Like most everything else in China’s economy, philanthropy here is in a boom period, fueled by phalanxes of newly minted billionaires and foundations, encouraged by an army of professional advisers on charity and, increasingly, sanctioned by the government.
Which makes the case of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who will come to Beijing this week to share their thoughts on philanthropy with some of China’s wealthiest people, all the more curious.
Buffett and Gates, the Rockefeller and Carnegie of this age, announced plans last month to invite about 50 of China’s superrich to discuss their concept of philanthropy, which includes enlisting the world’s wealthiest people to give away at least half their fortunes.
Things appeared to be going swimmingly until early this month, when the Chinese news media quoted a Beijing official of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as saying that “a small number of people” had declined to come and that others had asked whether they would be pushed for donations.
Last week, Gates and Buffett issued a letter stating that they were not coming to China “to pressure people to give,” but to listen.
“China’s circumstances are unique, and so its approach to philanthropy will be as well,” they wrote.
Except for denying a report from Xinhua, the state-run news agency, that only two tycoons had accepted the invitation, the organizers of the event have largely fallen silent.
However, the Chinese are unlikely to stop talking soon. In a nation where explosive growth has opened a yawning gap between rich and poor, reports that Chinese billionaires might stiff-arm the invitation have spawned a sort of national Rorschach test of Chinese generosity, not to mention attitudes toward the rich.
“Are Chinese rich scared to be charitable?” asked the Global Times, the English-language newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Not at all; “This is the Americans’ conspiracy,” wrote one of 2,000 people who posted comments on the controversy on Sina.com, a major Internet portal. Academics grumbled about efforts to impose Western philanthropic values on Chinese tradition.
Actually, however, Chinese philanthropic tradition was being upended well before the Gates-Buffett dinner was even conceived. In barely a decade, the Chinese economy has created at least 117 billionaires, according to a Forbes magazine ranking, and hundreds of thousands of millionaires by the estimate of Hurun Report, a magazine based in Shanghai whose target audience is the rich. Only the US has more billionaires.
While China’s reported philanthropic donations are now comparatively tiny — about US$8 billion last year, the government says, compared with US$308 billion in the US in 2008 — changes in China’s economic structure and in government policies make that figure almost destined to rise quickly. And, in contrast to the past, riches of today are starting to flow to social and charitable causes.
“The Chinese have been very generous for a long period of time,” Rupert Hoogewerf, who publishes Hurun Report, said by telephone. “The difference has been that they do it between families and don’t publicize it. What we’re seeing now is a new era of transparency.”
Translucency might be a better term. More than a few fortunes have been built on corruption and their owners stay in the shadows. The China Reform Foundation, an economic research group based in Beijing, estimated last month that about US$870 billion in corrupt “gray money” was being hidden by the wealthiest 10 percent of China’s population.
Huang Guangyu (黃光裕), who built an appliance shop into a fortune valued at US$2.7 billion to US$6.3 billion, was singled out by Hurun Report in 2007 as an especially miserly donor. Today he is in prison, convicted of stock fraud and insider trading.
A Global Times article this month stated that in the last decade, 17 members of an annual list of China’s 50 richest people had been convicted of economic crimes.
Ordinary Chinese, steeped in petty government corruption, are often bitterly cynical toward the rich.
“Of course they’ll decline the invitation,” one wrote of the invited billionaires on the Sina.com postings board. “None of their money is clean!”
Yet a growing number of China’s corporate titans are open both about their wealth and about giving it away. The leading example is Yu Pengnian (余彭年), an 88-year-old real estate baron who gave the last of his US$1.3 billion fortune in April to a foundation he created to fund scholarships for poor Chinese students. The latest is Chen Guangbiao (陳光標), 42, a Jiangsu Province recycling-company owner who has taken the Gates-Buffett pledge to give away his US$440 million fortune when he dies.
“Wealth is not something that comes to you when you are born,” he said in an interview two weeks ago. “It’s like water. If you have only a cup, you keep it to yourself. If you have a barrel, you share it with your family. And if you have a river, you share it with everyone.”
This is a new phenomenon and not only because the money is new. The CCP claims to represent the downtrodden and has been reluctant to turn to the private sector to address problems of poverty and disease.
However, since the outpouring of support for victims of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, the government now seems to be edging toward a more accommodating attitude about private philanthropy. It offers corporations a tax break of up to 12 percent for charitable gifts, rising to 30 percent for individuals.
This year, a re-registration drive has certified more than 1,000 nonprofit groups as able to accept tax-deductible donations. Government officials have also said that they plan to enact the nation’s first charity law, with rules that clearly define what a charity is and how it must operate, by late next year.
“This is wonderful news,” said Liu Youping (劉佑平), the former chief editor of the state-run newspaper China Philanthropy Times.
However, whether revised rules on charities and nonprofit groups generally will broaden or restrict philanthropic work is unclear, said Jia Xijin (賈西津), who directs the NGO Research Center at Tsinghua University in Beijing. While the government has slowly given new leeway to some charitable groups, especially those that provide social services, it keeps a tighter rein on groups that advocate policy changes or raise money on their own.
The government’s concern is that “most public fundraising organizations need some social cause, and if you organize people,” she said, “that means the organization represents some social force.”
For Chen, the best way to encourage philanthropy by the select group invited to dine with Buffett and Gates is to publicize the names of people who decline to attend.
“I’ll help you bash them in the media,” he said. “We can’t be misers.”
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US