Within hours of the Notre Dame cathedral being engulfed by fire, French billionaires and tycoons pledged hundreds of millions of dollars towards its restoration.

Key points: The world's richest 1 per cent now controls half of the global population's wealth

The world's richest 1 per cent now controls half of the global population's wealth Critics say the allowing billionaires to solve issues can foster inequalities that suit them

Critics say the allowing billionaires to solve issues can foster inequalities that suit them Supporters maintain that the super rich are "damned if they don't, damned if they do"

But two months on, church and business officials announced they had barely received a fraction of the money pledged from major donors, while others questioned whether the more than $1 billion raised for restoration work was the most appropriate use of financial aid from the super rich given the world's all encompassing problems.

While the act of philanthropy garners positive responses particularly from recipients, critics maintain that it also highlights the enormous gap between the haves and the have nots, and the inability for the latter to tackle issues that are important to them as well which can propagate other forms of inequality indirectly.

According to Harvard University's 2018 Global Philanthropy report, 1 per cent of the world's population owns half of the world's wealth — a significant leap from 43 per cent of the world's wealth in 2008 — while 10 per cent of the global population still lives on less than $US1.90 ($2.80) a day.

And as the rich get richer, some worry we are entering an "age of philanthropy", where increasing numbers of wealthy individuals, families and corporations set up foundations for social investment, albeit with unintended consequences, like sidelining the responsibilities of governments.

'Philanthropists should not decide the world we live in'

Experts say philanthropic work can create a reliance on donations and affect democracy. ( Reuters: Krishnendu Halder )

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's pledge to contribute $US500 million ($715 million) toward closing coal-fired power plants across the US created controversy by clashing with the White House's efforts to revive a fossil fuel widely blamed for exacerbating climate change.

Loading

While climate change supporters rejoiced at such news, philanthropic ethics expert Chiara Cordelli says that relying on donations can divert the responsibility of social care from governments to private benefactors, and runs the risk of creating other political problems by paying for issues to bypass the democratic process.

"The philanthropist should not get to decide — in virtue of her or his disproportionate influence — which world we should live in," she said.

With an endowment of $US50.7 billion ($72.9 billion), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become the most influential donor in global health, making significant contributions to alleviate extreme poverty and reduce child mortality rates.

But its apparent influence on policies, particularly in the United Nations, has raised concerns that it could also be undermining the world body's function in working with governments to implement development strategies.

The focus of wealthy foundations: 1. The Gates Foundation: focuses on poverty, healthcare and education. 2. Novo Nordisk Foundation: focuses on medical research and treatments. 3. Stichting INGKA Foundation: focuses on refugees and children in developing countries.

It has also been criticised for favouring business-like quick win approaches, such as distributing vaccines and mosquito nets, in lieu of tackling core issues such as a weak public health system due to governance issues or corruption.

A representative from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation responded to such claims by maintaining that solving complex global problems "requires the collaboration of governments, NGOs, academic institutions and businesses".

"The foundation is one part of a broad ecosystem that is working to alleviate poverty, mitigate the impact of climate change, and stop the spread of diseases, amongst a host of other challenges," a statement to the ABC said.

"Philanthropy can play an important role as a catalyst, focusing on areas where existing funding is scarce, or that governments and businesses can't or won't fund."

Is philanthropy altruistic or another form of power?

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are among the world's most charitable philanthropists. ( Supplied )

Supporters of big philanthropy and donations maintain that top-down-driven redistributing of wealth is overall a positive gesture, and that in the eyes of needful recipients, such as the US students whose debt was pledged to be paid off by billionaire Robert Smith last month, it can be life changing.

Loading

But many wonder whether such gestures could end up propagating other forms of inequality, by giving one class of students a leg up over former and subsequent years simply because they were also receiving a diploma in that year.

"Philanthropists often give as if [it] was an act of altruism, generosity, or enlightened self-interest," Ms Cordelli told the ABC.

"Yet, philanthropy is also a form of power."

Some countries, like the US and Australia, have incentives in place for philanthropy such as tax deductions for charitable giving.

But there are also social benefits, including being acknowledged by peers and society at large for giving back, prompting criticism that some donors may be motivated by acknowledgement while also getting a tax break, and that real philanthropy would be done anonymously.

But philanthropy researcher Krystian Seibert maintains that it's unlikely that philanthropists would be primarily driven by the taxation benefits from giving, and that striving to address issues that might make a difference is, despite the criticisms, still most likely the central driver for most philanthropists.

"They don't just want to keep throwing money at problems, they want to see that money make a difference," he said.

Mr Seibert added that around the world philanthropy often funds important work challenging the status quo.

"For example, some major international foundations fund initiatives that seek to tackle discrimination and prejudice against people with disabilities, LGBTI people, racial and ethnic minorities, and marginalised women in places where government policy often seeks to reinforce such prejudices," he said.

'The rich are damned if they don't, damned if they do'

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 6 minutes 42 seconds 6 m Leslie Lenkowsky said philanthropy has made good contributions to society.

One of the common critiques of big philanthropy is that it is a product of the current economic system, which has allowed the world's 1 per cent to amass so much wealth.

In his book Winner Takes All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, Anand Giridharadas writes that global elites who try to "change the world" do so to preserve the status quo.

Philanthropic giving has come under much scrutiny in recent years. ( Supplied: Unsplash/Kat Yukawa )

He argues that the rich and powerful who claim they are fighting for justice and equality are weary about ways in which inequality might threaten the social order, and are more likely to invest in causes which are "market friendly" so that it would not jeopardise their business interests.

Leading American philanthropy expert Leslie Lenkowsky told the ABC's The World program that large donations are "by no means a remedy for the world's problems".

However, they maintained that at the end of the day, the bottom line is that the money belongs to the philanthropist, who is entitled to spend it on whatever they want.

"We'd be critical of the rich if they were not philanthropic, but we also would like to see them use their money in ways in which each of us would like," he said.

"Damned if you don't, damned if you do."

The ABC contacted Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg and Robert Smith for comment but they did not responded by publication time.