Philanthropy’s hardest challenge yet

The scale of charitable giving worldwide is staggering. According to estimates cited by the World Resources Institute for 2023, global philanthropy across individuals, foundations and non-profit organisations totalled close to 885 billion US dollars. Surveys also show that nearly two in three people globally engage in some form of charity, whether through financial donations, volunteer work or direct community support. In the United States alone, philanthropic contributions in 2024 crossed 590 billion dollars, close to an all-time high. The instinct to give remains strong, and capital for social causes is more abundant than at any other moment in history.

Yet beneath these numbers lies a persistent contradiction. For all this generosity, many of the world’s deepest challenges remain largely unchanged. Inequality remains entrenched, climate risk intensifies and public services in many countries are fatigued, underfunded or overstretched. Healthcare backlogs, education gaps and fragile local governance structures remain, despite extensive philanthropic presence. The question now confronting global philanthropy is no longer about volume, but value. If philanthropy is expanding, why are some outcomes so stubbornly static?

It is against this backdrop that Elon Musk offered an unexpectedly candid observation: giving money away effectively is harder than making it. That remark has resonated widely because Musk is not speaking from the margins of philanthropy, but from its growing centre. In 2024, his foundation reportedly disbursed nearly half a billion dollars, yet public filings show that it still holds well over 10 billion dollars in assets. Philanthropic capital has grown faster than philanthropic clarity. The problem, as Musk rightly suggests, is structural. Modern charity is asked to solve problems that are not only social, but political, institutional and generational.

Musk is hardly the first to confront the dilemma of scale versus impact. Bill Gates helped establish one of the world’s most influential private foundations, directing billions into global health, vaccines and educational reform. Azim Premji, one of India’s earliest tech pioneers, has committed over 60 per cent of his wealth to education and social development, building one of Asia’s most significant philanthropic models. Narayana Murthy has repeatedly called for ethical discipline and institutional transparency in giving. Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Foundation has developed extensive programmes in rural transformation, disaster relief and digital access to information for farming communities. These efforts mark a generational shift: philanthropy has moved from goodwill to governance, from sentiment to structure.

Yet the results do not always reflect the resources. In many societies, philanthropy ends up compensating for fragile public systems rather than helping reform them. A school can be funded by charity; a school system requires teacher training, regulatory oversight, curriculum reform and sustained financing. Philanthropy can intervene quickly, but it cannot legislate, regulate or enforce. The strongest outcomes—whether in India, 

Africa or the United States—have occurred when charity complements rather than substitutes the state. As several philanthropists have themselves noted, charity should strengthen institutions, not replace them.

It is this realisation that has driven a philosophical shift in giving. Some modern donors are asking harder questions about impact, priority and accountability. Perhaps the most structured response has come through the movement known as Effective Altruism, which argues for evidence-led philanthropy based on measurable cost-effectiveness. This has led to greater prioritisation of malaria prevention, deworming programmes, tuberculosis testing and unconditional cash transfers—interventions where data suggests each dollar has unusually high impact. The movement also encourages long-term thinking on existential risks such as artificial intelligence, pandemics and biosecurity. Its central proposition is simple: philanthropy should function more like reasoned problem-solving than like moral expression.

Yet Effective Altruism has faced criticism. It has been described as demographically narrow, detached from local realities and at times blind to ethical risk. Critics argue that data cannot substitute for community insight, cultural context or lived experience. The collapse of the FTX empire, which had links to parts of the Effective Altruism ecosystem, prompted serious questions about oversight and accountability. Nonetheless, the debate it sparked has been profoundly useful. It forced philanthropy to confront the question that Musk also poses: not merely whether money is being given, but whether it is doing what it claims to do.

That leads to the next challenge—feedback. Business relies on performance indicators, rapid iteration and incentives for improvement. Charity often relies on sentiment, annual reports and slow evaluation. If philanthropy is to evolve, measurement must become an integral part of giving, not an afterthought. The goal must be not only to distribute funds, but to understand what works, what does not and what can be scaled, redesigned or retired.

A new generation of philanthropists appears increasingly aware of this. Some are turning to community-led decision-making models, blended finance mechanisms and digital platforms that track impact at local levels. Others are beginning to incorporate exit strategies—ensuring that philanthropic projects become self-sustaining rather than permanently donor-dependent. This shift, though gradual, points toward a more credible future: philanthropy as a catalyst for capability, not simply a provider of aid.

The policy context is also evolving. In some countries, there are calls for higher minimum disbursement requirements for large foundations, along with closer scrutiny of tax privileges. Transparency and public accountability are becoming central expectations rather than optional good practice. In India, such discussions are still emerging—but as philanthropic involvement grows in education, healthcare and urban planning, so will demands for clarity and legitimacy.

Ultimately, the future of philanthropy will depend less on the size of donations and more on the strength of systems that can endure beyond them. Musk, Gates, Premji, Murthy and Ambani belong to a generation that professionalised philanthropy. The next generation must democratise it. The value of charity lies not in its permanence but in its willingness to step aside when its work is done. Its greatest role may be to help build societies capable of protecting themselves. 

Musk was right when he said that giving is hard. It should be. A society does not become stronger because charity continues forever—it becomes stronger when charity succeeds in making itself unnecessary. The most meaningful question ahead is this: does philanthropy solve problems, or simply postpone them? The future will depend on how we answer it.

The author is a policy analyst and writer focused on the intersection of technology, governance, and artificial intelligence