周黎明：潘石屹捐款哈佛風波論

A Chinese property baron has sparked a debate about the worthiness of charity recipients, writes Raymond Zhou.

Philanthropy is generally not a hotbed for controversy. But here in China you are watched closely if you hold your purse strings tight or let your money flow, and, in the latest case, the direction in which your money flows may also be a cause for concern.

Pan Shiyi, a real estate tycoon who is a celebrity in his own right, ruffled feathers when he and his wife decided to donate $15 million to Harvard University in the United States.

The news on the grapevine was more dramatic: It said Pan gave $100 million. Later, he clarified that, saying he planned to set up a fund with a total of $100 million, of which $15 million is earmarked for Harvard, and specifically for needy students from China. Other schools being considered include Yale and other prestigious universities in the US and the UK.

Yao Shujie, an economist, spoke for many when he questioned Pan's motives: "Pan made his fortune from the property market in China. Why should he go all the way to the US for philanthropy? He forgot where his roots are."

Others suggested that Pan's donation was an effort to win admission for his son into the Boston school. Their rationale: the benchmark set by Pan for eligibility is 65,000 yuan ($10,500) in annual family income, which most middle-class Chinese families can easily cross and, therefore, not many from China will meet this requirement anyway.

Now, Pan is no Chen Guangbiao, a philanthropist who made his millions in recycling. Pan has dabbled in entertainment, even playing the male lead in a feature film, yet he does not go around trumpeting his altruistic deeds. He does have a much higher profile than most businessmen in China, but he earned it not from his business feats, but rather from his micro blog comments on public affairs.

As a matter of principle, Pan has the right to donate to whichever individual or organization he sees fit. It is none of the outsider's concern whether the recipient is Chinese or foreign. Every person has his or her own priorities when it comes to choosing a target for help.

Most Chinese now totally get this. Had this happened a decade or two ago, public feedback would have been predominantly negative, I'm certain, because most would have equated such an act with a lack of patriotism. This feeling still lingers, but it's shared by fewer and fewer people because the public can more easily understand the distinction between public and private rights.

A few years ago, Zhang Lei, a Chinese financier, donated $8.88 million to Yale University, his alma mater. Had he been better known, he would have borne the brunt of a major ill-will campaign.

Detractors, for all their misplaced zeal to dictate private citizens' choice of charity, do apply a crude principle of economics when they see something like that. For a school such as Harvard, they reason, this money is the icing on the cake. It has so many donors that Pan's money would not yield the highest return on investment, if it is seen as an investment.

Ordinary Chinese do not use calculus to figure out which school needs donations the most, but we do have two colorful sayings that correspond to the rule of microeconomics: "Adding flowers to a big bouquet", and "Sending charcoal to someone trapped in snow." You get more bang for your buck if you do the latter, but that will require independent thinking.

Most investors, professional or otherwise, would follow the herd mentality and chase objects everyone else is already hotly pursuing. You would feel you have rubbed off some of the glitter if you give money to Harvard or Tsinghua University in China. In fact, the top universities in China get proportionately much more in both private donations and public funding. They are the largest, most-prominent bouquets in the garden of higher education, and throwing roses or petals at them would probably yield more psychological returns than tangible ones.

By this yardstick, the problem with charity recipients is not their nationality, but rather which is in dire need of such help. Harvard may have a much larger budget than Tsinghua, which, in turn, is much better funded than a regular college in China. The ones most worthy of such financial assistance, as the logic goes, are those in poverty-stricken areas that cater to the lowest-income families.

As I gather from empirical evidence, this social stratum is given short shrift and deserves a strong and consistent inflow of funding. Education, if it be the great equalizer, should give students from underprivileged families equal opportunities so they can make a fresh start with their lives. But philanthropy alone is unable to solve this problem. It has to be from the State, which is implementing all kinds of programs for that purpose, but there is still great room for improvement.

A year ago, a photo surfaced online of a father carrying a desk to school for his daughter. It outraged the country. Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the local education authority, not the parents? Only in those areas not covered by the State can philanthropists fill the void.

There are many grassroots programs. The one that provides free lunches is especially touching because it funds students who can barely pay for their meals. The money provides a slightly better diet, and the students get a higher level of nutrients when their bodies need them most.

One can question which is the better economic choice: a large sum for a world-renowned institution or a similar sum that may benefit tens of millions of hinterland children. If you push the argument further, you will realize that there are youngsters who suffer from even worse poverty and misery. They may not be in a country you are familiar with, but the same amount of money may be able to make a greater difference to their lives than in a Chinese backwater.

However, that is just one way of calculating the worthiness of a recipient. You can also use a different gauge and see how much money is wasted in overheads or on unnecessary expenses. And you may choose a recipient that is better managed and yields the least waste in the process.

Then there is the possibility of using philanthropy as a public relations tactic - to smooth the wrinkles of business dealings or boost one's personal image. If handled deftly, such a fusion of business and non business strategies would not raise eyebrows. If Chinese businesses have an eye for the global market, why not non business affairs, such as charities? Shouldn't one expand his or her horizon to that of the whole world?

I don't want to second-guess the motives behind Pan Shiyi's decision to fund Ivy League-bound Chinese students. He has made many donation to poor children in China's inland provinces. He may see the new move as helping those on the verge of success and the schools as incubators for tomorrow's leaders. Zhang Xin, Pan's wife, says: "I want the best students to receive the best education, regardless of whether their families can fund it."據《中國日報》報道，近日，中國房地產大亨潘石屹捐助哈佛大學中的中國寒門學子一事，引發網上熱議不斷。

通常來說，慈善往往不會成爲脣槍舌戰之地。但在中國，如果你把錢看得太緊，或是大筆花錢，你都會被別人緊緊盯上。就拿最近的例子來說，就連你資金的流向也可能成爲大家關注的焦點。

潘石屹是房地產大亨，同時也稱得上是位名人。當他與妻子決定向美國哈佛大學捐款1500萬美元時，卻引起了公憤。

有的小道消息更爲離奇了，稱潘石屹共捐了1億美元。隨後，他出面澄清，表示自己計劃設立總價值1億美元的“SOHO中國助學金”，其中的1500萬用於捐助在哈佛就讀的中國寒門學子。耶魯等其他英美著名學府也在其考慮之列。

經濟學家姚樹潔質疑潘石屹的捐款動機，似乎想替很多人打抱不平：“潘石屹搞房地產，在中國這片土地上爆發橫財。爲什麼要大老遠跑去美國做慈善，他富得忘了自己的皮膚是黃的。”

其他人則認爲潘石屹的捐款是爲其子將來入讀波士頓名校“買門票”。這些人的原理是：潘石屹給助學金所設置的門檻是每年6.5萬元（1.5萬美元）的家庭收入，而大部分的中國中產階級家庭年收入絕不止這一數字。這麼看來，並不是很多中國學子能達到這一要求。

潘石屹不像陳光標那樣靠發展回收經濟致富。潘涉足娛樂業，甚至還在電影《阿司匹林》中擔任男一號，他從事善行時，不會高調宣傳，比大部分的中國企業家都低調地多。但是，他的知名度並非源於商業上的豐功偉績，而是因其在微博上對社會事件作出的評論。

原則上，潘石屹有權利決定把錢捐給什麼人或是什麼機構合適。至於受助者是中國人還是外國人，與外人無關。每個人在選擇援助對象時都有自己的優先考慮。

現在，大多數的中國人都能明白這一點。這要是發生在十年、二十年以前，我很確定絕大多數的公衆輿論都會是負面的，因爲他們會把這種行爲上綱上線到缺乏愛國主義精神。現在雖然這種思想依舊存在，但已經越來越少了，因爲人們更容易區分公共權利和私有權利之間的差別。

幾年前，中國金融家張磊向母校耶魯大學捐贈888萬美元。他要是再出名些，他就會成爲人們的衆矢之的。

批評人士雖對別人的慈善選擇是瞎操心了，但他們確實對此類事件用上了一個簡單的經濟學原理。他們推斷，對哈佛這類的學校而言，這筆錢不過是錦上添花。他們的捐贈者多如牛毛，如果把潘的捐款看成是一種投資行爲，他也不會獲得最高的回報率。

普通中國人不會特意去計算哪所學校最需要捐款，但中國確實有兩句俗語恰如其分地應和了這種微觀經濟學原理：“錦上添花”和“雪中送炭”。如果選擇後者，你會更受關注，但這種做法需要自己的獨立思考。

多數投資者，不論是專業人士還是外行人，都有從衆心理去追逐那早已是衆人爭相追捧的事物。如果你把錢捐給哈佛大學或是中國的清華大學，你並不覺得有多麼令人矚目。事實上，中國頂尖大學收到的私人捐款或是公共資助都比其他學校多得多。它們好比是高等學府百花園中最耀眼的花束，向它們投擲玫瑰或花瓣時所獲得的心理滿足感很可能比有形回報來得多。

按這種標準來說，捐贈對象的國籍不是問題，問題在於誰真的急需幫助。哈佛大學可能比清華大學需要更多的預算，因此，它能比中國的常規大學得到更多的資助。按邏輯說來，最需要這種經濟援助的，是那些供最低收入家庭就讀的貧困地區學校。

從我的經驗性實例看來，這種社會階層並沒有得到重視，而且需要持續強勁的資金援助。如果教育是優良的平衡器，那麼它應該給予貧困學子平等的機會，好讓他們開啓新的人生。但光有慈善，僅是杯水車薪，解決不了問題。國家必須帶頭，實施促進教育公平的各個項目。而在這點上，努力的空間還很大。

一年前，一位父親爲女兒扛着課桌去學校的照片在網上出現，這讓舉國上下頗爲憤慨。這難道不應該是當地教育局的責任，與父母何干？只有在這些國家遺漏的貧困地區，慈善家們才能填補空缺。

現在有很多基層項目。其中一個提供免費午餐的項目尤爲令人感動，因爲它資助了那些幾乎吃不起飯的學生。這筆錢能爲他們提供稍好一些的食物，也能讓他們在長身體的時候獲得更充足的營養。

你可以懷疑，哪種經濟投資更爲明智：是給世界知名學府捐贈鉅款，還是用同樣一筆錢捐助數千萬身處腹地的孩子。如果將問題討論地更深入一些，你就會發現有很多年輕人過着更窮苦的生活。你或許並不清楚他們所在國家，但同樣一筆錢卻可以讓他們的生活發生翻天覆地的變化，這遠比投資在中國荒僻之地來得更有意義。

不過，這僅僅是其中一種衡量受助者價值的方法。你還可以用其他不同的標準來計算，看看有多少錢浪費在了雜項開支或不必要的開支上。然後，你可以選擇一個方便實施，善款最大化的援助對象。

慈善也有可能成爲潤滑公共關係的籌碼——讓商業交易變得更容易或提升個人形象。如果處理巧妙，這種商業與非商業策略的融合並不會引人側目。如果中國商人有放眼全球市場的洞察力，又怎會不着眼於慈善類的非商業事務。他們難道不應該擁有全球視野嗎？

對於潘石屹捐款常春藤名校中的中國學子一事，我不想做事後諸葛，揣測其動機。潘先生對中國內陸的寒門學子也做了很多捐款。他下一步要做的可能是捐助那些離成功僅一步之遙的學子和培養未來領袖的學府。潘石屹的妻子，張欣說過：“我想讓最優秀的學生接受最好的教育，不管他們的家庭能否負擔得起。”