It is an honour to follow so many thoughtful contributors to this series on philanthropy. People like Azim Premji, Sunil Mittal, Shiv Nadar and Rohini Nilekani exemplify a generation of leaders who are building on India’s heritage of philanthropy, with a contemporary and uniquely Indian perspective.

One thing that occurred to me as I was reading the essays was that philanthropy, regardless of where it happens, shares certain commonalities—an acknowledgement of the humanity that binds us all together and a desire to translate good fortune into actions that serve the greatest possible good.

I grew up in a family where giving back to society—whether through volunteer time or financial resources—was just part of what you did. At the dinner table, both of my parents talked frequently about their volunteer work with non-profits and their advocacy work for children and the less fortunate in our community.

Anyone who wants to seriously engage in giving faces two important questions: where can you make the biggest impact, and how do you structure your giving so it’s effective.

Our viewpoint evolved over time, but there was a real turning point when we read an article about rotavirus, a disease that was pretty much a non-event in the United States, but which still killed a half-million children a year in the developing world. It seemed impossible to us that it was receiving so little worldwide attention. And so we dug in, learnt a lot more about the problem, and eventually began a serious effort to reduce childhood mortality worldwide.

Today, the framework that guides our giving is based on the simple premise that everyone deserves the chance to live a healthy, productive life. Given the resources at our disposal, we believed we could make the biggest difference by concentrating in three areas: global health, global development, and in the US, education.

Half our foundation’s funds are spent addressing global health problems, with a focus on malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS, diarrhoeal and respiratory diseases.

Twenty-five per cent of the foundation’s funds assist the poorest people in the world in ways other than healthcare through development projects. And the other 25% is devoted to improving public education in the US, where, in spite of our nation’s great wealth, our education system continues to fail too many of our children.

A few basic principles guide the way in which we give. Our approach emphasizes partnerships, and looks to foster innovation, often pursuing new technologies or delivery schemes. For example, in India, we have enjoyed a tremendous partnership with the National AIDS Control Organisation to scale up HIV prevention through the Avahan India AIDS initiative. More recently, we entered a partnership with the government of Bihar—a state at the frontier of global polio efforts—to improve health and nutrition, particularly for mothers and children under five. Melinda and I are looking forward to getting a chance to see first-hand how some of these programmes are working in our visit this week to India.

We try to apply new thinking and approaches to solving big problems, which sometimes means taking calculated risks on promising ideas. We set goals and are quite serious about measuring our results. Often, this means attempting to be a catalyst by investing in areas where governments can’t or won’t invest, or where there is a vacuum or failure in the marketplace.

Diseases that affect the poor are a great case in point. Rich-world diseases attract research investments that dwarf the money going to problems like kala-azar or rotavirus. (Think of how much more money goes to curing male pattern baldness than malaria!) As a foundation, we have the chance to help address that inequality.

The question of risk is something we think about a lot. Warren Buffett, our good friend and the third trustee of our foundation, reminds us that failure will be part of any bold approach. “You can have a perfect batting average (admittedly, he’s talking about baseball here, not cricket) by not doing anything too important. Or you’ll bat something less than that if you take on the really tough problems."

We’re willing to accept failure at times in the name of trying new things to solve old and difficult problems.

At the end of the day, what draws people to philanthropy is something universal—the connection to other human beings and the desire to make a difference. This is what tugs at people and that makes them want to get involved, to imagine how they can help create a better world. As the Mahatma once said: “You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result."

For me, philanthropy is a responsibility, a passion, and an honour. And so far as I can tell—after being a parent—it’s the most gratifying job on earth.


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a structure that Indian philanthropists may want to ponder upon. Bill and Melinda Gates have a sense of urgency about the social problems they are hoping to solve. Accordingly, the foundation will spend all of its resources within 50 years after their deaths. In addition, Warren Buffett has stipulated that the proceeds from the Berkshire Hathaway shares he still owns are to be used for philanthropic purposes within 10 years after his estate has been settled. The decision to not exist in perpetuity reflects the belief that a window of opportunity exists now to reduce some of the world’s greatest inequities. The trio believe that this is a unique time in history. They argue that advances in technology and communications mean that great minds can be brought together from around the world to find solutions to very complex problems. They have put much of their money behind this thinking. Very few philanthropic organizations around the world have created such a structure, which in essence, is a huge bet that solutions will come, and soon.

Bill Gates is the founder of Microsoft Corp. and co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Respond to this series at