消息说，保罗•艾伦已签署了巴菲特－盖茨的捐赠誓言（Giving Pledge），这增加了人们对慈善事业将迎来新时代的希望。
如果《福布斯》杂志上的每个富翁都签署这一誓言，捐赠自己一半的财富，那么慈善事业将再有6000亿美元可供支出，这可以在很长时间内帮助解决美国最大的社会问题。
盖茨誓言帮助穷人。
真是这样吗？
乔 治敦大学公共政策学院（Georgetown Public Policy Institute）高级研究员艾森伯格（Pablo Eisenberg）在《慈善编年史》（Chronicle of Philanthropy ）上最近发表的论文中质疑，巴菲特－盖茨的捐赠誓言可能实际加剧了美国的不平等情况，而不是帮助穷人。
他说，原因在于这些富人的慈善行为倾向于帮助那些已享有特权的领域。
他表示，他们把最大的捐赠几乎全部给予了大专院校、医院和医疗中心以及艺术机构。他们很少向专注于穷人或少数族裔的社会服务组织、草根机构或非盈利组织提供大规模的捐赠。
他补充说，非常富有的个人额外向捐赠誓言注入大量资金可能加剧社会的不公平待遇，拉大大型和小型非盈利机构的差距，以及特权和贫困市民的差异。
当然也有例外，盖茨的多数资金流向面对穷人的医疗保健和教育行业。美国施惠基金会（Giving USA）近期公布的一项调查显示，去年给予艺术团体和教育机构的资金减少，而给予公共事业和医疗保健的资金增加。
但给予教育领域的全部资金仍高于给予医疗保健和公共事业的资金，艾森伯格通过电子邮件向我解释说，我怀疑在医疗保健领域内部得到资金的仍是那些大型机构。
那么捐赠得少就对了吗？当然不是。艾森伯格公正地赞扬了盖茨和巴菲特的本意，但他说在慈善事业的重点转向更好地帮助穷人前，注入更多资金可能只会加剧不平等的问题。
他写道，在对亿万富翁给予大笔捐赠的新时代大加赞美之前，我们应该仔细衡量好与坏的潜在后果，想方设法避免虽行为高尚，但却落得难堪的后果。
你认为慈善事业帮助了那些已享有特权的领域了吗？
News that Paul Allen has signed onto the Buffet-Gates Giving Pledge has added to hopes for a new age of philanthropy.
If only everyone on the Forbes list signed the pledge to donate half their wealth, charities would get an additional $600 billion to spend. That would go a long way to helping the country's biggest social problems.
Bill Gates, pledging for the poor.
Or would it?
Pablo Eisenberg, senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, argues in a recent essay in the Chronicle of Philanthropy that rather than helping the poor, the Buffet-Gates Pledge might actually make inequality worse in the U.S.
The reason, he says, is that philanthropy by the rich tends to favor the already privileged.
'They give their biggest donations almost exclusively to universities and colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and arts institutions. They rarely make large gifts to social-service groups, grass-roots organizations, or nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities.'
He added that 'The infusion of additional great sums of money by very wealthy individuals is likely to increase societal inequities, the gap between large and small nonprofit organizations, and the disparity between privileged and disadvantaged citizens.'
There are exceptions, of course. Much of of Mr. Gates money has gone toward health care and education for the poor. And a recent survey from Giving USA found that giving to arts groups and education declined last year while giving to human services and health were up.
Still, total giving to education remains larger than giving to health and human services. And Mr. Eisenberg explained to me by email that 'Within health, I suspect that the winners were the big established institutions.'
So is less giving the answer? Of course not. Mr. Eisenberg rightly praises the intentions of Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett. Still, he says that until the focus of philanthropy shifts to better help the poor, more money may only add to the problem of inequality.
'Before going out and lavishly celebrating a new era of 'big giving' by billionaires,' he writes, 'we should carefully calculate the potential for both good and bad and devise ways to avoid what might be unintended consequences of what appears at first blush to be a noble endeavor.'
Do you think philanthropy helps the already privileged?