in social and economic inequality. \u201cWe should expect inequality to decrease somewhat as philanthropy increases \u2026 It has not,\u201d writes Kevin Laskowski, a field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Indeed, as Albert Ruesga, president and CEO of the Greater New Orleans Foundation, has noted, \u201cthe collective actions of 90,000+ foundations \u2026 after decades of work \u2026 have failed to alter the most basic conditions of the poor in the US.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure id=\"img-4\" class=\"element element-image img--portrait element--supporting fig--narrow-caption fig--has-shares \" data-component=\"image\" data-media-id=\"95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\">\n<div class=\"u-responsive-ratio\"><picture><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=380&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=71b41b7eb71c20f04d4c94102dffac21 760w\" media=\"(min-width: 1300px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 1300px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"380px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=380&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=806caddc57dce92cb2ad186f42a9fdb6 380w\" media=\"(min-width: 1300px)\" sizes=\"380px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=300&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=69c4e79cc9e8b8d2f8e025e4d5eeefc5 600w\" media=\"(min-width: 980px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 980px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"300px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=300&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=d72987c10e6733a619f4c7d86ace6c22 300w\" media=\"(min-width: 980px)\" sizes=\"300px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=620&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=43d3ea8f4da967d4450dfd903abdee39 1240w\" media=\"(min-width: 660px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 660px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"620px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=620&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=94ed73812f1f25f381024d4b417825c4 620w\" media=\"(min-width: 660px)\" sizes=\"620px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=605&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=51b2fc4396d282dc9a8adb983f7b242d 1210w\" media=\"(min-width: 480px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 480px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"605px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=605&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=ba967ab4cb6e0f7885a67c357407d2e3 605w\" media=\"(min-width: 480px)\" sizes=\"605px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=445&amp;quality=45&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;dpr=2&amp;s=4677fd52d515aaebf8cf6103d2b1d5b1 890w\" media=\"(min-width: 0px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.25), (min-width: 0px) and (min-resolution: 120dpi)\" sizes=\"445px\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=445&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=6b6c5d78a5fac21b753b7a35aeea0788 445w\" media=\"(min-width: 0px)\" sizes=\"445px\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"gu-image aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/i.guim.co.uk\/img\/media\/95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\/0_346_2248_2807\/master\/2248.jpg?width=300&amp;quality=85&amp;auto=format&amp;fit=max&amp;s=d72987c10e6733a619f4c7d86ace6c22\" alt=\"Steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie.\" \/> <\/picture><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<figure id=\"img-4\" class=\"element element-image img--portrait element--supporting fig--narrow-caption fig--has-shares \" data-component=\"image\" data-media-id=\"95bd360f2b284c6964f50b29091f70c937311474\"><figcaption class=\"caption caption--img caption caption--img\"><strong>Steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. Photograph: PA<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Why? The answer lies in the template that was established by the men who transformed modern philanthropy through the sheer scale of their giving in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For all their munificence, the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie and the great industrial philanthropists of that era were notable \u2013 even in their own day \u2013 for avoiding the whole question of economic justice. Then, as now, a huge percentage of wealth was in the hands of a tiny few, almost completely untrammelled by tax and regulation. Carnegie and his fellows, their critics said, neglected the great ethical question of the day, which centred on \u201cthe distribution rather than the redistribution of wealth\u201d. Carnegie, then the richest man in the world, was criticised in his day for distributing his unprecedented largesse because his fortune was built on ruthless tactics such as cutting the wages of his steel-workers. Carnegie\u2019s greatest contemporary critic, William Jewett Tucker, concluded there is \u201cno greater mistake \u2026 than that of trying to make charity do the work of justice\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Carnegie built a network of nearly 3,000 libraries and other institutions to help the poor elevate their aspirations, but social justice was entirely absent from his agenda. More than that, he and his fellow \u201crobber baron philanthropists\u201d faced questions on the source of the money with which they were so generous \u2013 for it had been accumulated through business methods of a new ruthlessness. Like many of today\u2019s tech titans, they amassed their vast fortunes through a relentless pursuit of monopolies. Teddy Roosevelt\u2019s judgement on John D Rockefeller was that \u201cno amount of charity in spending such fortunes can compensate in any way for the misconduct in acquiring them\u201d. It is an insight that has found renewed traction in our times \u2013 as was shown by the ostracism of the <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2019\/dec\/17\/purdue-payments-to-sackler-family-surged-after-oxycontin-fine\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">Sackler family<\/a> as leading international art philanthropists in 2019, and the boycotting of BP\u2019s sponsorship by cultural leaders <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rsc.org.uk\/news\/we-are-to-conclude-our-partnership-with-bp\" class=\"u-underline in-body-link--immersive\" title=\"\"  data-link-name=\"in body link\">including<\/a> the Royal Shakespeare Company. Roosevelt\u2019s judgment on reputation-laundering through philanthropy is gaining new currency.<\/p>\n<p>Philanthropy can be compatible with justice. But it requires a conscious effort on behalf of philanthropists to make it so. The default inclines in the opposite direction. Reinhold Niebuhr, in his 1932 book Moral Man and Immoral Society, suggests why: \u201cPhilanthropy combines genuine pity with the display of power [which] explains why the powerful are more inclined to be generous than to grant social justice.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"drop-cap\"><span class=\"drop-cap__inner\">H<\/span><\/span>ow can philanthropists break away from this default position? By nurturing the plurality of voices that are essential to hold both government and the free market to account. Philanthropy can even act as an agent of resistance, the American historian of philanthropy Benjamin Soskis suggested, immediately after the election of Donald Trump. \u201cThe fundamental liberal values, those of tolerance and respect for others, of decency, charity, and moderation, have been enfeebled in our public life,\u201d Soskis said. \u201cPhilanthropy must be a place in which those values are preserved, defended, and championed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Philanthropy can recover a genuine sense of altruism only by understanding that it cannot do the job of either government or business. For it belongs not to the political or commercial realm, but to civil society and the world of social institutions that mediate between individuals, the market and the state. It is true that philanthropy can weaken elected governments, especially in the developing world, by bypassing national systems or declining to nurture them. And it can favour causes that only reflect the interests of the wealthy. But where philanthropists support community organisations, parent-teacher associations, co-operatives, faith groups, environmentalists or human rights activists \u2013 or where they give directly to charities that address inequality and specialise in advocacy for disadvantaged groups \u2013 they can help empower ordinary people to challenge authoritarian or overweening governments. In those circumstances, philanthropy can strengthen rather than weaken democracy.<\/p>\n<p>But to do this, philanthropists need to be cannier about their analysis and tactics. At present, most philanthropists with concerns about disadvantage tend to focus on alleviating its symptoms rather than addressing its causes. They fund projects to feed the hungry, create jobs, build housing and improve services. But all that good work can be wiped out by public spending cuts, predatory lending or exploitative low levels of pay.<\/p>\n<p>And there is a deeper problem. When it comes to addressing inequality, a well intentioned philanthropist might finance educational bursaries for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, or fund training schemes to equip low-paid workers for better jobs. That allows a few people to exit bad circumstances, but it leaves countless others stuck in under-performing schools or low-paid insecure work at the bottom of the labour market. Very few concerned philanthropists think of financing research or advocacy to address why so many schools are poor or so many jobs are exploitative. Such an approach, says David Callahan of Inside Philanthropy, is like \u201cnurturing saplings while the forest is being cleared\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>By contrast, conservative philanthropists have, in the past two decades, operated at a different level. Their agenda has been to change public debate so that it is more accommodating of their neoliberal worldview, which opposes the regulation of finance, improvements in the minimum wage, checks on polluting industries and the establishment of universal healthcare. They fund climate change-denying academics, support free-market thinktanks, strike alliances with conservative religious groups, create populist TV and radio stations, and set up \u201centerprise institutes\u201d inside universities, which allows them, not the universities, to select the academics.<\/p>\n<p>Research by Callahan reveals that more liberal-minded philanthropists have never understood the importance of cultivating ideas to influence key public policy debates in the way conservatives have.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"element element-rich-link element--thumbnail element-rich-link--upgraded\" data-component=\"rich-link\" data-link-name=\"rich-link-1 | 1\">\n<div class=\"rich-link tone-feature--item rich-link--pillar-news\">\n<div class=\"rich-link__container\">\n<div class=\"rich-link__image-container u-responsive-ratio\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"rich-link__header\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/aside>\n<p>Only a few top philanthropic foundations \u2013 such as Ford, Kellogg and George Soros\u2019 Open Society Foundations \u2013 give grants to groups working to empower the poor and disadvantaged in such areas. Most philanthropists see them as too political. Many of the new generation of big givers come out of a highly entrepreneurial business world, and are disinclined to back groups that challenge how capitalism operates. They are reluctant to back groups lobbying to promote the empowerment of the disadvantaged people whom these same philanthropists declare they intend to assist. They tend not to fund initiatives to change tax and fiscal policies that are tilted in favour of the wealthy, or to strengthen regulatory oversight of the financial industry, or to change corporate culture to favour greater sharing of the fruits of prosperity. They rarely think of investing in the media, legal and academic networks of key opinion-formers in order to shift social and corporate culture and redress the influence of conservative philanthropy.<\/p>\n<p>Rightwing philanthropists have, for more than two decades, understood the need to work for social and political change. Mainstream philanthropists now need to awaken to this reality. Philanthropy need not be incompatible with democracy, but it takes work to ensure that is the case.<\/p>\n<p>__________________________________________<\/p>\n<p><em>This is an edited extract from <\/em>Philanthropy\u2013from Aristotle to Zuckerberg<em> by Paul Vallely, published by Bloomsbury on 17 September.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em><span class=\"bullet\">\u2022<\/span> This article was amended on 9 September 2020 to clarify that other forms of ID apart from a driving licence can be used to vote. It was further amended on 10 September 2020. An earlier version said a quote warning about the growing influence of rich donors had come from the UN general assembly; it has now been correctly attributed to the Global Policy Forum.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>Paul Vallely is author of<\/em> Pope Francis: Untying the Knots\u2013The Struggle for the Soul of Catholicism.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2020\/sep\/08\/how-philanthropy-benefits-the-super-rich?utm_term=7e402671572079bccb1acdf8936788e8&amp;utm_campaign=TheLongRead&amp;utm_source=esp&amp;utm_medium=Email&amp;CMP=longread_email\" >Go to Original &#8211; theguardian.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>8  Sep 2020 &#8211; There are more philanthropists than ever before. Each year they give tens of billions to charitable causes. So how come inequality keeps rising?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":168671,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[958,550,555,2157,287,1781,1213],"class_list":["post-168670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis","tag-control","tag-corruption","tag-elites","tag-philanthropy","tag-power","tag-soft-power","tag-super-rich"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168670","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168670\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/168671"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}