Welcome to the start of Devex Pro Week, where we’ll dig deep into some of the most fascinating and consequential discussions in development today. We kick it off with a look at the rise of the philanthropic adviser as well as the pros and cons of organizations sunsetting. And stay tuned throughout the week for stories ranging from a report card on the World Bank’s reform agenda to an examination of the sector’s burning question: Is this the end of official development assistance?
For our readers who haven’t yet gone Pro, we have a limited-time offer of $100 off an annual Pro membership to enjoy our full Pro Week lineup as well as all our premium content for a whole year.
Also in today’s edition: The Millennium Challenge Corporation’s board holds a widely anticipated meeting, and the life-and-death difference $2 can make.
Advice squad
Where there’s a large concentration of money, there’s usually no shortage of people offering advice on what to do with that money. Philanthropy of course is no exception. Giving away boatloads of money has given rise to an army of advisers to help the ultrawealthy map out how to make the most of those dollars.
And as global wealth has soared — in 2025, for the first time, there are more than 3,000 billionaires, with a combined fortune of $16.1 trillion — so has the need for philanthropic advisers.
Perhaps the best known is The Bridgespan Group, famous for helping Mackenzie Scott disburse $9 billion, but there are others — power players such as Arabella Advisors and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, in addition to single-shingle outfits that number into the hundreds or even thousands, Devex contributor Lauren Evans writes.
So what exactly does an adviser do? For the ultrawealthy, an adviser is a sort of financial sherpa — at the highest level, they can help clarify a donor’s mission and goals; at the most granular, they’ll help identify recipient nonprofits and structure funding agreements alongside tax attorneys and estate planners.
That’s become especially crucial because giving among the top earners has not only increased, it’s evolved.
“When I came into this field 25 years ago, someone who inherited [money] or had a wealth event just put all that money in a foundation and started staffing up,” says Jessica Robinson Love of Arabella.
But in Silicon Valley, where Love focuses and where many of the world’s billionaires are spawned, donors are less interested in hewing to the philanthropic status quo. Concepts such as “philanthrocapitalism” — the idea that market-based solutions can be applied to solving global crises — grew out of the idea that the richest among us are “best placed to save the world,” as Bill Gates put it at Davos in 2008.
At the same time, the philanthropic sector has been undergoing a period of professionalization. “There’s always been a circle of people around donors wanting to provide opinions, expertise, and advice,” says Peter Frumkin, academic director of the Gradel Institute of Charity at New College, Oxford University. But in the last 10 years, these once casual relationships have become more institutionalized. “It’s not a new invention, but it is getting more systematic and more formal.”
Read: What is a philanthropic adviser, and why is their role growing in aid? (Pro)
+ Join us today at 8 a.m. ET (2 p.m. CET) for an exclusive Pro Week conversation with leading voices in philanthropy on strategies and lessons for rethinking funding models. They’ll explore the rise of sunsetting and spend-down foundations and what this shift means, as well as philanthropy transparency and accountability. You can still register now.
Riding off into the sunset?
Speaking of Bill Gates, in many ways he’s regarded as the godfather of philanthropy. And while the billionaire philanthropist hasn’t deviated much from his methodical, data-driven style of giving over the last two decades, he’s a trendsetter nonetheless. The most recent trend he’s turned a spotlight on is the concept of organizations closing up shop, spurred by his announcement that the Gates Foundation will sunset in 20 years.
It generated a debate on the pros and cons of sunsetting, but that debate is not only relevant to philanthropy. It also applies to global health, where heavy hitters such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance have long been accused of perpetuating aid dependency.
For example, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, was never meant to run forever, my colleague Jenny Lei Ravelo points out. During its first decade, PEPFAR started multiyear agreements with countries that had clear goals for governments to take more ownership of their HIV response. That’s panned out fairly well in some countries, but not in others. The Global Fund and Gavi also have policies that transition countries or disease components out of their support.
But when to put yourself out of business isn’t exactly a comfortable conversation to have. Plus, in the beginning, the need was so dire that it was all about getting up and running quickly, not planning for the end. Today, however, as donors yank back funding, the need for a discussion on changing the status quo has grown more urgent.
“I think generally one should talk about sunsetting. You should have a reasonable time perspective [for that],” says Anders Nordström, who served as the Global Fund’s first interim executive director. And while he thinks the aid cuts the U.S. handed down were “brutal,” he says discussions about transitions and sunsetting were bound to happen at some point.
“Did we speak about sunsetting when we established the Global Fund almost 25 years ago? No. Would it have been reasonable to do that? No. But over time, when you begin to see success, and when you begin to see that things are changing, yes.”
Read: Should global health initiatives have sunset strategies? (Pro)
+ If you haven’t already, we encourage you to sign up to Devex CheckUp — our free, weekly newsletter that keeps you up to date with all the must-read global health coverage.
Decision day
Not all organizations have the luxury of planning for their eventual sunset. Some are simply forced to shut down.
That was the concern among supporters of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which for a time, looked like it was headed into the same wood chipper that Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency fed USAID into.
While that didn’t come to pass, the U.S. agency is still set for a significant downsizing, as my colleague Adva Saldinger reported last month.
Now, we know a bit more about that downsizing. On Thursday, the MCC board held its first meeting since President Donald Trump returned to office. There, it voted on the proposed terminations of some of the agency’s programs and approved new projects.
“MCC is an important tool to advance President Trump’s America First policy agenda,” Christopher Landau, deputy secretary of state and acting chair of MCC’s board, said in a statement after the meeting. “With a focus on return on investment, an evidence-based approach, and a strict five-year implementation timeline, MCC ensures U.S. taxpayer dollars advance U.S. interests.”
The board seems to have terminated some programs, though it is unclear which ones. In a statement, MCC said it would announce additional information related to those actions after the required congressional notifications.
Read: MCC board approves projects, terminates others at much-anticipated meeting
ICYMI: MCC shutdown would risk global trust, cede ground to China, experts warn
Lifesavers
$2
—That’s how much the fare cost a woman to reach a hospital in Kampala, Uganda. She had been in labor for three days with a baby in a breech position but her family couldn’t afford the $2 to get her to the hospital sooner. The baby died.
The issue wasn’t medicine, it was money, writes Dr. Miriam Laker-Oketta of GiveDirectly in a Devex opinion piece.
“As a front-line doctor in Uganda, I have looked into the eyes of mothers who lost their babies — and babies who lost their mothers — simply because they couldn’t afford a few dollars for transport to the clinic,” she writes.
“The evidence is clear: Cash can save lives,” she adds, citing a new study from researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and Oxford University which found that giving households in rural Kenya a one-time cash transfer of $1,000 rapidly cut infant mortality by a staggering 48%.
Opinion: Cutting aid could kill children. Giving cash could save them
In other news
Extreme heat, which has increased in frequency and intensity in recent years, exposes both indoor and outdoor workers to adverse health effects, according to the U.N. [AFP via Barron’s]
Bangladesh’s chief adviser Muhammad Yunus has warned that the country can no longer mobilize resources to support the 1.3 million Rohingya refugees it hosts and has urged the international community to come up with a sustainable solution, including a road map for their safe repatriation. [Reuters]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.
About the author
Anna Gawel
Anna Gawel is the Managing Editor of Devex. She previously worked as the managing editor of The Washington Diplomat, the flagship publication of D.C.’s diplomatic community. She’s had hundreds of articles published on world affairs, U.S. foreign policy, politics, security, trade, travel and the arts on topics ranging from the impact of State Department budget cuts to Caribbean efforts to fight climate change. She was also a broadcast producer and digital editor at WTOP News and host of the Global 360 podcast. She holds a journalism degree from the University of Maryland in College Park.
