无限制捐赠

Paul Graham 2021-03-01

无限制捐赠

2021年3月

非营利世界的秘密诅咒是限制性捐赠。如果你没有参与过非营利组织,你可能以前从未听说过这个短语。但如果你参与过,它可能让你感到不安。

限制性捐赠意味着捐赠者限制资金用途的捐赠。这在大型捐赠中很常见,可能是默认的。然而,这通常是个坏主意。通常捐赠者希望资金使用的方式不是非营利组织会选择的方式。否则就没有必要限制捐赠。但谁更了解资金需要花在哪里,是非营利组织还是捐赠者?

如果非营利组织不比其捐赠者更了解资金需要花在哪里,那么它是不称职的,你根本不应该向它捐赠。

这意味着限制性捐赠本质上不是最优的。它要么是对糟糕的非营利组织的捐赠,要么是为错误事物的捐赠。

这个原则有几个例外。一个是当非营利组织是伞形组织时。例如,向大学进行限制性捐赠是合理的,因为大学只是名义上的单一非营利组织。另一个例外是当捐赠者确实和非营利组织一样了解资金需要花在哪里时。例如,盖茨基金会有特定目标,经常向个别非营利组织进行限制性捐赠来实现这些目标。但除非你自己是领域专家或向伞形组织捐赠,如果你的捐赠是非限制性的,它会做更多好事。

如果限制性捐赠比非限制性捐赠做的好事少,为什么捐赠者经常进行限制性捐赠?部分原因是做好事不是捐赠者的唯一动机。他们通常还有其他动机——留下印记,或产生良好的宣传[1],或遵守法规或公司政策。许多捐赠者可能从未考虑过限制性和非限制性捐赠之间的区别。他们可能相信为特定目的捐赠资金就是捐赠的工作方式。公平地说,非营利组织并不非常努力地阻止这种错觉。他们负担不起。经营非营利组织的人几乎总是对金钱感到焦虑。他们负担不起与大捐赠者争论的权利。

你不能期望在这种不对称的关系中有坦率。所以我会告诉你非营利组织希望他们能告诉你的话。如果你想向非营利组织捐赠,请进行非限制性捐赠。如果你信任他们使用你的资金,就信任他们决定如何使用。


注释

[1] 不幸的是,限制性捐赠往往比非限制性捐赠产生更多宣传。“X捐赠资金在非洲建造学校”不仅比”X向Y非营利组织捐赠资金由Y自行决定使用”更有趣,而且更多地将注意力集中在X上。

感谢Chase Adam、Ingrid Bassett、Trevor Blackwell和Edith Elliot阅读本文草稿。

Donate Unrestricted

March 2021

The secret curse of the nonprofit world is restricted donations. If you haven’t been involved with nonprofits, you may never have heard this phrase before. But if you have been, it probably made you wince.

Restricted donations mean donations where the donor limits what can be done with the money. This is common with big donations, perhaps the default. And yet it’s usually a bad idea. Usually the way the donor wants the money spent is not the way the nonprofit would have chosen. Otherwise there would have been no need to restrict the donation. But who has a better understanding of where money needs to be spent, the nonprofit or the donor?

If a nonprofit doesn’t understand better than its donors where money needs to be spent, then it’s incompetent and you shouldn’t be donating to it at all.

Which means a restricted donation is inherently suboptimal. It’s either a donation to a bad nonprofit, or a donation for the wrong things.

There are a couple exceptions to this principle. One is when the nonprofit is an umbrella organization. It’s reasonable to make a restricted donation to a university, for example, because a university is only nominally a single nonprofit. Another exception is when the donor actually does know as much as the nonprofit about where money needs to be spent. The Gates Foundation, for example, has specific goals and often makes restricted donations to individual nonprofits to accomplish them. But unless you’re a domain expert yourself or donating to an umbrella organization, your donation would do more good if it were unrestricted.

If restricted donations do less good than unrestricted ones, why do donors so often make them? Partly because doing good isn’t donors’ only motive. They often have other motives as well — to make a mark, or to generate good publicity [1], or to comply with regulations or corporate policies. Many donors may simply never have considered the distinction between restricted and unrestricted donations. They may believe that donating money for some specific purpose is just how donation works. And to be fair, nonprofits don’t try very hard to discourage such illusions. They can’t afford to. People running nonprofits are almost always anxious about money. They can’t afford to talk back to big donors.

You can’t expect candor in a relationship so asymmetric. So I’ll tell you what nonprofits wish they could tell you. If you want to donate to a nonprofit, donate unrestricted. If you trust them to spend your money, trust them to decide how.


Note

[1] Unfortunately restricted donations tend to generate more publicity than unrestricted ones. “X donates money to build a school in Africa” is not only more interesting than “X donates money to Y nonprofit to spend as Y chooses,” but also focuses more attention on X.

Thanks to Chase Adam, Ingrid Bassett, Trevor Blackwell, and Edith Elliot for reading drafts of this.