27a96750

50 Austrians, €25m

Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:15:19 GMT

50 Austrians, €25m

It’s been announced this week what happened when Marlene Engelhorn asked 50 randomly-selected Austrians to give away her £21m fortune. They opted for a selection of 77 organisations including conservation charities, a left-wing think tank, a community football club, a religious group and a homeless shelter.

I think what is striking is the diversity of the beneficiaries chosen - both in terms of the causes they seek to address and their “theories of change”. For example the money will go to groups focused on advocating for policy change as well as others focused on on-the-ground service delivery.

"The result is as diverse as the Council itself.” says the project manager for Marlene's Guter Rat für Rückverteilung initiative. “What all the decisions have in common is that they want a fairer society. They want everyone to live well together. And they want to support those who are discriminated against."

I'm curious as to how the outcome of initiatives like this is shaped by their design. There are a few differences between Marlene Engelhorn’s project and Wealth Shared. Our cohort opted to give the money to four organisations aimed at improving the life chances of people in the local area.

The Austrian project involved a much larger cohort of people from all over the country, they were given a longer time to deliberate (six weekends vs four two-hour sessions), and they were provided with lectures, including from philosophers and economics professors, to inspire their choices on who would ultimately get the money.

They were specifically encouraged to consider issues around wealth distribution and inequality, whereas we chose to leave the deliberation as more of an unstructured free-for-all. Although issues around inequality and wealth did come up in the discussion.

An element of the Austrian project I really like is that the decision-makers have had a platform to present their conclusions in their own words.

I think it’s very exciting to see further iterations of this concept. I think bringing together diverse groups of citizens is a powerful way of unlocking wisdom and ingenuity. The question of “how to use money to make the world better” can be approached in new and smarter ways.

Read more here: https://guterrat.info/

Citizens of the world

Tue, 06 Feb 2024 14:22:40 GMT

Citizens of the world

David Clarke

Wealth Shared has been getting some coverage this week, e.g. here . I'm really happy people are hearing about what happened and grateful to everyone who's helped get the story out there.

There is something I wish to clarify about the process.

The project took place in the L8 postcode of Liverpool because it's where I live, and this made it easiest to organise. But the capacity in which the group was assembled was simply as citizens .

They were given the option to transfer the money to any individual or organisation in the UK or abroad. It was the group's decision to focus on supporting people facing financial hardship, and to use the money locally.

L8 is by several measures an area with significant deprivation. This was something the group chose to focus on. Their decision was informed by data they requested which located the economic status of their neighbourhood in a national context.

It's significant that the group felt able to entrust the funds to their chosen organisations - The Florrie community centre; The Dingle, Granby and Toxteth Collaborative , a network of schools; the Team Oasis children’s charity; and the Granby and Toxteth Development Trust - in large part based on their local reputation and track record in the community.

The group also carried out a certain amount of due diligence of the organisations under consideration, such as finding out about their governance arrangements and researching key people within them.

It's interesting to reflect on how the character of L8 might have affected how the process unfolded. But this concept could be replicated anywhere, with participants from any background(s).

Telling the story

Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:59:49 GMT

Listen to an interview about Wealth Shared on the BBC Radio Merseyside breakfast show.

The decision

davidfraserclarke@gmail.com (David Clarke) — Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:02:25 GMT

What did they decide?

David Clarke

Last year I set up a project where 12 random people in Liverpool were given a free choice over what should happen to £100k I inherited. This blog reveals for the first time what they decided and recaps the story of the project.

First things first, I’m pleased to announce that the group decided to support organisations tackling poverty in their local area.

The group chose to donate £25k each to The Florrie community centre; The Dingle, Granby and Toxteth Collaborative, a network of schools; the Team Oasis children’s charity; and the Granby and Toxteth Development Trust.

The group reached the decision unanimously. The organisations were notified and the money has been transferred.

How did this come about?

I inherited the money several years ago after the death of my mum. I think there is too much inequality and I wanted to do something about it. I thought it would be a cool exercise to see how a random group of people approach the question of “what to do with a pot of money”, and it might inspire others to think in a similar direction.

How did it all work?

Last summer, letters went out to a random selection of addresses in the L8 postcode. Of the people who responded, 12 participants were chosen, also at random.

The group was given the option of using the money for any purpose, in any geographical location. They met for a series of discussion sessions lasting two hours each, with the support of a facilitator.

The only rules were that the group weren’t allowed to give the money to themselves, they couldn’t have any control over the money beyond the conclusion of the project, and they could choose a maximum of four recipients.

Participants were given £50 per session in recognition of their contribution to the process.

How did the group arrive at their decision?

They agreed early on that they wanted to focus on addressing the effects of the cost of living crisis and to provide relief to people as quickly as possible. They examined data which showed that their local area sits among the most deprived in the country.

Individual participants suggested potential beneficiaries which were put to a series of votes to come up with a shortlist. The group then undertook some research into the organisations under consideration. Ultimately they judged that the chosen organisations would make good use of the funds based on their strong reputation locally.

What did we learn?

This concept essentially seemed to work. The participants had a rich and wide-ranging discussion and reached a decision within the time available.

The project took place at a time when local people are facing acute pressure from the cost of living crisis. This loomed large over the deliberation. The participants wanted the money to have an impact as quickly as possible.

The feedback from the participants was generally positive. Furthermore, representatives of the recipient organisations have told me they feel proud to be recognised in this way by their peers.

I feel good about my decision to embark on this project. To anyone who is lucky to have more money than they need and is wondering what to do with it, I recommend this concept as a solution.

Read the report

You can read a full description of what happened, an evaluation and some analysis of the design and wider significance of the project here .

What next?

I’m putting this out there and am doing a bit of publicity around it. Although this process has now reached its conclusion I’d be delighted to support anyone else who wants to do a similar thing.

cover picture by Chris Bertram

Donor gives random strangers control of £100k inheritance

Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:15:33 GMT

Liverpool man gives random strangers control of £100k inheritance

January 29 2024

Donor invited strangers to give away 80% of his money, saying he has more than he needs
“I thought it was a scam”, said one of the selected participants
The story of the project, called ‘Wealth Shared’, is being told today for the first time

A Liverpool-based researcher gave 12 random strangers a free choice over what should happen to £100k he inherited. They chose to support organisations tackling poverty in their local area, it has been revealed today.

David Clarke, 34, said he wanted to do his bit to counteract the widening wealth gap in the UK. After receiving a large sum several years ago after the death of his mum, he resolved to give most of it away.

David created a project called ‘Wealth Shared’, whereby a group of random strangers would be recruited from his home city of Liverpool, UK, and asked to agree what the money should be used for.

Last summer, letters went out to a random selection of addresses in the L8 postcode. Of the people who responded, 12 participants were chosen, also at random.

Many of the participants said that when they received the invitation, they thought it was a scam. Despite their misgivings, they attended an initial meeting at the time and place stated in the letter.

Over the following four weeks the group was given the option of using the money for any purpose, in any geographical location. They met for a series of discussion sessions lasting two hours each, with the support of a facilitator.

After eight hours of deliberation the group unanimously agreed to give the money to organisations focused on tackling deprivation in their local area.

David has now transferred the money, in line with what the group decided.

The group opted to donate £25k each to The Florrie community centre; The Dingle, Granby and Toxteth Collaborative, a network of schools; the Team Oasis children’s charity; and the Granby and Toxteth Development Trust.

During the deliberation, participants discussed the ongoing impact of the cost of living crisis and expressed a wish to provide relief to people in their community as quickly as possible.

Participants were given £50 per session in recognition of their contribution to the process.

After making some further donations to organisations providing unconditional cash payments to people in poverty, David now has £80k left in his bank account, which he says he will keep.

A similar initiative was recently announced by the Austrian heiress Marlene Engelhorn, who said she will recruit a ‘citizen's council’ of 50 randomly-selected citizens to redistribute her €25m fortune. There has not been any contact between David and Marlene.

A paper, published today, outlines in detail how the deliberation played out, shares feedback from the participants and evaluates the design of the process.

Emily McChrystal, facilitator, said, “In just four weeks it was no easy feat to come to a collective agreement, but everybody led with compassion and cared deeply for others in the space. This was the key to ensuring each person was heard and the final decision felt right.”

Gladys Williams, one of the 12 decision-makers said, in a personal capacity, "I supported the decision because of the beneficial impact the four organisations have on the local community. I enjoyed being part of the process. It was good to know that our views matter."

David Clarke said, “To anyone who is lucky to have more money than they need and is wondering what to do with it, I recommend this as a solution. The money will have more benefit now than it did when it was sitting in my account.”

A similar exercise is planned in Austria

Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:17:29 GMT

Exciting news of another initiative to give citizens control of wealth

It's very exciting to see the concept of "asking random people what to do with pots of money" gather momentum, with the plans announced by Marlene Engelhorn, an 31yo Austrian, to redistribute €25m she's inherited.

Hopefully each time an exercise like this takes place, more people will be inspired to follow suit, and we will learn a little more about to do it in the most optimal way.

The plans described in the press seem to be similar to what we did with Wealth Shared in terms of the open-endedness of what the participants are able to choose - apparently there is a general aspiration to come up with "solutions to benefit society as a whole".

The main differences with our project seem to be that it's a much larger amount of money and a bigger cohort of people making the decision - 50 people vs 12 in our case.

You can read an interview with Marlene here .

Time's up!

Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:20:09 GMT

Time's up!

Four weeks ago, we brought together twelve randomly-selected citizens of Liverpool to decide what should happen to £100k. Since then, they have grappled with the big existential questions arising from this task. There have been moments of high energy, calm consideration and an epic bid against the clock to reconcile competing perspectives and ideas.

T heir time has now run out. What did they decide? We’re going to keep you guessing for a bit longer as we prepare a report on the process. This will be out sometime in the autumn.

I n the meantime, here are a few hints at what happened in the final session.

Burning dispassion

Wealth and giving can be emotional subjects. They touch on deeply personal experiences and relate to issues of suffering and injustice.

There was discussion about how this is perfectly natural, and can even help to galvanise people to take action. There was also an agreement about the need to try and weigh up the options in a dispassionate and objective manner.

Throughout the process, the group has been focused on the question of how to maximise the impact of the money and on finding deliberate ways to narrow down the possible options.

Good governance

A focus of this week’s session was on the governance of organisations. The group examined the structures of some organisations under consideration to receive the money and discussed whether certain structures and procedures are advantageous or otherwise.

This included some consideration of the remuneration of senior executives and board members. There was agreement that excessive pay packets reflect poorly on organisations and can reflect internal cultural issues. There was also agreement that organisations should be given a certain amount of leeway to decide what arrangements work best for them and that adequate remuneration, including for board members and trustees, is ok if it helps them to function in a professional way.

The participants looked at different types of charities and not-for-profit companies and there was agreement that as long as they operate transparently and comply with the relevant regulations, it is difficult to draw any hard and fast rules about what structures are best. It is more helpful to look at the track record of what organisations have delivered.

Attaching strings

A continuing topic during the deliberation has been whether the money should be handed over with some kind of stipulation that it be used for a particular purpose.

One rule of the process is that the group was asked to agree on one-off donations or transfers and can have no continuing relationship with the money. I reported last week that the group has expressed a certain amount of anxiety about handing over the funds with no way of holding beneficiaries to account on how they are spent.

It’s been suggested that attaching conditions to the donation(s) would give the group peace of mind that the money will be used in a way which aligns with their hopes and expectations. However, the group ultimately decided that any donations should be made unconditionally, and that organisations should be trusted to determine how exactly the money should be deployed

Who can you trust?

Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:20:09 GMT

Who can you trust?

Decision time is getting closer. Next week, 12 randomly-selected strangers will reach the end of the time they've been allotted to agree on what will happen to £100k. This is an update from their penultimate deliberation session.

Trust issues

The premise of the project is that the participants will decide on one-off donations or transfers, and have no continuing involvement with the money beyond their final decision next week.

Some anxiety was expressed over the idea of handing over the money without any means of holding beneficiaries to account. There was discussion about donating the money through some kind of intermediary who would be able to perform this function.

But it was also pointed out that the process necessitates a degree of relinquishing control. There was agreement that it should in principle be possible to identify beneficiaries that the group can place their trust in.

Group politics

It was a very dynamic session, with participants pitching ideas and undertaking a series of votes. These processes were self-organised by the group itself.

Over the past two weeks participants have undertaken a significant amount of independent research between the sessions and even prepared materials to present to the group. We had no expectation of this when inviting people to take part; we had simply asked people to turn up to the meetings.

There was a certain amount of negotiation, with people advocating for ideas and then putting them to one side in a search for consensus.

Judging effectiveness

A continuing theme of the discussions has been how to judge the effectiveness of organisations. This has thrown up a variety of approaches, such as assessing organisations’ past record and the reputation of key people within them, listening to third-party experts, as well as drawing on first-hand experience held by individuals in the room.

There is agreement about wanting to reach as many beneficiaries as possible with money. The group has grappled with the question of how to understand and measure the cost-effectiveness of their potential donations.

How to add value

Participants discussed another age-old dilemma facing philanthropists: does extra cash make more of an impact to well-established organisations that have the experience to know where to deploy resources most effectively, or is it better to support younger and perhaps more innovative organisations getting off their feet?

It is something of a conundrum that extra funds can be of particular value to emergent organisations, and yet those organisations may have less of a track record to demonstrate their effectiveness. The group shared ideas about how this might be accounted for in their decision-making process.

4, 3, 2, 1

The rules of the process are that the group can make no more than four donations or transfers.

Wednesday’s session saw discussion of whether to allocate the money in a single go, or to spread it out across a set of beneficiaries.

There were exchanges about how to manage the diverse perspectives in the room. Participants hold differing views over the change they want to see in the world and the causes they each care about. As they move closer to ‘decision time’, they are needing to come up with a way of rationalising their competing worldviews.

How would you use £100,000 to make the world a better place?

davidfraserclarke@gmail.com (David Clarke) — Sun, 09 Jul 2023 15:13:27 GMT

The Big Issue featured Wealth Shared and asked readers what they would do with £100k.

Read the piece by Evie Breese.

Getting into it

Fri, 07 Jul 2023 12:20:09 GMT

Getting into it

This is your second update on Wealth Shared. Twelve randomly-selected citizens met for a second time to deliberate over what should happen to £100k.

Breadth vs depth

When distributing funds, is it best to try and reach as many people as possible, or to focus on having a deeper and long-lasting impact within a more limited area? The trade-offs of “breadth vs depth” came up a few times in this week’s session.

There was enthusiasm in the group about trying to help the maximum number of people. There was also recognition of the value of on-the-ground experience and expertise to ensure that “help” is meaningful.

The value of data

As part of the process, participants are able to request information from us as the project organisers. We act as a sort of secretariat.

We researched and presented some data which participants had asked for during the previous week. This prompted a discussion about the significance of the data and the extent to which it is or isn’t useful.

There was agreement within the group that although data can tell you some things, it can only be understood within a wider context. There are always underlying judgements to be made.

State vs philanthropy

There was a discussion about the relationship between state and charity provision of services. Participants grappled with the question of whether some things shouldn't be funded if they are in principle the responsibility of the state, or whether that is putting idealism ahead of pragmatism.

If in reality needs aren't being met, is it necessary and appropriate to cover those gaps through philanthropy?

How to make a decision

As well as specific ideas about what could happen to the money, the session also featured some ‘meta’ discussion about how the group might use the remaining time to reach a decision.

Ideas included giving groups of participants the chance to advocate for a particular cause area, or issuing an invitation to external groups to pitch for funding.

There was also discussion about using a series of votes to narrow down the ideas that have been proposed. This is something we will organise for the group if they agree it would be useful.

Wealth Shared is underway

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:15:34 GMT

Wealth Shared is underway

The project is now underway. The participants met for the first time on Wednesday evening, and will meet each week until 19th July, when they will (hopefully) make a decision.

Over the next few weeks we will give you a flavour of how the discussion is going.

There are two rules: the participants must donate or transfer the money to no more than four individuals or organisations. And they cannot choose themselves as the beneficiaries. But otherwise anything is possible; the money can be used locally, nationally or internationally.

Breadth vs depth

The value of data

As part of the process, participants are able to request information from us as the project organisers. We act as a sort of secretariat.

There was agreement within the group that although data can tell you some things, it can only be understood within a wider context. There are always underlying judgements to be made.

State vs philanthropy

If in reality needs aren't being met, is it necessary and appropriate to cover those gaps through philanthropy?

How to make a decision

As well as specific ideas about what could happen to the money, the session also featured some ‘meta’ discussion about how the group might use the remaining time to reach a decision.

Ideas included giving groups of participants the chance to advocate for a particular cause area, or issuing an invitation to external groups to pitch for funding.

There was also discussion about using a series of votes to narrow down the ideas that have been proposed. This is something we will organise for the group if they agree it would be useful.

Introducing Wealth Shared

Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:54:16 GMT

Launching soon: twelve strangers to decide what happens to £100k

Twelve citizens, selected at random, will be tasked with deciding what should happen to £100,000, in a project taking place in Liverpool, UK over June and July 2023.

The participants will meet for a series of discussions aimed at reaching an agreement about how the money should be given away.

There are almost no limits on what they can decide. The money could go to any cause, from animal rights to poverty reduction, environmental protection to medical research. It could even be distributed as payments to individuals. The beneficiaries can be local, national, or international.

The project is called Wealth Shared and has been developed by researchers and community organisers living in the city. The money comes from an individual private donor. The purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate how wealth can be democratised and to harness the participants’ collective wisdom and creativity about how the money can most usefully be deployed.