The Gates Foundation and other billionaire philanthropies, like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Buffett Foundation, are often praised for spending money on social causes like hunger, public health, libraries, and education. This is set in contrast to those billionaires who either contribute comparatively little to philanthropy (including the Waltons of Walmart fame, and, until very recently, Elon Musk) or who donate to far-right institutions (most notably, the Koch Brothers, as well as a range of highly secretive billionaires who back conservative campaigns). However, this opposition overlooks the ways that even “progressive” donations are increasingly channeled toward corporate and for-profit entities. 

The Gates Foundation Expands Global Capitalism and Monopoly Power

It is not an accident that the Gates Foundation’s funding goes largely to corporate-friendly institutions. These funding choices reflect the Foundation’s priorities and ideologies about how change happens: through the supposed merging of business interests and the public good. Bill Gates has summarized this view as follows: 

“Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay. Philanthropy and government aid channel our caring for those who can't pay, but the resources run out before they meet the need. But to provide rapid improvement for the poor we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today. Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don't fully benefit from market forces.” 

​​This perspective is heavily influenced by Gates’ experience at Microsoft, and is clearly reflected in the early use of the Foundation to extend the company’s reach. 

In the early days of the William S. Gates Foundation (which merged with some other pockets of money to become the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2000), many grants directly benefited Microsoft’s own bottom line. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the Gates Foundation offered nearly 6000 grants, totalling over $150 million, to public libraries, tribal schools, and organizations across the US. These grants sought to expand computer use and public access to the internet. But the Gates Foundation’s library program was heavily criticized for edging out Microsoft’s competitors. While it was technically possible for libraries to install Macintosh computers or computers running on the open-source operating system Linux, there were strong incentives in place that led most grant recipients to install computers running on Microsoft Windows. This also required updating various Microsoft software, through reduced-cost licenses. 

These efforts also went hand-in-hand with Microsoft’s direct donations of its own software to community colleges and other institutions. As Bill Gates stated in his comments on “creative capitalism” in 2008: 

For the past 20 years, Microsoft has used corporate philanthropy as a way to bring technology to people who don't have access. We've donated more than $3 billion in cash and software to try to bridge the digital divide, and that will continue.

At the same time, Microsoft’s “free” distribution of its own internet browser, Internet Explorer, along with purchased software packages and operating systems was part of what compelled the US government to file an antitrust lawsuit against the company in the 1990s. Charity and “free” gifts were part of how Microsoft reached new potential consumer bases and gained a monopoly over the market, enabling Bill Gates to amass the personal wealth he has today.

Now, in regards to agricultural development and other funding, the Foundation may not be engaging in grants that are as directly self-dealing. But grants are still not free gifts. They come with the expectation that the private sector must be involved, and therefore that there must be some way of generating a profit for investors. 

The Gates Foundation Opens up African Agricultural Markets for Corporate Profit

For nearly twenty years, the Gates Foundation has invested in agricultural development, claiming to be helping solve hunger in the Global South—especially in Africa. Yet almost half of the Foundation’s grants for global agriculture went to four large groups: the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the African Agricultural Technology Fund (AATF), the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR), and multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank. For reference, Oxfam spends over 80 percent of its funding directly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, emphasizing local partner organizations as recipients.

Our own analysis of grants specifically focused on agricultural development in Africa confirms very similar results. Over half of these ostensibly Africa-focused grants have gone to institutions based in North America and Europe. Nearly 30 percent of grants have gone to institutions based in the US, which is the single largest recipient at the country level. Of the grants that did end up in Africa, the majority went to three large institutions: 1) AGRA, ($638.4 million), 2) research institutes that belong to the CGIAR ($255.2 million), and 3) AATF ($170.2 million). AGRA and AATF are both institutions created with considerable outside influence by US philanthropic foundations and agribusiness companies. A very small minority of grants have gone toward small, locally-grounded NGOs in Africa. 

In spite of claiming to support “innovative” approaches, the Gates Foundation primarily invests in industrial agriculture. A 2020 report analyzing the content and focus of the Gates Foundation’s agricultural research investments in Africa found that 85 percent of projects were “limited to supporting industrial agriculture and/or increasing its efficiency via targeted approaches.” Reflecting this, Gates Foundation grants are also skewed in favor of agricultural technologies developed by research centers and corporations in the Global North. For example, Michigan State University received $13 million to train African policy makers on how to use and promote biotechnology, and AATF received $32 million to increase awareness of agricultural biotechnology and another $27 million to fund the approval and commercialization of GMO maize in at least four African countries.

Let’s look a little closer at some key recipients of Gates Foundation money, where these biases are clear:

The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) was created in 2001 by the Rockefeller Foundation, in partnership with large agricultural biotechnology companies, the consulting firm Meridian Institute, and well-known African scientists. It emerged out of ongoing conversations in which big philanthropic organizations, like Rockefeller, convinced agribusiness companies that charitable donations of proprietary technology would be in their interest. AATF aims to channel corporate-owned and patented agricultural biotechnology to African scientists and then to African farmers. As such, AATF’s projects partner with and rely on donations of genetically-modified germplasm from large agribusiness corporations, such as Monsanto, Arcadia Biosciences, and BASF.

The AATF also created the Open Forum for Agricultural Biotechnology (OFAB) which works to promote biosafety laws that open up African countries for crop biotechnology research, development, and production. OFAB receives funding from the Gates Foundation, AfricaBio (which also receives Gates Foundation funding), the Program for Biosafety Systems, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (UKAID), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) was created in 2006 by the Gates Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. Although it claims to be “African-led,” it reflects the priorities and interests of investors, philanthropists, governments, and corporations based in the Global North. In spite of this, it has become a kind of one-stop shop for governmental and philanthropic donations committed to supporting African agriculture, drowning out and undermining other African civil society organizations and voices.

One of the offshoots of AGRA is the African Fertilizer and Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP). AFAP was created by AGRA in 2012 in order to incorporate global commercial inputs like fertilizers into African agricultural value chains through public-private partnerships. AFAP receives funding from AGRA and other donors, including the Open Society Institute.

Word cloud of AGRA board members’ bios, as of 2021 (source: AGRA Watch, 2021)

The Gates Foundation also created and funds the Alliance for Science (formerly the Cornell Alliance for Science, CAS). Founded in 2014 by Dr. Sarah Evanega with a $5.6 million dollar grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CAS aims to increase access to biotechnology in Africa, mainly through research and communications targeted towards legislators. In addition to the Gates Foundation, which remains CAS’ largest funder, CAS receives funding from the USDA, individuals, and small foundations, including the Cornell Sathguru Foundation for Development, which lists Bayer as a partner. CAS also partners with OFAB. From 2006-2016, CAS and OFAB held joint trainings in Nigeria and Ghana, among other countries. 

Our 2020 analysis of CAS found throughout their work, they uncritically and vehemently promote biotechnology.  Any criticism of their work is consequentially labeled as “anti-science.” Through their fellowship program, CAS is training young African scholars to repeat, circulate, and promote these views ad nauseam.

It’s also important to understand what kinds of organizations and projects the Gates Foundation is not funding. The foundation provides zero funding to support farmer seed systems, which supply between 80 and 90 percent of all seeds used in Africa. Instead, as discussed in the previous film and companion guide, the foundation provides significant funding to initiatives that erode these systems.

The Gates Foundation's Funding Priorities Deepen its Own Global Influence

Philanthropies and the billionaires backing them—like Bill Gates—have come to have inordinate political influence over US and international politics, as well as over the policies and priorities of intergovernmental forums like the United Nations and World Health Organization. The Gates Foundation also spends a lot of money on journalism, likely contributing to the positive and often noncritical portrayals of its own work and of Bill Gates himself. For example, Politifact and USA today (both of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation) have used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from “misinformation” like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing COVID vaccines and therapies. In fact, the foundation’s website and recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac (although this does not substantiate other far-fetched conspiracy theories about Gates’ role in the pandemic). The Gates Foundation has provided more than $250 million in funding to media outlets (BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting), charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, media companies, journalistic organizations, and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism. Some journalists at Gates-funded outlets have argued that this “philanthro-journalism” stymies public criticism of the Foundation, encouraging reporters to cover development aid “success stories” rather than failures—although the actual impacts on coverage remain unclear. 

Sources

Notes