In a speech in New Delhi last week, Bill Gates argued that newly rich entrepreneurs are more charitable than people who inherit their money.


Bloomberg News
David Rockefeller, a charitable heir.“Our experience worldwide is that first-generation wealth is actually more generous than dynastic wealth,” Gates said. “Both here in India and U.S. and other countries, the biggest givers are those who are receivers of first-generation wealth.”

The speech was part of a campaign by Gates and charity pal Warren Buffett to get rich Indians to give more.  (This won’t be easy). He said that “the fact that India over the last 20 years has developed these incredible success stories means that a very high percentage of them in their own way will be giving back to society.”

Is the claim about generous wealth creators and stingy heirs true?

In this Bloomberg article, Kat Rosqueta of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania said self-made rich people feel more empowered to give their money away. “Those who made their wealth entrepreneurially, there’s a sense in which they feel their wealth is theirs,” she said. “As opposed to those whose wealth has been inherited, where they feel much more of a responsibility as stewards of somebody else’s wealth.”

More importantly, the self-made rich have the confidence that even if they give away the majority of their fortune, they can always earn more. Inheritors don’t always have the same confidence.

But I think it is a stretch to say those who didn’t earn their own fortunes  aren’t charitable. Just look at Brooke Astor, David Rockefeller (or any of the Rockefellers for that matter), the Walton family, the Stryker family or many of the other second- or third-generation wealthy. Since many grew up with charitable rituals in their family, many continue to give.

Unfortunately, no reliable data exist dividing philanthropists into self-made or inherited wealth, so all we have are anecdotes.

Do you think the self-made rich are more charitable than inheritors?