You can read this newsletter online at this link: https://lesglorieuses.fr/great-wealth-transfer

You may have heard talk of the “great wealth transfer” – the vast shift of assets from older to younger generations predicted to unfold over the next few decades. Less discussed is who will receive it first.

Because women tend to live longer than men, much of it will initially pass sideways – from men to their wives and partners – before flowing down to the next generation, many of whom will also be women. In
the US alone, the Bank of America estimates that about $40 trillion will first pass to widows, with a further $47 trillion going to women in young generations. 

The result: over the next few decades, women are set to inherit and control an unprecedented share of global wealth. Some go so far as to suggest that women could soon even own half, if not more, of the world’s wealth. Currently, that figure stands at 40% in the US and Europe, and 20% in Africa and India. Globally, men own $105 trillion more than women. That’s four times the size of the US economy.

For the first time in history, control of global capital is beginning to tilt away from men. To some, this offers the potential for a correction centuries in the making – a rare chance to change not just who holds wealth, but what it’s for. Others warn that without deeper structural change, the great wealth transfer may simply reproduce the hierarchies it promises to upend.

The wealth gap has existed since capitalism began. I spoke to two experts to ask: with more women than ever about to hold the reins, might they steer wealth – and power – in a different direction?

Here’s The Evidence

We know that currently, when they have it, women use their money differently to men. When women control income, they’re more likely than men to direct it toward their families and communities – one reason microfinance programmes have long prioritised lending to women.

This tendency shows up in investment choices too. One US survey found that just 19% of women said they would invest in a company that wasn’t considered socially responsible, compared with 51% of men. Another found that ​​men were more than twice as likely to say they invest purely for profit: 34% said return on investment as their main motivation, with no limits on where they’d put their money, versus 14% of women.

The same applies to charitable giving. Jacqueline Ackerman, Interim Director of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University, put it to me simply: “When women earn more and control more wealth, they give more to philanthropy … Many women are motivated by a desire to strengthen communities and address systemic issues, often prioritising impact and connection over recognition or tax benefits.”

Together, these findings have fuelled speculation that women’s growing control of capital could tilt investment towards sustainability, human rights, and gender equality – and perhaps even create an actual trickle down effect.

Research backs this up. Ackerman told me: “In our research with high-net-worth women, many describe philanthropy as a way to invest in long-term, systemic change – particularly when it comes to supporting women and girls.”

However, as Katie Jgln points out in her excellent newsletter on the topic, the idea that women are naturally more generous than men and this will play out in the way they use their wealth is a suspect one. “What if increasingly wealthy women simply replace the patriarchs?” she asks. The differences in how women and men spend, invest, and manage money, she argues, “aren’t etched in our DNA – they’re the products of gender socialisation.”

As we’ve seen in many past issues of The Evidence, norms of care and empathy are learned. While they are valued in women, they are often devalued in men. The question, then, is whether the same systems that diminish these traits in men will ultimately do the same to women once they enter those systems at scale.

Louise Russell-Prywata, who works in the non-profit sector and is Senior Atlantic Fellow at LSE International Inequalities Institute, where she researches elite philanthropy, agrees. While women may favour more relationship-based or hands-on philanthropy, she tells me, “they’re still using the same lawyers, accountants and wealth managers” – and these professional norms shape giving far more than gender alone.

There have been growing calls for the financial industry to adapt. Many advisers still treat sustainability or social impact investing as a niche interest, even discouraging women from focusing too heavily on it. The coming wealth transfer is a major opportunity to move beyond outdated assumptions about who clients are and what they value. Whether this will actually happen is another question entirely.

Another potential thorn in the side of the idea that women wealth holders will change the world is the fact that whether people earn their money or inherit it tends to influence what they do with it. Speaking on a recent podcast, the philanthropy expert Silvia Bastante de Unverhau explains that those who have made their own money tend to give more of it away, whereas those that inherit it tend to see themselves as stewards, and therefore conserve it for the next generation. She once asked clients what they’d do if their parents gifted them $100,000. “The majority immediately said they’d put it in an account for their kids,” she recalls – a small example of how inherited wealth often reinforces the impulse to preserve rather than redistribute.

Which raises a broader question: if inheritance tends to entrench rather than disperse wealth, can philanthropy ever escape that same logic?

‘Conscience laundering’

A decade ago, Peter Buffett – son of Warren Buffett and co-chair of the NoVo Foundation – warned that philanthropy was becoming what he called a “charitable-industrial complex”: a system where the very wealth that fuels inequality props itself up through the language of generosity. In his words, “it’s what I would call ‘conscience laundering’ – feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity […] as long as most folks are patting themselves on the back for charitable acts, we’ve got a perpetual poverty machine. It’s an old story; we really need a new one.”

Russell-Prywata agrees. Expecting elite philanthropy to dismantle the very systems that created elite wealth is “something of an oxymoron”, she says, although she admits that in practice, philanthropy can still play a vital role. Many of these initiatives have tangible positive impacts, and “philanthropically funded anti-poverty work is becoming more important as aid budgets shrink and public finances tighten”.

However, she points to several practical reforms that could align private giving more closely with public goals. One is to tighten tax incentives so that donations actually reach charitable causes – for example, by requiring that funds placed in donor-controlled foundations are spent within a few years rather than the risk of them sitting idle. Another is to offer stronger incentives for giving that tackles specific causes – like poverty or climate change – directly.

But real change, she says, would require not just different spending, investment and donation patterns, but tackling the accumulation of extreme wealth itself – through measures such as wealth taxes now under discussion in the UK, Brazil and France. Such approaches, she adds, could “help drive cultural change over time so that more elites see taxation as a way to support social and economic impact, rather than viewing this as a personal responsibility they deliver through philanthropy.”

That cultural shift may already be underway at the margins. As Ackerman notes, a new generation of wealthy donors is beginning to approach giving “through the lens of social justice and systemic change”, focusing on ceding power, empowering communities directly, and confronting privilege. Russell-Prywata also points to the growth of “participatory” and “trust-based” philanthropy – models that put decision-making in the hands of those most affected.

While these efforts remain small in scale and rarely seen among elite foundations, they hint at a broader reimagining of what power, impact, and accountability could look like in the decades ahead.

So is the horizontal wealth transfer going to change the world? Not on its own. Money in women’s hands can shift priorities – but only if the structures around them shift with it. No wealthy donor or single policy can do that. In the end, it’s everyone’s job. “Philanthropic funds are still vastly outweighed by public spending,” Russell-Prywata reminds me. “If we check out, that opportunity to shape policy and action simply gets taken by those with more resources.”

Which is exactly why the rest of us can’t afford to stay on the sidelines.

Building safe and supportive workplaces for victims of domestic and sexual violence – a word from our sponsor, AXA.

Anyone can experience domestic and sexual violence, UN Women estimates that one in three women will experience violence in her lifetime globally (2024). Most victims are employed.

This highlights how the workplace can serve as one of the few safe and supportive spaces for individuals experiencing violence and abuse.

To address this critical issue, AXA, in partnership with the NO MORE Foundation and leading experts, has launched AXA Safe Spaces — the world’s first training tool designed to help organizations create safer, more supportive workplaces worldwide.

AXA Safe Spaces is a free online training program that features victim-survivors’ stories and expert insights, built around a 3R methodology:

• Recognize the signs of violence
• Respond with empathy and support
• Refer survivors to the appropriate specialized services

With direct access to the NO MORE Global Directory, which lists support services in over 200 countries, this tool empowers companies to support affected employees wherever they are in the world.

Free, accessible to all and available internationally in 12 languages, Safe Spaces will be offered to employees by Accor, Engie, L’Oréal, LVMH, Orange, Publicis Group France and AXA.

If you believe your workplace should be a safe place for everyone, explore the training and share it with your HR team: https://safespaces-againstviolence.axa.com/en/

Research Round-up

Here’s what else is making the news:

1. 💰 Women in Germany experience a much larger drop in income after having their first child than previously thought – earning around €30,000
   less than women who don’t have children.
2. 🌎 A major international study has revealed stark global gaps in women’s cancer care. Across 39 countries, women in wealthier nations are far more likely to receive early diagnoses for breast, cervical, and ovarian cancers.
3. ❤️‍🩹 A study has found that men need twice as much
   exercise as women to lower heart disease risk.

About The Evidence

The Evidence is a Gloria Media newsletter designed to help you understand gender inequality – and show how we might fix it.

This is the English version of our newsletter; you can read the French one here.