IMO both have their merits.<p>Governments are good at solving broad, societal level problems. If they weren&#x27;t, they would be overthrown and replaced. But they&#x27;re remarkably inefficient at solving individual, specific problems: they can do it, but it will take 4x as long and cost 10x as much as it should. Also, government intervention is limited in scope - it&#x27;s hard to be philanthropic outside your constituency.<p>That&#x27;s where philanthropists can step in. There are some problems that don&#x27;t provide enough benefit to any single government to throw weight behind solving, but that require massive resources. Bill Gates&#x27; anti-malaria campaign is a good example: no country with the money to fund a malaria eradication program has significant rates of malaria.