Charity: how effective is giving? | The Economist (26:04)

 

 Topic : Charity: how effective is giving? | The Economist (26:04)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Word

Charity: how effective is giving? | The Economist (26:04)
charity자선[구호] 단체,자선
philanthropist독지가, 자선가
tackle(힘든 문제상황과) 씨름하다
pressing긴급한 (=urgent)
compassion연민, 동정심
put under the microscope…을 철저히 조사하다
bang for your buck본전은 뽑을 수 있을 만한 가치, (들인 돈·노력보다 큰) 효과[가치]
innovative획기적인
notion개념, 관념, 생각
outreach 봉사활동((공동체에 원조나 지원, 청소년 아웃리치는 가출 청소년에게 shelter 연계등 도와 주는것))
outreach worker봉사활동가
rough sleeper비주택거주자=non-resident
The difference between rough sleeping and homelessness: it is possible to be homeless, but not be rough sleeping. For example, someone can be homeless if they are staying in temporary accommodation, but they are not rough sleeping as they do have a proper roof over their head at night.
Urban Pathways: a New York City-based, nonprofit organization that provides housing and support to homeless and at-risk adults throughout the New York Metropolitan area.  Urban Pathways serves more than 2,000 homeless individuals a year and provides transitional, extended stay and permanent housing to chronically homeless individuals.
drop-in center청소년 회관,(원거리 통근자용의) 임시 사무실, a service agency for either the mentally ill, homeless people, teenagers, and other communities that offers a place where people can go to obtain food and other services.
Robinhood: a stock brokerage that allows customers to buy and sell U.S. stocks, options, ETFs, and cryptocurrencies with zero commission.
strategic (목적 달성을 위한) 전략상 중요한[전략적인]
operational가동[운영/운용]상의,사용[가동]할 준비가 갖춰진
if it was not for가 없다면
placement취업[거주지] 알선
safe haven안전한 곳, 피난처
new chapter새로운 장 (역사적인 이벤트 혹은 인생의 주요 사건)
turn one's life around인생 역전을 하다
hard 냉정한, 매정한
act hard몹시 굴다,못살게 굴다
cutthroat 살인자(murderer), 극악무도한 사람
step over[장애물]을 넘다, 밟고 올라서다
lay out~를 (기절하도록) 때려눕히다,   (시신을) 매장 준비를 하다
section(여러 개로 나뉜 것의 한) 부분, 부문, 구획
stunning굉장히 아름다운[멋진],깜짝 놀랄, 너무나 충격적인, 전혀 뜻밖의
stage(연극공연 등을) 개최하다[무대에 올리다]
glitzy야한, 현란한, 화려한
gala경축 행사,(자선) 행사
hedge fund헤지 펀드 (국제 증권 및 외환 시장에 투자해 단기 이익을 올리는 민간 투자 자금)
philanthropy독지[자선] 활동
address(문제·상황 등에 대해) 고심하다[다루다]
entrench(변경이 어렵도록) 단단히 자리 잡게 하다
doom불행한 운명[결말]을 맞게 하다
run somebody into the ground ~을 망가지도록 쓰다; ~을 녹초가 되도록 일을 시키다
stake지분(持分),(사업계획 등에 대한 개인적인) 이해관계[관련]
Treasury (영국·미국· 일부 다른 국가들에서) 재무부
tax break세금 우대[감세] 조치
subsidize자금을 공급하다,자금을 공급하다
inject주사하다,(액체를) 주입하다,(특성을) 더하다
common good공익=common interest
arsonist방화범
convention관습, 관례,(전문직 종사자들이나 정당 등의 대규모) 대회[협의회]
question의심하다, 의문을 갖다; 이의를 제기하다
taint(평판 등을) 더럽히다, 오염시키다, 오점을 남기다
BP: a multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, UK.
promote홍보하다,촉진[고취]하다
fossil화석
-free(연결형)…에서 풀려난, …을 면한, …이 없는
gross중대한,철저한
negligence부주의, 태만; 과실
activist(정치·사회 운동) 운동가, 활동가
prestigious명망 있는[높은], 일류의
fossil fuel화석 연료
railing 철책(울타리·그 철책 막대 중 하나)
associate결부[연관]짓다,연상하다,
present(특정한 방식으로) 보여 주다[나타내다/묘사하다]
in the middle of…의 도중에
present (사물물질이 특정 장소사물 속에) 있는, 존재하는
theatrical연극[공연]의
methane메탄
indefensible(도덕적으로 용납이 안 되므로) 변명[옹호]의 여지가 없는
guerilla theatre: (반전·반체제적인) 게릴라 연극. the dramatization of political and social issues, typically performed outdoors, e.g. in the street or a park, as a means of protest or propaganda.
shame망신시키다,창피스럽게[부끄럽게] 하다
stakeholder이해 당사자, 주주
red line레드 라인(불화·협상 시 한쪽 당사자가 양보하지 않으려는 쟁점이나 요구)
immeasurably헤아릴 수 없을 정도로
sponsorship (재정적) 후원[협찬]
austerity내핍 상태,재정긴축
sensible분별[양식] 있는, 합리적인
lock on(레이더 등이) …을 발견하여 자동 추적하다
disrupt방해하다, 지장을 주다
whitewash(불쾌한 사실들을 숨기기 위한) 눈가림하다
cleansing깨끗이 함, 정화; 죄를 씻음
appropriate적절한
overwhelmingly압도적으로, 불가항력적으로, 극도로
launder(부정한 돈을) 돈세탁을 하다
revered존경받는
storm기습[급습]하다
alleged (증거 없이) 주장된,…이라고들 말하는
opioid오피오이드 ((아편 비슷한 작용을 하는 합성 진통·마취제))
grant(정부나 단체에서 주는) 보조금
The Sackler family is an American and British family, many of whom are known for founding and owning the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma.
shame on~은 수치스러운[남부끄러운] 줄 알아야 한다
check저지, 억제
pledge (굳은) 약속, 맹세, 서약
phase out단계적으로 폐지[삭감, 철거]하다
The Sierra Club is an environmental organization in the United States and in two U.S. Territories, namely Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.
grassroots민중의, 서민의, 민중으로부터 나온
take on떠맡다, ~를 고용[채용]하다
The Koch brothers are the sons of Fred C. Koch (1900–1967), who founded Koch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Script

Today’s super-wealthy are richer than ever. And they’re giving away their billions like never before. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg promising to give away 99% of his shares of the company to charity. Philanthropists are putting record sums into tackling the world’s most pressing problems. This is an effort of love. This is an effort of compassion. And unlike the mega-donors of the past, today’s philanthropists want to see the results in their lifetimes. Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropy is a gift to this planet. But how altruistic is this new golden age of giving? Have these mega-donors become too powerful? We have created this separate and unequal system where billionaires can influence it by just buying social change. The way charities work is increasingly under the microscope.

A long-delayed report into sexual abuse by Oxfam workers in Haiti. We’re a non-violent, peaceful protest. Don’t hurt me! Hey you can’t hurt her!

Donors large and small are demanding better bang for their buck. Caroline, 100. Serena, 200

Rob, 400. This is leading to innovative new approaches to doing good which are redefining notions of altruism. $100m has been given thanks to the effective altruism.

Manhattan, New York. I’m from Urban Pathways, wanted to see if you need any services. Take a card just in case? Alright. Office is open at 12:30. Hilton Douglas is an outreach worker for Urban Pathways. a non-profit benefiting from a recent explosion in charity amongst wealthy Americans. Take a card, check it out. I’m in Monday through Friday, 12:30.

And Hilton is on a mission to tackle one of the country’s toughest problems. one rough sleeper at a time. Do you need a place to stay this evening? OK, It’s not an issue. They have a few vacancies. There are record numbers of homeless people in New York. and every day Hilton tries to help some of the worst affected. There you go sir, here’s a card. That’s the drop-in centre. You can go there at 9 o’clock.

In 2018, spending by charitable foundations reached a record $75 billion in America. The charity Hilton works for is one of 250 that are backed by New York’s largest and best-known foundation, Robin Hood. Robin Hood provides a small percentage of Urban Pathways’ total income. But the foundation also donates strategic and operational assistance.

Having the support of funders is essential. If it wasn’t for Robin Hood, I’m not sure where we’d be at, at this particular time. Put your feet under you. Urban Pathways runs outreach programmes and a drop-in centre and provides a roof for around 850 men and women each night.

It can be dangerous, man. Other people in the streets will take advantage of you.

Rufus has been on the streets for six years. I have some good news for you. I have a placement for you at the safe haven today. Today? Today. We’re gonna do it today so you can finally come off the streets. Give you a chapter, a new chapter, alright?

For long-term rough sleepers like Rufus, the charity has set up three safe havens as an alternative to city-funded, dormitory-style shelters. Alrighty brother. Start of a new beginning

Now you can put that bag down finally. Because you’ve been carrying it around for 24 hours a day. Rufus has lost contact with his family. and he is hoping his temporary home could help turn his life around.

There are a lot of cutthroat. It hurts sometimes when I see people just step over somebody when they’re just laid out on the street. I would love to get back to work, do things for myself so I can get back with my family. I miss my family.

The ultimate aim is to get Rufus and other homeless people into permanent, affordable housing. That was a gift right there. Alrighty brother, take it easy. See you out there again.

Hilton believes the Robin Hood foundation is helping his charity find a long-term solution to New York’s homelessness crisis. Let’s say if I wasn’t here, there might be 200 plus more people on the street that you might be stepping over. So Robin Hood is saving lives because I’m saving lives.

55% of the room—$5.8m. Yeah that’s my section. Stunning.

Every year Robin Hood stages America’s biggest, glitziest fund-raising gala where it raises over 60% of its annual funding in three hours. Whatever amount that you feel, whether it be $100 to house a family for one night that they otherwise would be homeless.

While the average annual donation to the foundation is $108. The gala has helped Robin Hood become renowned as the charity of choice for hedge-fund managers and bankers. Over the past 30 years, it’s raised and spent around $3 billion fighting poverty in New York.

We’ve helped hundreds of thousands of people change lives, Improve lives. Paul Tudor Jones founded Robin Hood, An investor and hedge-fund manager worth around $5 billion. He believes private philanthropy leads the state in dealing with society’s problems.

If we had a perfect world where governments were going to actually act in the best interest of the people, where they're actually going to represent and what local communities need and address those problems then know, we wouldn’t have a need for philanthropy. But that unfortunately is not the case. The innovation as it does in virtually everything in the world comes from the private sector. And then quite often is either sanctioned in or adopted by the public sector. I don’t think fighting poverty is any different.
Real altruism for most people at the Robin Hood Gala would be to stop doing business, the way they do business. Journalist Anand Giridharadas spent three years exploring the motivations of America’s wealthy philanthropists.

He has concluded that some of their business practices create the very social problems their philanthropy tries to address. What I see is a room full of people who think they are helping but are working at much greater scale to maintain and entrench a system that frankly dooms the people that they’re helping. Real altruism would actually be doing less harm not running working people into the ground through the pressure they put on the companies they take stakes in.

In the past 30 years the number of foundations in America has almost tripled. Since 1978 the proportion of overall giving that’s come from those foundations has also tripled. But the US Treasury estimates philanthropy will cost it $740 billion in lost tax revenue over the next decade. Anand claims this giving by wealthy Americans is more about tax breaks than charity. Poor people who make $20,000 a year are paying higher taxes than they otherwise would to subsidize about $50 billion dollars in tax breaks every year that we give people for donating money. You are injecting harm into the society. You are making more money and then you are going to the Robin Hood Gala to donate 1% of what you have stolen from the common good to a fraction of the people whose interests you have harmed. and you feel so proud of yourself. It’s an arsonist convention in which everybody is under the mistaken impression that they’re firefighters.

While some are questioning the motivations behind large charitable donations, others are taking action to stop what they see as tainted philanthropy. Stop promoting BP. Make this gallery fossil free. BP keeps on lying and we will not be silenced. It’s Monday night in London. BP is guilty of gross negligence. A group of activists are protesting outside, one of the city’s most prestigious art galleries. You’ve got to go, go, go. They are angry that the National Portrait Gallery is sponsored by BP, one of the world’s leading fossil-fuel companies.

Do you not think the arts organizations could do much better getting that money directly from the government? No. Have a good evening, sir.

Go away, go away please, go away

One of the group’s founders Danny Chivers has chosen the opening night of a new exhibition to chain himself to the gallery’s railings. BP gets to associate itself with this great art, gets to associate itself with these leading artists, gets to present itself as this sort of positive company that’s doing something useful in the world when in reality it’s actively lobbying, spending tens of millions of pounds every year, blocking climate laws, slowing down the growth of renewable energy, making the world a much more dangerous place for everybody. And in the middle of a climate crisis, the idea of taking money or in fact helping to promote an oil company just seems more and more indefensible.

Since 2012 these protesters have been invading spaces and performing guerrilla theatre like this protest against BP’s sponsorship of the British Museum. We are the ghosts of climate present. They call themselves BP or Not BP?

And describe themselves as a theatrical protest group of “actorvists” The methane is rising up and killing us.

What do we want? —We want that justice! What do we want? —We want that justice! Tonight’s protest is another attempt to shame a major arts institution into refusing philanthropic money from big oil. These institutions need to actually have a conversation with themselves and with their stakeholders and with their publics and with their staff about what are their values? And what are their ethical red lines? Folks just as a reminder, if you could please have your invitation and your photo ID as you come to the front please. Thank you very much.

Many of the guests don’t seem to agree with the protesters. I think the sponsorship of something like this has helped artists immeasurably over the last 30 years, has it been going?

Some feel arts institutions have little choice but to accept sponsorship money in an era of austerity. The arts have been consistently cut by the public purse. they have to generate income from other sources. and sponsorship is undoubtedly one of the sensible ways in which they can do it. We’ve got five locked on Adam, five locked on.

The gallery’s security try to prevent the protesters disrupting the night. We’re a non-violent, peaceful protest. Don’t hurt him. Hey, you can't hurt her. But BP Or Not BP? continues the protest. The group argues that for some major corporation philanthropy is primarily about whitewashing their reputations.

They’re buying a cleansing of their image. and they are doing so at a very cheap price. It is not appropriate for overwhelmingly publicly funded institutions to be laundering the images of corporations that are working .actively against the public interest.

Around the world revered arts institutions are now questioning the sources of philanthropic donations they receive. Dozens storm the Guggenheim museum to protest a donor’s alleged ties to the opioid crisis.

In 2019 the Guggenheim New York, the Tate and the National Portrait Gallery refused grants from the Sackler Foundation because the Sackler family are widely perceived to have profited from America’s opioid crisis. Shame on Sackler.

In today’s world perhaps the most effective checks on the motivations and impact of big philanthropy come from other big philanthropists. Today billionaire Michael Bloomberg announced a $500 million pledge to support efforts to phase out the nation’s remaining coal-fired plants.

Since 2011 former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg has donated over $500m to campaigns to replace coal with clean energy in the US by 2030.

I am pleased to announce that Bloomberg Philanthropies is making a pledge of $50m over the next four years to support the Sierra Club’s new grassroots Beyond Coal campaign.

But in taking on the battle against climate change, Mr Bloomberg has also taken on other billionaire philanthropists on the opposing side of the debate.

The Koch brothers are among the nation’s best-known, politically active families.

For decades oil barons Charles Koch and his late brother David have given billions of dollars to non-profit organizations in order to promote scepticism about global warming.

What I give to my foundations is all public information. The Kochs’ donations have had a huge impact on strengthening the climate-change denial lobby in America.

Their money has helped attack scientists who work in the climate-change field. Their money has helped underwrite an army of policy wonks and lawyers who poked holes in different efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. The Kochs have pulled all the levers of power with their wealth to try to stop the momentum to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.

What do we want? —Green gas. When do we want it? —Now. But Michael Bloomberg’s donations to his campaign Beyond Coal have proved an influential counterbalance. So far these have helped retire 289 coal plants more than half the countries total. Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropy is a gift to this planet. Thanks to the coal plants that we have retired through the Beyond Coal campaign, the US still has a chance of meeting. its commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement even despite Trump. It’s philanthropy that’s harnessing the will of the American people and our desire for a better world for our kids.

America has witnessed the spectacle of its most-renowned philanthropists battling it out over one of the world’s most important political issues. The story of philanthropy and climate change is the story of kind of billionaire v billionaire. It’s like watching these Greek gods throw thunderbolts at each other. The Kochs vs Bloomberg. And that’s increasingly a story about a lot of issues today that you’ll find billionaires on both sides of the issue.

It raises a fundamental question. How much political power should wealthy but unelected philanthropists wield? I think Bloomberg is doing great work. I am worried about climate change. I also think Bloomberg has way too much power for a single individual. You can cheer somebody on in their philanthropy even as you’re concerned about their power in a society which is supposed to be a democracy.

Even do-gooding, even philanthropy, even supporting non-profits, .it is still an exertion of power even when it’s good. And the whole point of modern democracies is to limit the power of private individuals over public life. That’s the whole game. That’s why we did this

And now we have created this separate and unequal system where billionaires can also influence it by just buying social change. While powerful and wealthy philanthropists are increasingly giving away their money.

Fewer people on average are giving in the developed world than two decades ago. A long-delayed report into sexual abuse by Oxfam workers in Haiti. It’s a decline that’s coincided with scandals that have rocked some of the world’s best-known charities.

You not only have taken people’s money, you have taken people’s sympathy and you have betrayed them.

Little wonder charities are now experimenting with innovative new approaches to persuade donors to part with their cash. I am really excited about tonight , I think it’s going to be great fun. In London project manager Jennifer Johnston is about to give away her money. But she doesn’t know how much, nor to whom. I’m not a billionaire. I don’t even consider myself a philanthropist really. Good evening everyone, thank you for coming this evening. Jennifer is one of 80 people attending an event organized by the Funding Network. We are looking to, we need to grow and we need to buy and get ourselves some more funding.

Charities here have to compete for donors’ bids. Wave Café’s goal is to set up a vibrant community arts café in north London. Hi everyone my name’s Sarah and I’m the founder of the Kids Network. It’s a live auction with a difference. So you put your hand up. and when I point to you, you say your name and the amount you would like to give.

Caroline, 100

I would say in about 12 minutes we’ve ratcheted up 15 grand. Charities have just a few minutes each for their pitch. Mothers and babies are dying. At an average event the Funding Network raises between £25,000 and £35,000 in about 40 minutes. We want to reduce those maternity deaths and you can help us, please. I had blown my budget already. but that is inherent when you come to events like this. Someone could come along tonight and contribute £200 but they will leave saying I was part of a group of people that raised £30,000.

It’s a dynamic model of giving. And it’s making philanthropists out of anyone with some cash to spare.

We believe we’re democratizing philanthropy. Something that we all not only can do but have a responsibility to do. And that’s what we take great pride in.

You should learn new things. and you should leave feeling empowered and inspired. There’s lots of people from different backgrounds here tonight. I think what we’ve all got in common is we want to engage in the community, in the issues that the world faces today. I feel really inspired. That is the point of the Funding Network. You come here with your small contribution to contribute to the greater good.

The Funding Network runs events across 25 countries worldwide and hopes to buck the trend in the developed world of fewer individuals giving to charity. I think it’s why it’s beholden on all of us who are working within this area to be transparent, to be open, to build trust with our donors and to look at innovative ways of engaging or re-engaging people.

With rising demand for transparency and accountability, some charities are offering potential donors a clearer incentive, results.

Kankan, Guinea, west Africa. The frontline in the fight against a disease that kills over 400,000 people worldwide every year. Koubala lost her two-year-old son to malaria last year.

But this is also the frontline in a new approach to giving that is rooted in hard economics.

Here one charity, Against Malaria Foundation is distributing mosquito nets. In Guinea they’ve handed out 4.8m nets this year alone. And they’re doing it because, by analysing data, they’ve calculated this is the most efficient way to save lives. Rather than attracting donors using marketing techniques that play on emotion, the charity relies instead on arguments based on hard data.

It’s a growing model known as “effective altruism”. Effective altruism is a movement and a philosophy that aims to use reason and evidence in order to do the most good possible.

Data is absolutely fundamental to everything we do. It critically allows us to say how many nets need to go to each household so that there is universal coverage achieved.

Donors have confidence that we’re going to do what we say we will do. So every two dollars, every dollar, really counts. Effective altruism relies on charity evaluators which search for and assess non-profits that save or improve the most lives per dollar. The charities achieving the best results are published in a league table to help donors identify which will make best use of their money. Against Malaria Foundation is consistently ranked as one of the highest for impact and accountability.

If we were going to buy a car we would look at all the different options and try to work out which is the best suited and which has best value for money. It’s bringing that same scrutiny that we bring to other economic areas into the charity sector.

In the past ten years effective altruism has contributed over $100m in donations towards Against Malaria Foundation. The charity says this has helped fund the distribution of 50m bed nets worldwide protecting 90m people and saving around 30,000 lives.

Economically when you’re ill and suffering from malaria, you can’t work, you can’t teach, you can’t farm, you really can’t function. And so it puts a burden on the economies of these countries. And it’s estimated that for every dollar spent in combating and fighting malaria through bed nets $12 is generated in GDP for that country. But effective altruism, EA, has its critics who say giving is not a science and that there is more to charity than cold hard numbers.

Critics of EA have said that it appeals maybe to logic and not emotion. We’re here at the hospital today and there are numerous young children who are suffering from severe malaria.

And you can see worried parents everywhere. I don’t see a lack of emotion in any of that at all

This scientific approach to charitable giving and work is on the rise and is assuming innovative new forms. It’s being used by some of today’s class of billionaire philanthropists.

How this plays out alongside their rising power will help to redefine the impact of altruism and how it’s perceived.