![\"\"](\"\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
\nSeven years after Bill Gates<\/a> pioneered the Giving Pledge<\/a>, 171 ultra-wealthy people have vowed to give away at least half their wealth. Nandan and Rohini Nilekani<\/a> have just become the fourth signatory to the pledge from India<\/a>. The trio spoke to ET's Anand Mahadevan and Archana Rai about the different but complementary roles that private philanthropy and the government need to play to solve the problem of poverty. Edited excerpts:<\/em>
\n
\nHow will Nandan and Rohini <\/strong>signing<\/strong> the Giving Pledge<\/a> catalyse philanthropy in India<\/a>?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: It’s very exciting because they are not only a great example of generosity, they are also putting their time and energy into it. A lot of stuff they are doing is very catalytic. So, both by example and the platforms they’re building, I think they help us draw more people in.
\n
\nPhilanthropy either catches on and gets to critical mass, or it doesn’t. In the US, although we could do better, it’s pretty well developed. Not so in parts of Europe. Because of people like Nandan and Rohini, we hope to strengthen this idea in India and involve a high percentage of very successful people and then create platforms for an even broad philanthropy.
\n
\nDo you think the Indian business community has been inadequately involved in philanthropy?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: I think there’s always been a history and tradition of philanthropy. But the idea that you do it in a large scale and nearly put in your time and energy to it — I think that is on the increase.
\n
The Tata Trusts<\/a> predate American philanthropy. But, more recently, Azim Premji made this huge commitment. It was pretty dramatic and got some people to say we don’t just give a little bit of our dividends, we should think about giving off our capital. The sophistication (of philanthropy) is going up. And it’s nice for us that some of the people here are joining the Giving Pledge.
\n
\nRohini, Nandan, you’ve been deeply engaged in philanthropy for many years. Why the decision to sign the pledge now and what will it change?<\/strong>
\n
\nRohini<\/strong>: We’ve been thinking about it for a while, because we always wanted to give away a bulk of our wealth. It took me some time culturally to adjust to this that we declare it so publicly. But we could never have done it if Bill and Melinda had not created this platform.
\n
\nThey created it so elegantly. It doesn’t push people, it allows them to evolve into their ideas and create a lot of space for learning as well. I think the time is right for us now. We’re pretty much committed to doing only this. We are keen to learn and collaborate with a lot of others who have signed the Giving Pledge.
\n
\nBut what will change now that you have signed the pledge?<\/strong>
\n
\nNandan<\/strong>: We have been doing philanthropy for almost 20 years now. What’s really attractive about the Giving Pledge is the many people coming together and thinking about how to solve the world’s large problems. And that collaboration, the ability to work together, exchanging best practices, doing things together — that’s very attractive.
\n
\nWe felt that if we become a formal part of this group, then we can both learn from the other philanthropists as well as give from our learnings. So the ability to have that two-way traffic of ideas, that’s very powerful. I think that’s the real power of what they have created — the ability to share, collaborate things together. All of us are equally concerned about how we solve these big issues and none of us can do it alone. We have to do it together.
\n
\nRohini<\/strong>: And we can learn quickly what works and what doesn’t. And that’s very important. The feedback can come in faster.
\n
\nNandan<\/strong>: One reason why we feel philanthropy will go up is it needs a lot of first-generation wealth-creation. If it’s inherited wealth, then it’s difficult to give it away. And in a socialistic India, it was inherited wealth. In liberal India, there are many more people who are first-generation entrepreneurs.
\n
\nRohini<\/strong>: We can see the younger entrepreneurs very interested in what we are doing, why we are doing it. And they may not be able to give so much money now, but their commitment is there.
\n
\nBut have you experienced reluctance among Indians to make a pledge about giving away a percentage of their wealth?<\/strong>
\n
\nNandan<\/strong>: Already four in Bengaluru have signed the Giving Pledge. I think it’s a process. I mean, when Bill first came 6-7 years back, we hardly had any people in the room. Now, it’s really taken off. I think his (Bill Gates<\/a>’) efforts to be in India every year and push the needle has worked.
\n
\nRohini<\/strong>: It’s also about building confidence to be able to give so much. That also needs to exist. You must feel that you will be able to give so much. It’s not so easy to give it away either.
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: That’s one thing I underestimated. The US has so many non-profit organisations you could give to. Here, there is a supply constraint. Both in India and China, people tell me that who would be here to take money? Because there hasn’t been such a scale to give.
\n
\nPhilanthropy does have some huge challenges. It forces you to think about your death. It pushes you into a second career. You are competent in your first career and then you start this second career (philanthropy) and it doesn’t give the same feedback signals of profit and loss.
\n
\nPeople you give money to tell you that you are brilliant, but maybe you are not. You also have to tell your kids. Are you going to show them your will? It’s a tough thing and it requires a family to get to a certain point where they feel like this makes sense for them. We’re now 171 (people who have signed the Giving Pledge), which is way beyond what we thought we would ever achieve.
\n
\nBill, as Nandan was mentioning, you’ve been catalysing philanthropy in India<\/a>. Seven years after you started the pledge, four people from India have signed on. Would you consider this to be a success?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: Philanthropy has increased in India but you can’t attribute that to one person. The last thing I want to do is take credit for anyone else’s generosity. I do think getting us together helps us all be a little braver and a little more inspired. You know the economy is doing well, there are many things that have come along that help.
\n
\nGiven the needs — education, sanitation, etc — philanthropy plays this unique role of piloting innovative things. If it’s done super well, the government will take them up, and if it’s not, you try again.
\n
\nThere are some concerns that philanthropy is becoming too powerful. What are your views on that?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: As a percentage of the economy, philanthropy is a very small part. Government needs to be deciding which textbooks do we use, what policy to use for teachers, etc. But if the government is weak enough, one can imagine that philanthropy would influence that. So we all want the government to play its role very well.
\n
\nFrankly, we’re just doing pilots. These pilots will either be adopted (by the government) or they won’t be. The stuff we do in health, it’s 100% with the government. We’re not building some side-type thing. Maybe I am too close to it. But I don’t see (this happening)
\n
\nNandan<\/strong>: Obviously, philanthropists have to be careful about the trends they exert. But I see philanthropy as extreme risk capital. The good thing about philanthropy is that if you spend money on something and it doesn’t work, you can write it off. You’re not answerable to anyone, it’s your money. That’s not true of government money, that’s not true of market money.
\n
\nI think, therefore, philanthropy should go where no one else can go. It’s a place where governments can’t go, where markets can’t go, where NGOs don’t have the scale. So, I think when you view it that way, there are so many white spaces that philanthropy can make a difference for other things. So I think that’s the way to think about it.
\n
\nRohini<\/strong>: Honestly, I think philanthropy should play only a limited role. It should not be the only player. There are societies, there are markets, there’s the state. Philanthropy should enable samaj, bazaar, and sarkaar to do their role. But as Bill said, at the end of it, philanthropy is still a very, very, very, tiny piece. If we can innovate, if we can collaborate, if we can demonstrate, then I think it plays a very critical role, but a limited one.
\n
\nBut, earlier, didn’t people like Rockefeller<\/a> do a bit of the state’s <\/strong>role in<\/strong> social security, etc?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: The biggest thing he did was for the green revolution, which had a huge impact. It helped the government, but the government had to build the roads, the government had to make sure the fertiliser got there.
\n
We (Bill and Melinda Gates foundation<\/a>) are the biggest foundation (in the world). We have about $30-40 of capital for every Indian. If we tried to be the government, the money will be gone in a week.
\n
\nThere have been some voices of concern about power in the hands of philanthropists. For example, roughly 10% of the money spent by the World Health Organisation comes from your foundation. Are these concerns real?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: WHO is controlled by the World Health Assembly. We have no vote there. Most of our money (given to WHO) is for polio eradication<\/a>. You can decide if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. I could’ve bought some boats instead of giving it to polio eradication! Someone thinks I am doing that to be powerful, yeah… paralysed kids bother me. Governments should probably give more money to the WHO…
\n
\nRohini<\/strong>: There is power, but I’d like to focus on the power of intent. I think that’s also an important power to focus on especially to philanthropy. Things can go wrong and they do. But the power of intent is something we should keep in mind.
\n
\nDo you need safeguards in place to ensure philanthropy remains benign?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: The state should have progressive tax policies. You know, the US has the Estate Tax – it’s there for another three weeks at least. (India does not have an estate tax.) Philanthropy comes from whatever we get that’s separate from that. You don’t want to hurt philanthropy. Its ability to pick wild ideas is part of its strength. So you would want to be careful there.
\n
The CSR<\/a> thing the Indian government<\/a> is doing as an experiment... I don’t think there’s any guarantee that the impact per rupee spent is going to be fantastic.
\n
\nNandan<\/strong>: Historically, except for a few like Rockefeller<\/a>, a lot of philanthropy goes to universities, museums, etc. If you have lunch with a private university president, he’ll ask you to fund the school before the soup is done! But newer philanthropists actually want to solve global problems.
\n
\nThe reality is that the world has taken on very ambitious challenges, like eliminating poverty by 2030. We are talking about sustainable development goals. These are massive complex societal issues and everybody has to pitch in – government has to pitch in, markets have to pitch in, NGOs have to pitch in and philanthropists have to pitch in. So philanthropy is just a part of that mix trying to solve these big global problems.
\n
\nSome signatories of the Giving Pledge have set up their own foundations. But the urgency and efficiency with which these foundations work vary. How can collaborative initiatives like Co-Impact help?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: There’s room for collaboration. Co-Impact is exciting. You will see more of that. But it’s all voluntary. We work on sanitation. It used to be lonely. We have a lot of philanthropists (working on sanitation) now, which is exciting.
\n
\nRohini<\/strong>: There are many partnerships developing. We’re building a new culture. It requires a new culture to collaborate and it’s also a new culture of philanthropy. It’s almost becoming the new norm. You can’t be wealthy and not give.
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: A lot of things they are doing in India we want to take it to other countries that are even earlier in their development process.
\n
\nBill, you’ve been quite critical of the Indian government<\/a>, of Indian states, on their work in health and education…<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: No, no! It’s a glass half full. Everyone else seems to be saying the government can’t do anything and I was like, wait a minute! You know child morality has been cut by half in 10 years? It’s easy to get into this Indian-government-can’t-do anything mode.
\n
\nThe Indian government is truly imperfect, but amazing things have happened. We need to keep some perspective… I was surprised…people here were way more negative than I was.
\n
\nHasn’t the Indian government perhaps underachieved?<\/strong>
\n
\nBill<\/strong>: Unless they get more serious about nutrition, health, some of these economic dreams will not happen as quickly as they want. India has got a great economic future. But will it happen as soon as it should or will it happen as equitably as it should? People may not realise, but those (poor) nutrition numbers really mean kids’ brains are not developing and I really want to highlight that in a big way.
\n
\nI will say this that the government is willing to look at the nutrition figures and sanitation. How many governments talk about not having enough toilets? It’s definitely a glass half full (not half empty).\n\n<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":61719322,"title":"Apple to hunt for talent at IIT Bombay this year","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/apple-to-hunt-for-talent-at-iit-bombay-this-year\/61719322","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":61719476,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"The Indian government is truly imperfect, but amazing things have happened: Bill Gates","synopsis":"The CSR thing the Indian government is doing as an experiment... I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any guarantee that the impact per rupee spent is going to be fantastic, Bill said.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/the-indian-government-is-truly-imperfect-but-amazing-things-have-happened-bill-gates","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"ET Bureau","artdate":"2017-11-20 09:17:50","lastupd":"2017-11-20 13:40:11","breadcrumbTags":["Nandan Nilekani","Philanthropy in India","Tata Trusts","Indian Government","CSR","Melinda Gates","Polio eradication","Rockefeller","rohini nilekani","Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation","industry","Bill Gates","Giving Pledge","Interviews"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/the-indian-government-is-truly-imperfect-but-amazing-things-have-happened-bill-gates"}}" data-authors="[" "]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2017-11-20" data-index="article_1">
七年之后比尔盖茨开创了捐赠誓言171超级富豪承诺捐出至少一半的财产。南丹,罗西尼尼勒卡尼刚刚成为第四签署承诺来自印度。三向等的阿南德马哈和阿卡纳Rai不同但互补的角色私人慈善事业和政府需要发挥解决贫困的问题。编辑摘录:
南丹和罗西尼将如何 签署 的捐赠誓言催化慈善事业在印度吗?
比尔:这是非常令人兴奋的,因为他们不仅是一个很好的例子,慷慨,他们也把他们的时间和精力。很多东西他们做非常催化。因此,通过例子和平台建设,我认为他们帮助我们吸引更多的人。
慈善事业可以捕获到达临界质量,或不。在美国,虽然我们可以做得更好,非常发达。在欧洲部分地区却并非如此。因为人们喜欢南丹•罗西尼,我们希望加强在印度和涉及的非常成功的人,然后创建一个更广泛的慈善事业的平台。
你认为印度商界一直不足参与慈善事业?
比尔:我一直认为慈善事业的历史和传统。但你这样做在一个大的规模和几乎投入你的时间和精力,我认为这是在增加。
的塔塔信托之前美国的慈善事业。但是,最近,这个巨大的承诺。阿齐姆•普莱姆基很戏剧性的,有些人说我们不给一点红利,我们应该考虑给我们的资本。复杂(慈善)正在上升。对我们很好,这里的一些人是加入“捐赠誓言”。
罗西尼,南丹,你已经深深多年来从事慈善事业。为什么现在决定签署承诺会改变什么?
罗西尼:我们一直在思考这个问题,因为我们总是想放弃大部分的财富。我花了一些时间文化适应我们公开声明它。但是我们不可能做它如果比尔和梅林达没有创建这个平台。
他们创造了如此优雅。它不推人,这允许他们发展成自己的想法,为学习创造了大量的空间。我想现在时间对我们来说是正确的。我们承诺只做这个。我们热衷于学习,与很多人合作签署了捐赠誓言。
但是什么将会改变现在您已经签署了承诺?
南丹:我们一直在做慈善了近20年了。非常有吸引力的“捐赠誓言”是很多人聚在一起,思考如何解决世界的大问题。协作,合作的能力,交流最佳实践,一起做事,很有吸引力。
我们觉得如果我们成为一个正式的这个群体的一部分,那么我们既可以学习从其他慈善家以及给我们的知识。双向交流的能力的想法,这是非常强大的。我认为这是他们所创造的真正力量,分享的能力,一起合作的事情。我们所有人都同样关心我们如何解决这些大问题,没有人能独自做这件事。我们必须一起做它。
罗西尼:我们可以快速学习什么可行,什么不喜欢。这是非常重要的。反馈可以更快。
南丹:我们认为慈善事业会上升的一个原因是它需要很多第一代财富创造。如果它继承的财富,那么很难给它。在印度社会主义,这是继承财产。在印度自由,有更多的人是第一代企业家。
罗西尼:我们可以看到年轻的企业家非常感兴趣,我们在做什么,为什么我们要这样做。他们可能不能给这么多钱,但他们的承诺。
但是你有经验的印度人不愿在做出承诺赠送比例的财富吗?
南丹:四个在班加罗尔已经签署了捐赠誓言。我认为这是一个过程。我的意思是,当比尔第一次6 - 7年前,我们几乎没有任何的人在房间里。现在,它的真正起飞。我认为他(比尔盖茨”)的努力,是在印度每年,推动针工作。
罗西尼:这也是建立自信能给这么多。还需要存在。你一定觉得你能够给这么多。它不是那么容易放弃它。
比尔:这是我低估了。美国有很多非营利组织可以给。在这里,有一个供给约束。在印度和中国,人们告诉我,谁会来拿钱呢?因为没有这样的规模。
慈善事业确实有一些巨大的挑战。它迫使你思考你的死亡。它把你推到了一个第二职业。你胜任你的第一个职业,然后开始第二个职业(慈善事业),它不给反馈信号的损益。
你给钱的人告诉你,你是聪明的,但也许你不。你也必须告诉你的孩子。你要向他们展示你的会吗?这是一件困难的事情,它需要一个家庭去某个地方他们觉得这对他们而言是有意义的。我们现在171(签署“捐赠誓言”的人),这是超出我们以为我们会实现。
比尔,南丹被提及,你一直在推动慈善事业在印度。7年开始承诺后,四人从印度已经签署了。你认为这是成功的吗?
比尔:慈善事业在印度增加了但你不能对一个人的属性。我想做的最后一件事就是把别人的慷慨。我想让我们一起帮助我们勇敢一点,多一点启发。你知道经济状况良好时,很多事情已经出现,帮助。
考虑到需求,教育、卫生等——慈善事业扮演这个独特的驾驶创新的东西。如果是做得超级好,政府将采取,如果它不是,你再试一次。
有一些担心慈善变得过于强大。你的意见是什么?
比尔:经济的比例,慈善事业是一个很小的一部分。政府需要决定哪些教科书我们使用什么样的政策为教师使用,等等。但如果政府足够弱,一个人可以想象,慈善事业会影响。所以我们都希望政府能很好发挥作用。
坦率地说,我们只是做飞行员。这些飞行员将被采纳(政府)或他们不会。我们健康的东西,它与政府的100%。我们没有建立一些side-type的事情。也许我太接近了。但我不认为(这种情况发生)
南丹:显然,慈善家们必须小心他们施加的趋势。但我认为慈善事业是极端的风险资本。慈善事业的好处是,如果你把钱花在一些不工作,你可以写。你不是听命于任何人,这是你的钱。政府的钱这不是真的,这不是真的市场的钱。
因此,我认为慈善应该没人能去的地方。这是一个地方政府不能去,市场不能去的地方,非政府组织没有规模。所以,我认为当你把它这样,有很多空白,慈善事业可以为其他事情产生影响。所以我认为是思考的方式。
罗西尼:老实说,我认为慈善应该发挥有限的作用。它不应该是唯一的球员。有社会,有市场,有状态。慈善事业应该使社会、集市和sarkaar做他们的角色。但比尔说,最后,慈善事业仍然是一个非常,非常,非常小。如果我们能够创新,如果我们能合作,如果我们能证明,那么我认为它起着非常重要的作用,但有限。
但是,之前,没有人喜欢洛克菲勒一些国家的吗 的作用 社会保障等?
比尔:他做的事情,就是绿色革命,这里有一个巨大的影响。它帮助政府,但政府必须建立道路,政府必须确保化肥。
我们(比尔和梅林达•盖茨基金会)(世界上)最大的基础。我们有大约30 - 40美元的资本对于每一个印度人。如果我们试图成为政府的钱将在一周内消失。
有一些担忧的声音力量手中的慈善家。例如,大约10%的资金由世界卫生组织来自你的基础。这些问题是真的吗?
比尔:谁是由世界卫生大会。我们没有投票。我们大部分的钱(给他)根除脊髓灰质炎。你可以决定如果是好事还是坏事。我可以买了一些船而不是给它根除脊髓灰质炎!有人认为我这样做是强大的,是的…瘫痪的孩子打扰我。政府应该给他们更多的钱…
罗西尼:有权力,但我想专注于意图的力量。我认为这也是一个重要集中力量尤其是慈善事业。可能出错,他们做的事情。但意图的力量是我们应该记住的事情。
你需要安全措施以确保慈善事业仍然是良性的?
比尔:国家应该累进税政策。你知道,美国遗产税,这是另一个至少三个星期。(印度没有遗产税。)慈善事业来自无论我们分开的。你不想伤害慈善事业。它能够选择疯狂的想法是力量的一部分。所以你要小心。
的企业社会责任件事印度政府正在做一个实验…我不认为有任何保证每支出一卢比的影响将是美妙的。
南丹:从历史上看,除了少数洛克菲勒,很多慈善事业去大学,博物馆,等等。如果你与私立大学总统共进午餐,他会问你为学校做汤之前!但实际上新慈善家要解决全球问题。
事实是,世界上已经非常雄心勃勃的挑战,像在2030年消除贫困。我们谈论的是可持续发展的目标。这些大规模的复杂的社会问题和每个人都投入——政府投入,投入市场,非政府组织必须投入和慈善家投入。所以慈善事业只是其中的一部分组合试图解决这些全球问题。
一些捐赠誓言的签署国建立自己的基础。但是这些基础工作的紧迫性和效率有所不同。如何协作行动像Co-Impact帮助吗?
比尔有合作的空间。Co-Impact是令人兴奋的。你将会看到更多。但都是自愿的。我们在卫生工作。它曾经是孤独。我们有很多慈善家(卫生工作),这是激动人心的。
罗西尼:有许多伙伴关系发展。我们建立一个新的文化。它需要一个新的文化也是一种新的文化合作的慈善事业。几乎成为了新的规范。你不能富有和不给。
比尔:很多事情他们做在印度,我们想把它带到其他国家更早在他们的开发过程。
比尔,你是相当关键的印度政府印度国家,他们的工作在卫生和教育…
比尔:不,不!这是一个玻璃半满的。其他人似乎在说政府不能做任何事情,我想,等一下!你知道孩子道德已经在10年内削减一半?很容易进入这个Indian-government-can做任何模式。
印度政府确实是不完美的,但令人惊奇的事情发生了。我们需要保持一些观点…我很惊讶这里…人都比我更消极。
没有印度政府也许自尊?
比尔:除非他们得到更多重视营养,健康,这些经济的一些梦不会发生他们想要尽快。印度的经济前景很好。但它会发生就应尽可能公平应该还是会发生什么?人们可能没有意识到,但这些(贫穷)营养数字真的意味着孩子的大脑不发展和我想强调的是,在很大程度上。
我会这样说,政府愿意看看营养数据和环境卫生。许多国家的政府如何谈论没有足够的厕所吗?这绝对是一个玻璃半满的(而不是半空)。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动