I think they're more alike than different. They have in common the act of giving for the benefit of others. From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Charity. a) Beneficence; liberality to or provision for those in need or distress; alms-giving. b) Money, a gift, or other assistance to relieve need or distress. c) A trust, foundation, organization, etc., for the benefit of those in need or distress; such trusts, etc. viewed collectively.
Philanthropy. Love of human kind; the disposition or effort to promote the happiness and well-being of one's fellow people; practical benevolence.
The difference between the Gates Foundation and other charities is not that it does "philanthropy" rather than "charity"; it's that it operates on a much larger scale and with a greater emphasis on measurement and accountability than do most other charities.
This is why I really love the Kiva model: instead of giving money away, you instead become a 2nd/3rd world Angel Investor.
It also makes me think about Hans Rosling's excellent TED talk about population growth and globalization: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_g...
and actually angel investors or crowd funding for african tech entrpreneurs is a much needed thing right now.
It's a lot like Kiva, except there's no MFI acting as a middleman. Thus, borrowers pay far lower interest rates.
You see, borrowers of Kiva loans actually pay a lot in interest, with an average rate of about 35% - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiva_(organization)#Current_int... . At Zidisha, borrowers pay as little as 5% in interest.
Kiva has a pilot program inspired by Zidisha called Kiva Zip.
Disclosure: I'm on the board.
>Charities in general have almost no effect on the ground.
I would point you to organizations like Charity Water (http://www.charitywater.org/) & Pencils of Promise (http://www.pencilsofpromise.org//) who are doing quite well at disproving that statement.
- A charity that figured out how to ship thousands of textbooks in a single container, thus optimizing their shipping cost
- Kindle reaching $79 pricepoint.
- Coursera
That's an extremely bold statement. Do you have any evidence to back it up?
Counterexamples are numerous: Carnegie libraries [1], needle exchanges[2], the Gates Foundation [3].... the list is long.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library
The Silicon Valley rich are famously stingy philanthropists and a defense I’ve heard more than once is that the tools they spend their time building are inherently good. “Why donate money when people can just download my app and instantly have a better life?”
Maybe I have a different view on the this from most on HA as I live in Africa, but products like cheaper cellphones have had a far more massive effect for the masses than a few philanthropists donating some money to charities. Charities in general have almost no effect on the ground.
Charity is not the way to make the world better. The only way to make the world better is by building methods for more people to take part directly in the global economy - and as Americans are now realizing, this isn't necessarily going to be a good thing for Americans who will only gain more competition.