The 'Bill Gates problem': do billionaire philanthropists skew global health research?

Andy Stirling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00394-0

IF: 64.8

2024-02-13

Nature

Abstract:Personal priorities are often trumping real needs and skewing where charitable funding goes. Personal priorities are often trumping real needs and skewing where charitable funding goes.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Income and Geographically Constrained Generosity

Yujie Zhao,Xinyue Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12441

IF: 2.603

2022-01-01

Journal of Consumer Affairs

Abstract:How to target individuals for charitable behavior to distant others is a major challenge. This paper tests the possibility that individuals with higher income engage in more charitable behavior toward distant beneficiaries relative to individuals with lower income. A multi-method approach offers evidence for this prediction. Survey data (N = 2957) demonstrates that income is positively related to allocations of money to distant beneficiaries (foreign medical staff). Richer (vs. poorer) individuals are also more likely to volunteer to assist distant beneficiaries (Study 2, N = 397; Study 3, N = 250). Moreover, we tested this prediction with data from 66,669 respondents across 49 countries and found that those with higher income have higher global identity, which, in turn, leads to proffering more help toward distant others (Study 4).
Income Gap, Materialism, and Attitude toward the Rich in Developing Countries

Fan Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0143-9_15

2009-01-01

Abstract:The rich people are usually the target of the public’s attention. Every year Forbes’ list of the World’s richest people gets millions of clicks on the Internet. The wealthy “heroes” become as popular as movie or sport stars. Though many ordinary people admire the rich, they also do not hesitate to send out harsh critiques. In the United States, for example, Dittmar (1992) found that people hold mixed feelings toward the rich, entailing both respect and dislike. Although people may regard the rich as successful and smart, they may also see them as arrogant, presumptuous, coldhearted, greedy, and hypocritical. We thought the mixed feelings may be very common in many modernized Western societies. The freedom of speech and media portrayals of the rich may contribute to the public’s relatively less biased evaluation of the rich, because both the philanthropic, prosocial behaviors of the rich as well as the business scandals and inappropriately lavish lifestyles of the rich can be seen. As a result, it is hard for the vast majority to take an extreme evaluation of the rich elite. To the best of our knowledge, the issue of negative feelings toward the rich class has not become a serious problem in many industrialized countries.
Philanthropic Cause Prioritization

Emily Oehlsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.38.2.63

IF: 9.9439

2024-05-01

Journal of Economic Perspectives

Abstract:Many foundations decide how much and where to give based on their founders' personal precommitments to specific issues, geographies, and/or institutions. If a grantmaking organization instead wanted to select problems based on a general measure of impact per dollar spent, how should it approach this goal? What tools could it use to identify promising cause areas (climate change, education, or health, for example) or to compare grants that achieve different results? This paper focuses on an approach followed by the grantmaking organization Open Philanthropy for its “Global Health and Wellbeing” portfolio, with an emphasis on two key frameworks: equalizing marginal philanthropic returns, as well as importance, neglectedness, and tractability. It describes measurement and comparability under the first framework, and then applies the second framework to the example of reducing exposure to lead. It concludes by considering critiques and areas for improvement.

economics
The Social Construction of Global Health Priorities: An Empirical Analysis of Contagion in Bilateral Health Aid

Leonardo Baccini,Mirko Heinzel,Mathias Koenig-Archibugi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab092

2021-12-21

International Studies Quarterly

Abstract:Abstract Donors of development assistance for health typically provide funding for a range of disease focus areas, such as maternal health and child health, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other infectious diseases. But funding for each disease category does not match closely its contribution to the disability and loss of life it causes and the cost-effectiveness of interventions. We argue that peer influences in the social construction of global health priorities contribute to explaining this misalignment. Aid policy-makers are embedded in a social environment encompassing other donors, health experts, advocacy groups, and international officials. This social environment influences the conceptual and normative frameworks of decision-makers, which in turn affect their funding priorities. Aid policy-makers are especially likely to emulate decisions on funding priorities taken by peers with whom they are most closely involved in the context of expert and advocacy networks. We draw on novel data on donor connectivity through health IGOs and health INGOs and assess the argument by applying spatial regression models to health aid disbursed globally between 1990 and 2017. The analysis provides strong empirical support for our argument that the involvement in overlapping expert and advocacy networks shapes funding priorities regarding disease categories and recipient countries in health aid.

political science,international relations
Hyper-altruistic behavior vanishes with high stakes

Pablo Brañas-Garza,Diego Jorrat,Jaromír Kovářík,María C. López

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255668

IF: 3.7

2021-08-25

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Using an incentivized experiment with statistical power, this paper explores the role of stakes in charitable giving of lottery prizes, where subjects commit to donate a fraction of the prize before they learn the outcome of the lottery. We study three stake levels: 5€ ( n = 177), 100€ ( n = 168), and 1,000€ ( n = 171). Although the donations increase in absolute terms as the stakes increase, subjects decrease the donated fraction of the pie. However, people still share roughly 20% of 1,000€, an amount as high as the average monthly salary of people at the age of our subjects. The number of people sharing 50% of the pie is remarkably stable across stakes, but donating the the whole pie–the modal behavior in charity-donation experiments–disappears with stakes. Such hyper-altruistic behavior thus seems to be an artifact of the stakes typically employed in economic and psychological experiments. Our findings point out that sharing with others is a prevalent human feature, but stakes are an important determinant of sharing. Policies promoted via prosocial frames (e.g., stressing the effects of mask-wearing or social distancing on others during the Covid-19 pandemic or environmentally-friendly behaviors on future generations) may thus be miscalibrated if they disregard the stakes at play.

multidisciplinary sciences
Philanthropy's new agenda: creating value

M E Porter,M R Kramer

Abstract:During the past two decades, the number of charitable foundations in the United States has doubled while the value of their assets has increased more than 1,100%. As new wealth continues to pour into foundations, the authors take a timely look at the field and conclude that radical change is needed. First, they explain why. Compared with direct giving, foundations are strongly favored through tax preferences whose value increases in rising stock markets. As a nation, then, we make a substantial investment in foundation philanthropy that goes well beyond the original gifts of private donors. We should therefore expect foundations to achieve a social impact disproportionate to their spending. If foundations serve merely as passive conduits for giving, then they not only fall far short of their potential but also fail to meet an important societal obligation. Drawing on Porter's work on competition and strategy, the authors then present a framework for thinking systematically about how foundations create value and how the various approaches to value creation can be deployed within the context of an overarching strategy. Although many foundations talk about "strategic" giving, much current practice is at odds with strategy. Among the common problems, foundations scatter their funding too broadly, they overlook the value-creating potential of longer and closer working relationships with grantees, and they pay insufficient attention to the ultimate results of the work they fund. This article lays out a blueprint for change, challenging foundation leaders to spearhead the evolution of philanthropy from private acts of conscience into a professional field.
The GAVI Alliance and the 'Gates approach' to health system strengthening

Katerini T Storeng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2014.940362

Abstract:Lauded for getting specific health issues onto national and international agendas and for their potential to improve value for money and outcomes, public-private global health initiatives (GHIs) have come to dominate global health governance. Yet, they have also been criticised for their negative impact on country health systems. In response, disease-specific GHIs have, somewhat paradoxically, appropriated the aim of health system strengthening (HSS). This article critically analyses this development through an ethnographic case study of the GAVI Alliance, which funds vaccines in poor countries. Despite GAVI's self-proclaimed 'single-minded' focus on vaccines, HSS support is fronted as a key principle of GAVI's mission. Yet, its meaning remains unclear and contested understandings of the health systems agenda abound, reflecting competing public health ideologies and professional pressures within the global health field. Contrary to broader conceptualisations of HSS that emphasise social and political dimensions, GAVI's HSS support has become emblematic of the so-called 'Gates approach' to global health, focused on targeted technical solutions with clear, measurable outcomes. In spite of adopting rhetoric supportive of 'holistic' health systems, GHIs like GAVI have come to capture the global debate about HSS in favour of their disease-specific approach and ethos.
A spotlight on the stark imbalances of global health research

Bec Crew

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00752-y

IF: 64.8

2024-03-14

Nature

Abstract:An expansion of the Nature Index to include more than 60 medical journals has revealed the clear leaders in the field. An expansion of the Nature Index to include more than 60 medical journals has revealed the clear leaders in the field.

multidisciplinary sciences
Philanthrocapitalism as wealth management strategy: Philanthropy, inheritance and succession planning among the global elite

Jessica Sklair,Luna Glucksberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120963479

2020-10-13

The Sociological Review

Abstract:In the resurgence of interest in inheritance flows following the publication of Piketty’s work, little attention has been paid to the affective practices that ensure the success of inheritance processes as wealth moves down generations of dynastic families. This article explores these practices, drawing on research among wealth managers, philanthropy advisors, family offices and their clients, to show how philanthropy is promoted by advisors to the wealthy as a tool to support inheritance and family business succession planning. In this process, advisors draw on the philanthropic imagination to style wealthy families as custodians of both private capital and the common good, thus mirroring the narratives used by philanthrocapitalists to legitimise their wealth in the public sphere. Here, however, the discourse of philanthrocapitalism is turned inwards to the private realm of the family, to persuade younger generations to rally around the collective project of the custodianship of wealth. By bringing together research on philanthropy and inheritance, this article contributes to the growing sociological literature on elites and the global inequalities driven by their accumulation of wealth. It shows how wealth accumulation is increasingly dependent not only on the mechanics of financial markets and inheritance flows, but also on affective wealth management strategies framed around ethical notions of kinship and social responsibility.
Private Wealth, Philanthropy, and Social Development

Francis Barchi,Guosheng Deng,Chien‐Chung Huang,Carolyn Isles,Juliann H. Vikse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18765149-12341314

2016-01-01

Abstract:Growing income inequality has created excessive barriers to social mobility for the poor. Charitable giving by the wealthy can reduce the societal effects of the income gap by reinvestment in public goods such as education. We apply the cipp model to investigate the role of philanthropy in advancing educational opportunities in the United States and China, using historical and contemporary cases of individual philanthropists. The findings suggest that the cases reviewed in this study created mechanisms by which to contribute to social development in their respective countries. Government policies play a key role in philanthropic development, particularly in China. It is important to continue to foster a supportive environment for the sector to grow, which may include expanding tax incentives, emphasizing performance-based funding, and eliminating administrative barriers. In short, educational philanthropy holds great promise for reducing opportunity gaps and economic inequality, by providing the key to success for future generations.
Are industry-funded charities promoting "advocacy-led studies" or "evidence-based science"?: a case study of the International Life Sciences Institute

Sarah Steele,Gary Ruskin,Lejla Sarcevic,Martin McKee,David Stuckler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0478-6

2019-06-03

Global Health

Abstract:Background: Industry sponsorship of public health research has received increasing scrutiny, and, as a result, many multinational corporations (MNCs), such as The Coca-Cola Company and Mars Inc., have committed to transparency with regard to what they fund, and the findings of funded research. However, these MNCs often fund charities, both national and international, which then support research and promote industry-favourable policy positions to leaders. We explore whether one industry funded charity, the International Life Sciences Institute ('ILSI'), is the scientifically objective, non-lobby, internationally-credible body that it suggests it is, so as to aid the international health and scientific communities to judge ILSI's outputs. Methods: Between June 2015 and February 2018, U.S. Right to Know), a non-profit consumer and public health group, submitted five U.S. state Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to explore ILSI engagement with industry, policy makers, and/or researchers, which garnered a total of 17,163 pages for analysis. Two researchers explored these documents to assess the activities and conduct of ILSI against its purported objectives. Results: Within the received documents we identified instances of ILSI seeking to influence research, conferences, public messages, and policy, including instances of punishments for ILSI bodies failing to promote industry-favourable messaging. We identified ILSI promoting its agenda with national and international bodies to influence policy and law, causing the World Health Organization to withdraw from official relations with what it now considers a private sector entity. Conclusions: ILSI seeks to influence individuals, positions, and policy, both nationally and internationally, and its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally. Our analysis of ILSI serves as a caution to those involved in global health governance to be wary of putatively independent research groups, and to practice due diligence before relying upon their funded studies and/or engaging in relationship with such groups.
Knowledge nodes and international networks of connection: representations of private philanthropy by elite higher education institutions

Adam Warren,Morag Bell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2013.862845

2013-11-25

Abstract:This paper investigates the social and cultural geographies of large-scale individual giving in supporting the work of ‘elite’ international universities. With public funding of higher education in general decline, universities in countries of the global North are increasingly seeking funding from alternative sources, including private philanthropy. Although scholarly work has examined corporate and foundational giving to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), there has been little enquiry into how donations from wealthy individuals are represented by universities in their official literature. Publications such as annual reports, giving reports and campaign reports are used strategically by HEIs to project a global image. We examine the official literature of 50 elite HEIs located across the globe, uncovering new discourses into the cross-cultural reach of universities. We draw attention to complex social and cultural relations between HEIs and philanthropists, describing their encounters with reference to debates on personal mobilities, world-making and global and social inequalities. We conclude by highlighting the implications for theoretical work on ‘strategic philanthropy’ and on the transformative nature of HEIs as global centres of knowledge.

geography
Ethical Philanthropy in the era of Patient-Centric, Value-Based Health Care

Peter Kalina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.83.6956

2020-03-30

Archives of Business Research

Abstract:Patient-centered, value-based health care implies care that is high-quality, responsive to patient preferences, delivered safely, and at a fair cost. The future of healthcare portends changes; including less favorable payer mix, decreased reimbursement and alternate compensation models. Innovative strategies will be required to maintain excellence in care while efficiently maximizing existing capital and human resources. Successfully implementing a health care institution’s initiatives cannot be achieved entirely from within. Philanthropy must fill gaps to help support research, education and clinical missions. Strong physician – patient relationships are essential to facilitating philanthropic gifts from grateful patients. While we assume magnanimous intentions and motivations, gifts may potentially influence behavior. While VIP care for patients who donated (or believed likely to) is a successful strategy; distinctions are needed between development and clinical relationships. Philanthropy cannot affect care, which must be irrespective of wealth or position. The highest professional and ethical standards and practices must be maintained when accepting grateful patient philanthropy. Developing and promoting a sustainable philanthropic strategy begins with reviewing needs and goals to support the mission; motivated and inspired by improving outcomes. Achieving missions in health care requires dedicated philanthropic partnerships. Pursued with professionalism, thoughtfulness and integrity; philanthropy represents a vital pathway to innovatively advance patient care. Support allows donors to make an investment and express their values. Realizing the direct and lasting impact of collaboration provides rewarding benefit and meaningful recognition.
Pension and state funds dominating biomedical R&D investment: fiduciary duty and public health

Slavek Roller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0490-x

2019-11-06

Globalization and Health

Abstract:Abstract Background Who benefits from the commercial biomedical research and development (R&D)? Patients-consumers and investors-shareholders have traditionally been viewed as two distinct groups with conflicting interests: shareholders seek maximum profits, patients - maximum clinical benefit. However, what happens when patients are the shareholders? With billions of dollars of public risk capital channeled into the drug development industry, analysing the complex financial architecture and the market for corporate control is essential for understanding industry’s characteristics, such as pricing strategies or R&D priorities. Results Adding investments by governmentally-mandated retirement schemes, central and promotional banks, and sovereign wealth funds to tax-derived governmental financing shows that the majority of biomedical R&D funding is public in origin. Despite this, even in the high-income countries patients can be denied access to effective treatments due to their high cost. Since these costs are set by the drug development firms that are owned in substantial part by the retirement accounts of said patients, the complex financial architecture of biomedical R&D may be inconsistent with the objectives of the ultimate beneficiaries. Conclusions The divergence in economic and public health performance of the drug development industry is resultant from its financial underwriting by enormously expanded pension schemes, governmentally mandated to represent the interests of “captive” beneficiaries, as well as similar policymaker-designed funding flows, whose standards of transparency, accountability and representation are substantially lower than that of governments themselves. Strengthening those elements of institutional design and thus ensuring active responsible shareholding in the interest of the patients-savers is an under-utilised, but potentially high-impact opportunity for advancing public health.

public, environmental & occupational health
Bioethics, (Funding) Priorities, and the Perpetuation of Injustice

Rachel Fabi,Daniel S. Goldberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1867934

2021-01-22

The American Journal of Bioethics

Abstract:If funding allocation is an indicator of a field's priorities, then the priorities of the field of bioethics are misaligned because they perpetuate injustice. Social injustice mandates priority for the factors that drive systematic disadvantage, which tend not to be the areas supported by funding within academic bioethics. Current funding priorities violate social justice by overemphasizing technologies that aim to enhance the human condition without addressing underlying structural inequalities grounded in racism, and by deemphasizing areas of inquiry most frequently pursued by Scholars of Color. This lack of attention to upstream determinants of health in bioethics research perpetuates a gap in the resources needed to understand the experiences of communities disproportionately experiencing poor health, which is itself a form of epistemic injustice. Both social and epistemic injustices are apparent in the impact of these funding priorities on people of color, both in the public and in the bioethics community.
Celebrity and influencer philanthropy: Debating MrBeast and China

Elaine Jeffreys,Jian Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1860

2024-05-04

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing

Abstract:This article examines the philanthropy/marketing interface with reference to celebrity philanthropy, focusing on the American YouTube star, MrBeast, and the Chinese government regulation of celebrities and social media influencers. Celebrity nowadays can refer to film and music stars with international broadcast media visibility and to people who create their own fame through social media and appeals to niche markets/audiences (social media influencers). While the United States of America has historically used tax incentives to encourage elite philanthropy as a matter of individual choice, the Chinese government is regulating the cultural industries to promote and direct celebrity and influencer philanthropy towards government‐endorsed development goals. Comparing debates about MrBeast philanthropy with the operation of philanthropy in China highlights different ideas about celebrity/influencer philanthropy and the role it can play in supporting public welfare.
At the Mercy of the State: Health Philanthropy in China

Yanzhong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9960-7

2018-01-01

VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations

Abstract:Public health and healthcare issues in China have historically attracted individuals and organizations to engage the health sector. The growth of health philanthropy in post-Mao China raises questions regarding the role of the state in the development of China's health philanthropy. Through a historical overview of health philanthropy in China as well as an examination of the functions and effectiveness of health-related philanthropic actors in the contemporary era, this study has identified the state as a major factor in the development of China's health philanthropy. Indeed, even though the post-Mao reform dynamics have expanded space for health-related charity organizations, the state continues to have commanding height in health philanthropy in terms of status, funding, services, and influence. The state dominance in turn negatively affects the registration, financing, and capacity building of private foundations and NGOs in this area. Whether the state will dominate health philanthropy in the future to a large extent hinges upon how much extra space it is willing to concede in order to accommodate the dynamics in China's philanthropic sector.
The WHO Foundation in global health governance: Depoliticizing corporate philanthropy

Rob Ralston,Tracey Wagner-Rizvi,May Ci van Schalkwyk,Nason Maani,Jeff Collin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116515

Abstract:The creation of the WHO Foundation during the COVID-19 pandemic represents a significant institutional development in the politics of financing the World Health Organization (WHO). In the context of longstanding acute financial pressures, the objective of the WHO Foundation is to widen WHO's resource base by attracting philanthropic donations from the commercial sector. In placing funding decisions 'at one remove' from WHO, the stated expectation is that the WHO Foundation will act as an intermediary, insulating the WHO from potential conflicts of interest and reputational risk through a combination of strategic distance from WHO and proximity with its norms and rules of engagement with non-state actors. Yet, whether this model has translated into practice remains understudied. In this article, we focus on emerging institutional practices within the WHO Foundation, highlighting a drift from its stated governance model. Based on analysis of WHO Foundation documents, we demonstrate how due diligence and transparency practices within the Foundation have been redesigned in ways that contradict or subvert its claims to applying alignment with WHO's governance norms, notably relating to its engagement with health harming industries such as alcohol and petrochemical companies. While this situation may seem paradoxical, we argue that, in placing funding decisions 'at one remove' from the formal institutions and structures of WHO, the creation of the Foundation has served to displace this issue to a more secluded arena where drifts in practice are less exposed to political oversight and scrutiny. Focusing on the discursive aspects of this process of depoliticisation, we contend that the Foundation has strategically managed 'fictional expectations' of accountable and transparent governance in order to mitigate concerns about its mandate and functions. This assessment provides new and important insights into the depoliticizing functions of the WHO Foundation and the significant implications this may have for global health governance.
Holy grail or convenient excuse? Stakeholder perspectives on the role of health system strengthening evaluation in global health resource allocation

Veena Sriram,Natasha Palmer,Shreya Pereira,Sara Bennett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01080-6

2024-10-26

Globalization and Health

Abstract:The role of evaluation evidence in guiding health systems strengthening (HSS) investments at the global-level remains contested. A lack of rigorous impact evaluations is viewed by some as an obstacle to scaling resources. However, others suggest that power dynamics and knowledge hierarchies continue to shape perceptions of rigor and acceptability in HSS evaluations. This debate has had major implications on HSS resource allocation in global-level funding decisions. Yet, few studies have examined the relationship between HSS evaluation evidence and prioritization of HSS. In this paper, we explore the perspectives of key global health stakeholders, specifically around the nature of evidence sought regarding HSS and its potential impact on prioritization, the challenges in securing such evidence, and the drivers of intra- and inter-organizational divergences. We conducted a stakeholder analysis, drawing on 25 interviews with senior representatives of major global health organizations, and utilized inductive approaches to data analysis to develop themes.

public, environmental & occupational health
Designing research funding schemes to promote global health equity: An exploration of current practice in health systems research

Bridget Pratt,Adnan A Hyder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12136

Abstract:International research is an essential means of reducing health disparities between and within countries and should do so as a matter of global justice. Research funders from high-income countries have an obligation of justice to support health research in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) that furthers such objectives. This paper investigates how their current funding schemes are designed to incentivise health systems research in LMICs that promotes health equity. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were performed with 16 grants officers working for 11 funders and organisations that support health systems research: the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Comic Relief, Doris Duke Foundation, European Commission, International Development Research Centre, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Research Council of Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, UK Department of International Development, UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. Thematic analysis of the data demonstrates their funding schemes promote health systems research with (up to) five key features that advance health equity: being conducted with worst-off populations, focusing on research topics that advance equitable health systems, having LMIC ownership of the research agenda, strengthening LMIC research capacity, and having an impact on health disparities. The different types of incentives that encouraged proposed projects to have these features are identified and classified by their strength (strong, moderate, weak). It is suggested that research funders ought to create and maintain funding schemes with strong incentives for the features identified above in order to more effectively help reduce global health disparities.

The 'Bill Gates problem': do billionaire philanthropists skew global health research?

Income and Geographically Constrained Generosity

Income Gap, Materialism, and Attitude toward the Rich in Developing Countries

Philanthropic Cause Prioritization

The Social Construction of Global Health Priorities: An Empirical Analysis of Contagion in Bilateral Health Aid

Hyper-altruistic behavior vanishes with high stakes

Philanthropy's new agenda: creating value

The GAVI Alliance and the 'Gates approach' to health system strengthening

A spotlight on the stark imbalances of global health research

Philanthrocapitalism as wealth management strategy: Philanthropy, inheritance and succession planning among the global elite

Private Wealth, Philanthropy, and Social Development

Are industry-funded charities promoting "advocacy-led studies" or "evidence-based science"?: a case study of the International Life Sciences Institute

Knowledge nodes and international networks of connection: representations of private philanthropy by elite higher education institutions

Ethical Philanthropy in the era of Patient-Centric, Value-Based Health Care

Pension and state funds dominating biomedical R&D investment: fiduciary duty and public health

Bioethics, (Funding) Priorities, and the Perpetuation of Injustice

Celebrity and influencer philanthropy: Debating MrBeast and China

At the Mercy of the State: Health Philanthropy in China

The WHO Foundation in global health governance: Depoliticizing corporate philanthropy

Holy grail or convenient excuse? Stakeholder perspectives on the role of health system strengthening evaluation in global health resource allocation

Designing research funding schemes to promote global health equity: An exploration of current practice in health systems research