5 ms·

> In the contemporary world, philanthropy is distinctively American. We give about four hundred and seventy billion dollars a year—more if you count donations o

> In the contemporary world, philanthropy is distinctively American. We give about four hundred and seventy billion dollars a year—more if you count donations of time, physical labor, and material. America’s total is ahead of any other country’s, even as a percentage of G.D.P. Well, this is just not true. Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%) 1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&... 2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/documents/insights/Philanthropy-and-global-economy.pdf https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu... 3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-world https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...

paisawalla 4y ago
I suspect this accounts for the discrepancy in their accounting > more if you count donations of time, physical labor and material
benpbenp 4y ago
Your global figure includes both donations and value of time donated ([2], pg.8) Your US figure ([1]) doesn't say anything about value of time donated so I'd assume it is not included. Finally, the metric where Netherlands and Switzerland come out on top in [3] is in size of philanthropic assets vs GDP. This is noteworthy for sure but is a an entirely different thing than amount of yearly donations.
- krzysiek 4y ago
  You're totally right about donations + value of time. Thank you for pointing that out. It's hard to tell if these numbers can be compared. Also [4] paints a very different picture (although it's for 2016). I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...
croon 4y ago
What would be more interesting would be comparing it after including welfare/public education/healthcare/poverty rates etc. Best case scenario would be where no charity is needed, am I wrong?
- blairharper 4y ago
  Welfare should rightly fund "survival" and "levelling the playing field" resources, but charity can offer more than that - it can offer quality of life and a sense of community/belonging. It's nice to be around other people who are going through the same things, and people who support you. So I think charity will always have a role, both financially and socially.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    Publicly funded institutions such as libraries and community centres can also offer this. There’s no reason other than political ideology why welfare cannot fund these things too. Which isn’t to say there isn’t a place for charity.
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      But of course there is a reason. A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Small-scale philanthropy thus has a key role to play here. Funding for basic educational standards and a minimal social safety net is already a huge spending commitment for even the most successful governments, and it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        > A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Why would you say that? By that logic a charitable institution has no one with a stake in it's long-term success. It's only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from donors. There's nothing about governments which makes them inherently incapable of hiring motivated staff. In my experience, government workers, be they school teachers, nurses, librarians, or community workers are often some of most highly motivated workers I have met. > it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that. It is clear if you believe that such funding is available from philanthropic sources. It's just a question of who we wish to give control of those resources to.
rmbyrro 4y ago
Maybe a good relativistic metric would be donations per capita vs. GDP per capita. Considering purchasing power parity GDP would be even better.
chaosbolt 4y ago
Substract from that how much money you made from Iraqi oil and how many houses/infrastructure you destroyed there and the result might be negative, and that's for a single country. This whole charity idea is stupid if you're a country like the US, it's like kicking someone in the balls then giving them an aspirin for the pain and bragging about how generous you are.

paisawalla 4y ago

I suspect this accounts for the discrepancy in their accounting > more if you count donations of time, physical labor and material

benpbenp 4y ago

Your global figure includes both donations and value of time donated ([2], pg.8) Your US figure ([1]) doesn't say anything about value of time donated so I'd assume it is not included. Finally, the metric where Netherlands and Switzerland come out on top in [3] is in size of philanthropic assets vs GDP. This is noteworthy for sure but is a an entirely different thing than amount of yearly donations.

krzysiek 4y ago
You're totally right about donations + value of time. Thank you for pointing that out. It's hard to tell if these numbers can be compared. Also [4] paints a very different picture (although it's for 2016). I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...

croon 4y ago

What would be more interesting would be comparing it after including welfare/public education/healthcare/poverty rates etc. Best case scenario would be where no charity is needed, am I wrong?

blairharper 4y ago
Welfare should rightly fund "survival" and "levelling the playing field" resources, but charity can offer more than that - it can offer quality of life and a sense of community/belonging. It's nice to be around other people who are going through the same things, and people who support you. So I think charity will always have a role, both financially and socially.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Publicly funded institutions such as libraries and community centres can also offer this. There’s no reason other than political ideology why welfare cannot fund these things too. Which isn’t to say there isn’t a place for charity.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    But of course there is a reason. A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Small-scale philanthropy thus has a key role to play here. Funding for basic educational standards and a minimal social safety net is already a huge spending commitment for even the most successful governments, and it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Why would you say that? By that logic a charitable institution has no one with a stake in it's long-term success. It's only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from donors. There's nothing about governments which makes them inherently incapable of hiring motivated staff. In my experience, government workers, be they school teachers, nurses, librarians, or community workers are often some of most highly motivated workers I have met. > it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that. It is clear if you believe that such funding is available from philanthropic sources. It's just a question of who we wish to give control of those resources to.

rmbyrro 4y ago

Maybe a good relativistic metric would be donations per capita vs. GDP per capita. Considering purchasing power parity GDP would be even better.

chaosbolt 4y ago

Substract from that how much money you made from Iraqi oil and how many houses/infrastructure you destroyed there and the result might be negative, and that's for a single country. This whole charity idea is stupid if you're a country like the US, it's like kicking someone in the balls then giving them an aspirin for the pain and bragging about how generous you are.