At the end of July the FD published a pre-publication from the Book The Bermuda Triangle of talent from Simon van Teutem. Van Teutem clearly fills the mentality of his peers. In the study banks they have great ideals, but once on the labour market they give in to the money and status of consultancy, lawyer or financial sector. A waste of creativity and intelligence. Why aren't they committed to society by engaging in politics, becoming a journalist or working in a think tank?
The reaction of Zuidas lawyer Simon Hellendall was quick and fierce: Even at a law firm you can do good things, he set up his contribution. Providing legal assistance and strengthening the rule of law are not exactly ideals to neglect. In addition, you earn a fine salary on the Zuidas, there are good training courses and nice colleagues also legitimate motivations for young, talented people.
Van Teutem would have done better not to torch a Zuidas career in advance. Yet his underlying concern remains legitimate. Wouldn't it do our society any good if some scarce time and attention were shifted from share capital spreadsheets to the challenges of our era? That a little more young talented people are considering, for example, the demand for the viability of democracy, or the threats of the new multipolar world order to the Dutch economy?
Several times Van Teutem mentions working at an NGO, in journalism or at a think tank as an alternative to the grey world of money. But this is where his story stops. Because how accessible and attractive are these alternatives?
A lot of spirit
I myself am millennial and work at an independent think tank for social issues. We organize (freely accessible) learning courses for young bankers, entrepreneurs and civil servants, about the social and moral dilemmas they encounter at work. It's about professionalism, meaning, and moral ambition. The hall is full at every meeting.
There is no shortage of young, talented people who want to join us. They come from business, government and universities. But we can't offer them a job. Because who's gonna pay for that?
Besides the sporadic sale of a book, think tanks in the Netherlands depend on subsidies and philanthropy. Grants are scarce and often focused on concrete projects. Intellectual philanthropy hardly exists in the Netherlands, except for a few family funds and philosophical funds. Most people in the Netherlands prefer to give to animal welfare or to research into a rare disease.
Low budget
It is therefore not surprising that the number of think tanks in the Netherlands can almost be counted on one hand. They run small teams, largely voluntary, with budgets of a few tons. The same applies to the scientific institutes of the political parties. There isn't one with more than four fte.
Compare that to the United States. There you will find in a student town on every corner of the street a Hall, a building named after the donor, one of the alumni of that university that has been well-farmed. In the US they do know what intellectual philanthropy is. Rutger Bregman, Van Teutem's colleague at The Correspondent, is well aware of that. The American rollout of his School of Moral Ambition is almost entirely funded by great benefactors. Bregman delivers butter to the fish. The young, talented people who quit their work in consultancy or attorney get a guaranteed job in return, with a decent salary.
Financial support
The observation that is missing in Van Teutem's story is that in the Netherlands almost no one feels the responsibility for funding think tanks, political parties and investigative journalism. Van Teutem kicks hard against the shins of his generation. It would have been more refreshing if he had addressed their wealthy parents and grandparents.
Where is the contribution of the boomers to the moral and intellectual formation of a talented new generation? How does generation X support the infrastructure of ideas, study and debate, which studies our democracy and prosperous society?
