(2 of 2)
The pop-charity events like Live Aid could help get the young into the habit of giving. But organizers are already worrying about "compassion fatigue." Pop charity may turn out to be one more passing fad. At the upper end of the economic scale, some wonder if charity is in danger of succumbing to chic. New York Financier Felix Rohatyn, who along with his wife Elizabeth has launched a small crusade against events that concentrate more on social glamour than helping worthy causes, is concerned that the pet charities of the New York rich, the favored museums and cultural institutions and hospitals, will sop up money that could be better used to help less fashionable but equally needy causes. "Why should a program for the homeless be allowed to disintegrate," he asks, "if at the same time large institutions with professional fund- raising staffs can raise huge amounts?"
American charity will never be an orderly or evenhanded process. Even so, millions still depend on private largesse, not just at home but abroad. Last year Americans sent more than $2 billion in private donations to the peoples of foreign countries. The Rockefeller Foundation alone will spend up to $300 million over the next five years to promote economic development in Third World countries and focus on politically controversial goals like fostering contraception. "Because philanthropy is not concerned with election returns or stockholders, we see ourselves deliberately moving into things that government and business are not picking up," says Rockefeller Foundation Vice President Kenneth Prewitt. In America, charity is not just the fruit of compassion; it is a legacy of free choice.
CHART: TEXT NOT AVAILABLE