IMO both have their merits. Governments are good at solving broad, societal level problems. If they weren't, they would be overthrown and replaced. But they're

IMO both have their merits. Governments are good at solving broad, societal level problems. If they weren't, they would be overthrown and replaced. But they're remarkably inefficient at solving individual, specific problems: they can do it, but it will take 4x as long and cost 10x as much as it should. Also, government intervention is limited in scope - it's hard to be philanthropic outside your constituency. That's where philanthropists can step in. There are some problems that don't provide enough benefit to any single government to throw weight behind solving, but that require massive resources. Bill Gates' anti-malaria campaign is a good example: no country with the money to fund a malaria eradication program has significant rates of malaria.