Today’s Carnegies? [Was “More money for karmaceuticals”]

Posted on by

Today’s business news had me thinking of two things: Andrew Carnegie and whether there are any significant brown philanthropists.

Carnegie was a self-made man who went from rags to riches, creating a steel empire which made him the wealthiest hombre alive. Three men in today’s paper might be seen as present day Carnegies — Laxmi Mittal, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet — the three richest men around. Laxmi Mittal is the most literal aspirant to the title since Arcelor-Mittal will soon be the largest steel company in the world. However, the other two capture what is to me Carnegie’s best attribute, his philanthropy.

Just as Carnegie gave away 90% of his fortune [he built a university, several thousand libraries around the world, and did various other good works], Warren Buffet announced that he will be giving away 85% of his wealth with most of it going to more than double the endowment of the Gates Foundation, now the largest charitable foundation in history.

Are rich brown people simply more selfish than rich white ones?Compare Buffet and Gates to Mittal, the next richest man in the world. Mittal is famous for his personal spending. He owns the world’s most expensive house, which he purchased for $128 million. He recently spent more than $55 million dollars on his daughter’s wedding. But his charitable giving rarely (never?) makes the news, and is not in the same league as either his personal consumption or the donations of his “peers”.

The question is, why not? Mittal competes on every level with his white counterparts except that of his charitable giving. Is this a desi thing? Are brown philanthropists as generous as white ones? Who are the major brown philanthropists anyway?

Why do philanthropists give away their money? Some do it out of a sense of social or religious obligation. But I suspect their deepest motivations are the same as those which led them to amass the money in the first place – a desire to change the world and leave behind a significant legacy.

The Gates Foundation is currently one of the most important forces in Third World public health. It already accounts for 1/6th of world spending to eradicate polio and that was before doubling in size. With the addition of the Buffet money, the foundation will be giving away between two and three billion dollars a year, spending much of it on research into the treatment and eradication of diseases that afflict the poor.

Many countries are currently caught in a catch-22: poor health keeps poor countries poor (For example, Sachs estimates that if Malaria had been eradicated 35 years ago, African GDP would be 32% higher today), but until they’re wealthier, big pharma has little interest in developing drugs to treat them. The foundation hopes to change that. They’re the major mover into things like a vaccine against malaria and innovations into “dry vaccines”, vaccines that don’t need to be refrigerated so they can reach the rural poor. If they succeed in even some of their initiatives, they will significantly transform global health and lift millions out of poverty.

Are there wealthy desis who are animated by a similar spirit, even if on a smaller scale? Or are they simply numb to poverty having grown up with it? Are rich brown people simply more selfish than rich white ones?

65 thoughts on “Today’s Carnegies? [Was “More money for karmaceuticals”]”

    1. On Mittal – it’s his money. He can spend it any way he wants. He earned it.
    2. No, rich brown people are not more selfish or less selfish than white people. It’s just that there aren’t as many of them as there are White people, and they don’t get press coverage.
    3. Charitable money tends to be squandered by the intermediaries to the recipients in (puke puke)”South Asia”.
    4. Narayana Murthy and Azim Premji are known philanthropists, but you don’t seem to be aware of them.
    5. There’s this philosophy of “Giving A Man A Fish…” which might also help to explain what keeps African countries poor. I’d rather Mittal built a bunch of Primary Schools in India and charged accordingly than gave a bunch of handouts to anybody. Or built a medical centre, and made a decent profit on it too.

  5. I’m aware of Murthy and Premji as being some of the richest people in India, but I was not aware of their charitable giving. This is precisely why I started the post by asking if there were major philanthropists out there, rather than assuming that there aren’t.

    Thanks Deepa! That is encouraging.

  6. I dont believe that rich brown people give less. It seems that they do not have a well oiled publicity machine which announces their benevolence. While I am not too aware of the desis’ generosity here in the US or outside India, there are plenty of examples in India. #3 lists a few and I am sure there are more….

  7. It’s just that there aren’t as many of them as there are White people, and they don’t get press coverage.

    I’m sure we’d hear about it if one of the richest men in India (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) decided to give away 85% of his fortune.

  8. Charitable money tends to be squandered by the intermediaries to the recipients

    Money tends to be squandered wherever it is spent, but that doesn’t stop people from making business investments in India. Both business and charitable spending require proper oversight. In any case, corruption at the level of service delivery shouldn’t prevent investments in scientific research to try to cure disease, right?

  9. Ennis, I believe this is a uniquely US phenomenon. Probably nothing to do with the rich white man. I don’t think you see this level of philanthropy in western Europe or other countries. In this respect India is around the baseline. The reasons for this might be related to the lack of a permanent upper class in the US that the aspirant newly moneyed class reach to. Sure, there a pockets of the moneyed along the coasts etc. but, since the country’s formation there has been a strong tradition of opposition to the idea of kings/nobles and hereditary strangehold that was inevitable.

  10. So rich Americans are more civic minded than rich Indians, but rich Indians are no less civic minded than rich people elsewhere?

  11. Ennis

    Thank you for raising this wonderful topic. I have been working in this area for a little while and wanted to share some findings. there are many known philanthropists in India. Tatas being among the leading ones, and recently ( in the last 10 years) a lot of the tech rich have emobarked on philanthropy to match their wealth. Ajim Premji ( The person who helped set this foundation gave up a lucrative investment banking career and has moved to public service right), Nandan Nilekani ( Akshara foundation run by his wife) Narayan Murthy ( through again organizations run by his wife Sudha Murthy, Satyam people, and many newer millionaires who all want to give and are exploring ways to make this a worthwhile process.

    A huge difference that I found in India is that people on the ground are more interested in creating self reliance, rather than give help that is one time, which is how a lot of charitable dollars are spent. The huge machinery that is US philanthroy really grew in this century, even as htere was hitory of democracy before that. Some of those conditions that prompted the growth of philanthropy in the US, exist today in the brown community. My guess is ( and I do know this first hand from my own work) that more and more people are going to see how their giving can be material or non material and create a culture of “social entreprenurship” rather than tradional “charity”

    Hence, I see the question youa sked as truly improtant.

    Are rich brown people simply more selfish than rich white ones?

    I see this more as an outcome of certain social forces which are jsut beginning to emerge in the brown community. From what I see at the ground level in philanthropic work, its an issue of mobilization, raising of funds, and the creation of awareness, in which many parts of society participate. Its not merely just the work of the rich to give money. Are there many young people who can give of their time and energy and work tirelesslessly for higher goals than their career, even if rich people gave money? maybe there are, and all it needs is organizing.

    I just set up a philanthropic organization and am finding great support on all sides. Definitely do not see resistance of lack of support anywhere. Its a matter of creating awareness, in my opinion. This wonderful blog is another such good contribution.

    Sumita

  12. So rich Americans are more civic minded than rich Indians, but rich Indians are no less civic minded than rich people elsewhere?

    Yes, rich Americans are definitely more civic minded than most other groups. Rich Indians have to get out of their historical acceptance of “misfortune” as something to overlook as caused by birth, as wealth has traditonally been inherited, not created. Only when people can first “create welath” can they then move to giving it away. Ones who have wealth from birth have to get over the fear of lising it to be able to give.

    Both things are possible, but its probably easier for those to give who know they can create welath as they know giving it away will not diminish it as they can create more.

    Sumita

  13. I don’t think they are more stingy, there are more rich white people and so we hear more about their philanthropy.

  15. I would like to add another person in the list. Amritanandmaye, also known as Amma. She not only helps people financially but also hugs them and loves them.

  16. I wouldn’t contradict that Gates foundation is biggest charitable organization, but there are more charities that goes on at ground level in India and other non-white countries, we are in a coutry where its all about selling and corporate sector, they dominate from jobs at micro level to elections and it wont be wrong to say Bush is biggest ally to the corporate sector, world’s most of the companies are based in U.S. and goverment takes keen interest in their profits whether its in U.S. or elsewhere, corporates support each other with zeal, now media is another corporate sector that has great influence on our politics, therefore if Bill foundation is depicted in media as biggest charity they have a point, me and you will never come to know how much promised donation is actually materialised, even though he might promise 2 billion, the point is who keeps the account well its microsoft, now here’s the politics, U.S. goverment can partially take credit in back door meetings with other goverments for more fundingss to get deals cleared for other corporate sector, even though local goverments may ask local charitable organization to show funds received from Gates foundation there are ways these things are manipulated, firstly there is head office that obviously has white people running the office and their own book keepers and accountants, let me give u a vague ex: Walmarts wants to open outlets in India, our goverment will refuse, U.S. goverment sends high level delegates to clear the way for Walmart, these delgates will show funds given by U.S. govt. and Gates foundation, half of which will be paid in another 15 years if dont clear Walmart we have statistics showing u will loose money and jobs, and there will be chaos, your goverment might be in jeopardy, Indian govt. panics and there u go WALMART cleared.

  17. I rewrote the post between comments 15 and 16. It has the same material, but in different words, to make my point clearer. I think all the comments should still read the same, but in case they don’t, it’s the post that has changed.

  18. Or are they simply numb to poverty having grown up with it?

    That might actually be true. I started ‘noticing’ poverty in India only after I went on a trip home after a couple of years in the US. In that sense, yes, it might be a factor.

    I also think that we are beginning to see the emergence of Indian billionaires in the last few years. It will take a while for the ‘trend’ of philanthrophy to take root, whereas there is a well-established precedent in the US.

  19. Regards to philanthrophy being an “American” trait, i tend to agree, and i think the reason for this is the way the american family dynamic works, as opposed to asian families and even european counterparts.

    South asians want to make sure that their children and thier grandchildren continue with the family name, their fortunes and their status in the social order. South Asian parents are more interested in setting up their children and making sure they are “stable” than american counterparts. Westerners tend more to live life more for themselves, and they have the concept of raising children until they are an adult age, and then letting them wonder into the world on their own, to make their own fortune and take on the world. The importance of wills, of family buisness succesions plans, of selling your 18-year old kid his first car are all foreign to South Asians.

    Relating this post back to the philanthropy point, I think americans are definetly more prone to donate to deserving causes, and to spend their money enjoying their own life and are less likely to save the money to pass along to their children.

    On another note, the amount South asians donate to religious establishments greatly surpasses the amount given to causes such as poverty and disease. In a thriving, yet class-factioned country like India, that makes no sense to me.

    vik

  21. YES…………………only thing that drives brown people to work hard and get education is only money. and only money. and every brown person knows it. simple. just sit back and think the conversations elders have in the car!

  22. Hmm. I think it’s pretty obvious that we’re going to get mired down in distinction and pointless arguing unless we acknowledge that we have no statistical data about this one way or the other.

    One point I’d like to make is that while Buffett always said he’d give away his money, he always said he wouldn’t give away most of it until he died because he felt he could grow it better than any foundation. Gates seems to have changed his mind.

    That said, I do subjectively feel that organized charitable giving/civil society is less a factor in the life of middle class and upper middle class Indians–and possibly first generation Indian Americans–than it is in equivalently wealthy and educated White and Black Americans. In my own life I’ve seen that my parents can be extrordinairly generous, but much more so on a personal level. So it might be like religion a little bit—it’s just a tad more disorganized and sub rosa than the western counterpart.

    At the higher echelons, though, I frequently wonder at the lack of a charitable component in, say, bollywood glamor publications. Pick up any fashion magazine or Vanity fair,a nd the first page will very often have a photo of some starlet lounging around at this or that benefit. I rarely see that kind of captioning in coverage of Bollywood stars. In the United States benefits are much of what social life is made of. I think in India people are much more likely to just party without “needing an excuse.” And I don’t think that’s a good thing.

  23. In my own life I’ve seen that my parents can be extrordinairly generous, but much more so on a personal level. So it might be like religion a little bit—it’s just a tad more disorganized and sub rosa than the western counterpart.

    That’s a good point.

    As far as high profile philanthrophy goes, I think the Tatas and Birlas have done much more than any of the new age entrepeneurs (or may be all of them put together). I’m amazed by the number of educational institutions that were set up by the Birlas. The Tatas can take credit for setting up Indian Institute of Science, XLRI, TIFR, TISS etc., all of them pioneering/leading institutes in their own field. I’m not sure to what extent these are still supported by the respective groups, but JRD Tata was very actively involved with them.

    High profile people aside, we should remember that organisations like CRY were founded by people who were very middle class and in fact were struggling to stay afloat themselves. There are a number of such examples, that is one that readily comes to mind.

    That said, America is definitely top of the heap here, and some of its best educational institutions are proof. It would be interesting to find out if that has ALWAYS been the case, or if it is a more recent trend (I know Carnegie is hardly recent).

  24. YES…………………only thing that drives brown people to work hard and get education is only money. and only money. and every brown person knows it. simple.

    Great analysis. Bravo!

  26. I rarely see that kind of captioning in coverage of Bollywood stars.

    That is SO not true. Bollywood stars are always shown to be involved in all kinds of charitable things. Usually like helping orphanages/kids/hospitals etc.

  27. what about wealthy 1st gen indian americans? not uberwealthy but in the top 2%. i don’t have any statistics but in my experience in seattle, they’re very generous.

  28. To put things in perspective, here is some data on international giving. Lsat year 248 billion dollars was given to charitable causes in the US. Out of that, only 3 billion was given Internationally. what that means is, most of the other money was disbursed through US based organizations as part of their “programs”

    Also, a good chunk of this money is given to “religious charities” All this is publically available data and anyone can check it out at the foundation center. Hence understanding US philanthropy neccesarily requires an undertanding of social factors that created its rise, which are many and closely linked with religious giving.

    The IRC(International Rescue committee) , for instance, the biggest and most reputable international agency, was created to help the Jews, after the second world war. It grew in scope and size slowly over time and does exceptional work in helping refugees from all ethinicities across the world, and is no more relegated to any one community.All this takes time and many years.

    There is tremendnous power of organization and community that has played out in American History and its important to understand how it came about. Rather than compare Indian/ South Asian people favorably/unfavorably to their US counterparts,( which is a very superficial level of understanding, and dare I say, a knee jerk emotional response,) it would make more sense to recognise the factors that aid the rise of public giving. And maybe make some effort to help the process a little, in some way.the biggest concern most givers have is finding good vehicles of giving, who will tilise funds judiciously, exactly the concern that Buffett had. Despite so many charties, Buffett was able to trust someone to do a better jon with his money only after Gates’ tremendous public record. this public record fo “doing” is yet to reach a critical mass as philantropic work in Indian community is still fairly fragmented.

    Indians traditionally have been fairly generous when it comes to giving to their families. As the family is the unit of any civil society, it a litle hasty to condemn this trend. Rather, the question arises, “how does one take this feeling of family and extend it those who do not share the blood line?”

    There is a growing trend to give among younger Indian people, which is yet not reflected in data. For instance, there was a fundraiser at Carnegie hall in January for the earthquake hit people in Pakistan, where the intiative of an Indian born conductor helped raise half a million dollars in one night, not a mean feat at all. Its efforts like this that require bolstering, rather than unfavorable comparisons.

    And just because we arent reading about them, its not that effort is not being made.

    Sumita

  29. those who give

    Shan Chandrasekar donated $1-million to the Royal Conservatory of Music. From a family of broadcasters, filmmakers and music producers in India, Chandrasekar launched the first over-the-air South Asian programming on CITY-TV in 1975. In 1993, the McGill grad formed ATN – the Asian Television Network.
    Prem Watsa, head of Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd., is a large — but undisclosed — donor to the ROM. The businessman, who was born Hyderabad, India, moved to London, Ont., in 1972. In the late nineties, he was dubbed the “Warren Buffett of the North.”
    Indian-born, Woodbridge, Ont.-based vegetarian-foods entrepreneur Shreyas Ajmera, president of Seenergy Foods, recently donated $5-million to the ROM.

  30. There is a stronger tradition of giving to one’s alma mater in the US, or giving to charity or supporting local opera houses as a part of showing that one has arrived…to be a Big Man or Woman in the US, you talk about how many charity boards you sit on. But being a Big Man in India has different requirements, mainly that you support your extended family and buy more property, and leave money for generations of descendents, partly, I suppose, because of greater historical income insecurity. I think the Tatas are a strong exception, they have funded research institutes, hospitals, experimental theatres and all sorts of great stuff.

  31. Do correct me if I’m wrong but my impression is that much of the philanthropic activity in the US (and I’m referring to average middle class charity here) is partly an outcome of the tax benefits that accrue from giving money away which is not available to that extent elsewhere. On a related note, the papers here in recent days have been running reports of the 19% rise (second fastest in the world after South Korea)in dollar millionaires over the previous year to 83,000.

  32. Do correct me if I’m wrong but my impression is that much of the philanthropic activity in the US (and I’m referring to average middle class charity here) is partly an outcome of the tax benefits that accrue from giving money away which is not available to that extent elsewhere.

    true. in canada philanthrophy is akin to getting goatse.cx’ed with a spiked mace. the government and the vast OCAP-ites (the Orwellian-speak Ontarian Coalition against Poverty), dont want anyone to have money – but will expect a handout all the same. It leads to a situation in which even if one wants to give money, one has little to no control over if and how it will be used. Damned if i do. Damned if I dont.

    My belief is that philanthrophy is so successful in the US because the rich can set up charitable foundations so they can exercise reasonable control over how the money will be spent. This also explains why the indian riche try to set up charitable foundations with strong familial control over the administration. The challenge with this is sustainability into the new generation.

  33. Do correct me if I’m wrong but my impression is that much of the philanthropic activity in the US (and I’m referring to average middle class charity here) is partly an outcome of the tax benefits that accrue from giving money away which is not available to that extent elsewhere.
    There is a stronger tradition of giving to one’s alma mater in the US, or giving to charity or supporting local opera houses as a part of showing that one has arrived…to be a Big Man or Woman in the US, you talk about how many charity boards you sit on.
    My belief is that philanthrophy is so successful in the US because the rich can set up charitable foundations so they can exercise reasonable control over how the money will be spent.

    I find the above statements extremely disturbing.

    70% of American households (not the Carnegies or Kennedy’s) give to charity every year. Those that give their time for charity give more in financial help then those that simply give $$. Americans gave over $1.5 billion to Tsunami relief and over $3.5 billion for Katrina relief.

    Americans give more then 3 times as much as French, 7 times as much as the Germans and 14 times as much as the Italians. However, Americans also on an average make more money then these countries.

    Even in terms of Volunteering Americans beat Europeans by leaps and bounds. There is no monetary value attached to giving time and those that do get no break of any sort. Also to imply that the middle class somehow benefits by giving in terms of a tax break is a little silly. Giving a few hundred $$ for someone making average income makes zero dent in the grand scheme of things.

    I take offense to the implication that giving to arts or collegiate institutions is somehow displaying snobbery and hence deemed worthy of being scoffed. I know plenty of average people who sit on charity boards of many organizations big and small, not to mention give to arts and cultural institutes because they believe in it’s preservation for a good future.

    Also what exactly is wrong with having control over money one is contributing especially if one is contributing millions of $$?

    To imply that Americans give for “selfish” purposes smacks of ignorance about the meaning of giving in a community. Americans have a long tradition of giving going back to it’s founding fathers and even further back to it’s first settlements in this country. Lets not try to dilute it and take away from it while trying to discuss why Indians are or aren’t generous.

  34. er..

    I find the above statements extremely disturbing.

    why are you disturbed, extremely?

    Also what exactly is wrong with having control over money one is contributing especially if one is contributing millions of $$?

    etc. etc. what is?

  35. This could be a casualty of non-statistical inference. How many ‘rich white people’ exist today? How many brown? By comparing just the top three, one cannot make general assumptions. The question to ask is, how many brown people are rich and how many are giving away what percentage of their wealth? Also, even if Buffet gives away 85% of his wealth, he still has billion of dollars left for himself! Now consider a ‘brown’ person having a personal wealth of 2 million dollars and say he decides to give away 1 mill, thats only 50%, tsk tsk.

    But then, people who have that kind of money, brown or otherwise, is due to the decisions they made in their lives and what they give is strictly beyond question by the masses who are tryin to make it big themselves. Charity cannot be measured by regular percentage theory, theres many more factors involved.

  36. Both Birlas and Ambanis are invloved in many charities, take a look at the link which I know is from 2000 but it features both Birlas and Ambanis in the list. The article may be paid so I have pasted the relevant portions.

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0703/6515254a.html

    Kumar Mangalam Birla India Aditya Birla Group 11.2 mil Projects in rural areas, mainly schools and hospitals

    Dhirubai Ambani India Reliance 10 mil Various causes including provision of drinking water in draught-prone parts of Gujarat state

  38. Sumita writes:

    Rich Indians have to get out of their historical acceptance of “misfortune” as something to overlook as caused by birth, as wealth has traditonally been inherited, not created.

    True. Events in India for the last couple of centuries have created in a mind-set that considers wealth as a static, zero-sum entity. Thankfully, this is changing for the last couple of decades.

    hairy_d: >>It leads to a situation(in Canada) in which even if one wants to give money, one has little to no control over if and how it will be used.

    I would not open my wallet in such a scenario.

    M. Nam

  40. Dont forget Dr. Kiran C Patel who gave University of South Florida the single largest gift in university history of $34.5 million . And now USF has Dr. Kiran C Patel center for Global Solutions. But this is not well known in the Desi community.

    I think the one issue that cannot be disregarded is that American companies/people have extensive PR operations that bring any charity to the world’s attention. Copious amounts of PR is a very American phenomenon and something not as obvious in other cultures where charity is taking place but no one is really drawing attention to it.

  41. Desis are definitely more charitable than White people. To substantiate this claim, all I have to do is to point to the large number of beggars in India as opposed to almost none in USA. By applying the economic maxim of “Supply and Demand” to this scenario, it will be evident that there are beggars in India because the common brown man is far more charitable than his white counterpart.

    But, this scenario brings an interesting twist when we examine the philanthropic habits of extremely rich brown people. It is well documented that the charitable sub-strata of rich societies find it “cooler” to be charitable towards poor people who are racially different from them; examples include rich white charities focusing on brown/black countries and celebrities adopting brown trophies kids. However, the rich, charitably inclined, brown person is unable to find a suitable racial opposite for fulfilling his philanthropic needs as there are very few white poor people; even these live in rich countries, unfortunately. Therefore, this leaves the potential Desi philanthropist in a state of moral dilemma and gnawing guilt. To satisfy his emotional imbalances he resorts to mainstream quick-fix remedies such as liquor and soft drugs; eventually, these Desis become unassuming victims of their own philanthropic mindsets and end up begging on the streets.

    As an aside, I always throw some coins at a random beggar every day; i like the clang the coin makes on the metal bowl and I like playing God!

  42. JOAT – my cryptic response was really a condensed, “but if i was saying the same thing as you, why are in disagreement?!!”. EOM
    For a further comparative assessment on charitable giving on both sides of the 49th parallel, of relevance here – is the article by david olive in the star.

    David Olive contrasts styles of philanthropy north and south of the 49th parallel and finds Canucks to be frugal, and in need of a big stick (or tax break) to get them to dole out the dough

    .

  43. Dont forget Dr. Kiran C Patel who gave University of South Florida the single largest gift in university history of $34.5 million . And now USF has Dr. Kiran C Patel center for Global Solutions.

    Wow. That’s the sort of thing that I was asking about.

    I think the one issue that cannot be disregarded is that American companies/people have extensive PR operations that bring any charity to the world’s attention. Copious amounts of PR is a very American phenomenon and something not as obvious in other cultures where charity is taking place but no one is really drawing attention to it.

    I’m not sure if I buy that argument. When I last visited India, I noticed that the rich had lots of PR, but it was all directed towards announcing their business or social activities. When they start giving money the way they spend it on weddings, I’m sure they’ll get equivalent levels of PR.

    In the US, often the PR comes from the recipient, not the donor. Consider the story of Oseola McCarty, an uneducated washerwoman who donated $150,000 (her entire life savings) to the University of Southern Mississippi. She didn’t need a PR machine of her own in order to get noticed.

    BTW, we should be able to test some of these claims, at least for the diaspora. There are lists of the richest people in a country, and there are starting to be lists of the biggest givers in a country. We could take a country like the UK, where there are plenty of rich desis, and see what percentage of the wealthy give large sums of money, when broken down by ethnicity. I’m not sure if the list of givers is out yet, I did a quick google for it and couldn’t find it, but it had been mentioned a few years ago as a way of giving credit to the most charitable.

  44. JOAT – my cryptic response was really a condensed, “but if i was saying the same thing as you, why are in disagreement?!!”. EOM

    Got it. The quotes I was responding to came from 3 different posts, one was yours, and the one about money wasn’t it.

    Ennis. This is definitely a topic to be further explored. Unless people personally work within a charity structure in the diaspora it’s going to be difficult to get this information together. I wish more people would see this post and share if they do know of any instances.

    Someone touched on it earlier and I can’t find the post now but is it possible that new money vs old money is something at play here? It took many generations of some of the blue blood organizations to enmass the wealth. Indians haven’t been rich that long. Does it take time for the concept of “I have money and I’m comfortable” to sink in before one chooses to give it away?

  45. Yeah, I mentioned old and new money in an earlier version of this post which included more speculation on why there might be differences in giving.

  47. 60% of all Tata companies profits are given to charitable trusts. I believe this amounts to somewhere around $200 million dollars per year. The Tatas are, however, unusual in having a formal structure of this type in place.

    Most indian giving is informal vs. insitutional and even when institutional not well documented. There is also an enormous amount of funds given to religous and semi-religous institutions. While I respect the faith that drives such giving, the lack of transparency around it means that little information is available about funds.

  49. 60% of all Tata companies profits are given to charitable trusts. I believe this amounts to somewhere around $200 million dollars per year. The Tatas are, however, unusual in having a formal structure of this type in place.

    Wow. Very impressive. I’d love to have a citation on this fact …

  50. There are certainly many Indian philanthropists – however, from what I’ve observed, the idea of organized giving as every person’s social responsibility/obligation has yet to really permeate Indian society. Here, your co-workers badger you into donating several times a year to various causes, not to mention door-to-door campaigns, phone campaigns, television campaigns, little kids with unicef boxes on Halloweeen etc. etc.

    On the other hand, what I did witness in India constantly was private, unwitnessed, disorganized charity. A man showed up at our place asking for donations for his sister’s wedding. He got something from just about everyone in the neighbourhood. A woman showed up asking for money for her husband’s cancer operation etc. The roots are there (the people on this thread saying desis are more selfish than white people are just a bunch of pathetic self-haters), but a widespread, well-organized non-profit sector, and the accompanying social mindset, is not.