The Beacon Collaborative Why I enlisted 12 strangers to give away £100k of my inheritance
David Clarke spent a lot of time thinking about wealth inequality in his work as a political and economic researcher. So when he inherited a large amount of money from his late mother he wanted to give it away to good causes – but why should he have the power to decide where it goes? Surely it would be better to put it to the people…
David Clarke has done two unusual things: Firstly he decided to give away a large chunk of his inheritance money to good causes, and secondly he enlisted the help of 12 random strangers to select which causes they should be.
The 33-year-old, who comes from a “comfortable, middle class background”, says his first real brush with philanthropy came when he inherited money from his mother when she died.
His career, as a financial and political researcher, meant he had spent a lot of time thinking about wealth inequality but only in the context of being an area of policy work that he would like to explore further.
“But then I started thinking there seems to be a disconnect between wanting to make that case politically and then sitting on all this money,” he explains.
“I felt I should try to operate from a position of greater authenticity, that’s what made me think about giving it away.”
Redistributing power as well as money
For about ten years, David described feeling “separated” from his inheritance.
“I didn’t really feel very connected with it, having all this money because I think I felt I didn’t deserve it. And that stopped me from making any further decisions about it.”
David’s parents were both Quakers which influenced and guided him to take practical action.
“There was a culture within our family that beliefs you have about the world should be practical – you should act on them rather than just thinking about things theoretically,” he said.
If you think the world should be a particular way, then you should try and live your life in accordance with that – or be the change you want to see, he added.
“My thought process was that I decided I was going to give away and then I was thinking ‘Why is it just me exercising this power? Because if I really think that I disagree with the idea of inherited wealth then that could also extend to the power to decide what to do with it.
“And so I thought how do you, if you really want to rebalance or redistribute the power as well as the money, how do you go about that?”
After reading about citizens assemblies he decided to try something new.
“It just seemed like a cool thing to do.”
Selecting the decent dozen
And so his project Wealth Shared was born.
“I try not to call it an experiment because it sounds like the people that took part were being experimented on but I like the sense of trying something new out and seeing what happens,” David explains.
He put together a team comprising researchers and community leaders, and together they designed the Wealth Shared project where they would ask a group of random strangers in Liverpool – where David lives – to collectively decide how best to give away £100,000.
Organisers wrote to 600 random addresses in the L8 postal district in Liverpool, inviting anyone over 16 living at the address to register their interest.
Twelve participants were then randomly selected from those who did so.
The deliberation took place during four two-hour sessions over four consecutive weeks.
An exercise in trust
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 heavy impact of the cost of living crisis and said they wanted to provide relief to people as quickly as possible.
Members of the group said they felt able to place their trust in the chosen organisations because of the reputation those organisations had built up in the community.
The participants reached their decision through a series of self-organised votes. The group could have asked recipients to use the money for a particular purpose but chose to offer it on an unconditional basis.
Wealth Shared has similarities with participatory grant-making but this normally happens after funds have already been allocated for a particular purpose or to benefit particular groups; input is then sought from the people in the affected community to decide exactly how the money is spent.
“But Wealth Shared is different because it was almost an entirely free choice of what they could use the money for. It was left up to the people,” David said.
Gripping to watch
When David first started the project he thought perhaps the participants would think he was a crazy rich eccentric that would simply humour him.
“But I was surprised and happy by how much they committed to it.
“It was really kind of very passionate and quite intense to watch. It was gripping to be there in the room as it happened.
“Other people who came along said the same thing. The group really took ownership of the decisions. I know from speaking to them afterwards – and I’m still in touch with the group now – they’re proud of what they did.”
Is he proud of it too?
“Yes, I’m particularly proud of it. I think it’s a cool idea, a cool project that seems to have captured people’s imaginations.”
His brother and father have also been supportive and enjoyed seeing the project play out “from a sort of geeky, nerdy point of view”.
“I think they share my curiosity with it,” he said.
But it’s not just David and his family that are interested in trying out more democratic forms of giving.
Earlier this month, Austrian heiress Marlene Engelhorn announced she was going to let 50 randomly-chosen people in Austria, where she lives, decide how best to spend the €25m she has inherited from her grandmother.
Keeping the experiment going
David said that although he has given all the money he is going to give away for the time being, he would love for others to keep iterating and testing out different ways to give.
Giving doesn’t have to be complicated, he adds.
He trusts the process of giving unconditionally and directly to those that need it as “there’s a really solid evidence base behind that”.
And so he gives money to organisations that do unconditional cash transfers such as Give Directly and The Biscuit Fund.
“If anybody reading this is in a lucky enough to have more money than they feel like they need, then I think this is a good solution.”
And he doesn’t worry about people misusing the cash.
“Through the decisions I’ve made, I like to place my trust in various people and I feel happy about that. I don’t regret it at all,” he explains.
Regarding his Wealth Shared initiative he would love for others to explore the work and perhaps carry it forward.
“I would love for people out there to see what we’ve done here and like riff on it somehow – try doing it at a different location or with recruiting people in a different way or have a different number of people.
“The more exercises like this happen, the more we will understand what approach is optimal.
Details of how the group reached their decision, their feedback and an evaluation of the design of the process, are included in The Wealth Shared report.
It recommends the project concept to wealth holders as a truly democratic form of philanthropy.