The article touches upon cultural differences in how publicly flaunting wealth by openly giving large sums to charity is perceived. In Europe, from my perspective as someone living in the Netherlands, we find it hard to imagine to attend a flashy fundraiser dinner to finance good causes or even politicians seeking election. The only thing that comes close are auctions for charity, but these are generally frowned upon in traditional circles as vehicles for celebrities and the noveau riche in their attempt to appear in the society columns of the less respectable newspapers. We love participating in state sanctioned lotteries for charity (the only kind allowed here in the Netherlands) and collectively open our wallets whenever a natural disaster strikes (e.g. the tsunami of '04 or more recently the floods in Pakistan or the disaster in Haiti). Our reaction to events like that is to broadcast tremendously successful fundraiser shows on the public TV channels (like NPR in the US) that feature celebrities appealing to the public to give money. I suppose these natural disasters remind us of our own battle with the elements, like the flood of 1953. The problem with that kind of aid, of course, is that it isn't very effective, because it's hard to put all that money to good use in areas where all the infrastructure is gone while dealing with corrupt governments that can't be relied upon.

That being said, we do try to imitate the US. Things like fundraiser dinners are starting to happen on a small scale. There is no self respecting (pseudo) celebrity that doesn't work on a side project as the 'ambassador' of some kind of animal shelter or what not. A cynic would say that these activities are great publicity for people that want to stay in the spotlight. Of course, there are also a few people doing productive charity work, e.g. on education or micro lending, so it wouldn't do to be overly dismissive.

A major difference between European welfare states and the US is taxation. Our (upper) middle class pays a 52% income tax and that is just the first in a long list of fiscal burdens. This raises different expectations from the government, because unlike the US we actually give them the money to pursue the dreams of ambitious politicians so they don't have to overspend the budget. As I'm of the persuasion that private initiatives are infinitely more promising than anything the government comes up with I envy the American culture where the wealthy don't look to the government to support the causes they care about.

Of course, the downside of the American culture is that the way politics gets financed (with the Obama campaign as a positive exception) seems a bit sketchy at times. Not that our own system is preferable, because we've taken it to the other extreme and have our government pay for the election campaigns of our politicians in order to avoid the suggestion of political debt to private benefactors. My main worry about charitable giving in the US are the incredibly well financed religious groups that force their creationist fantasies upon helpless school children or hold back things like stem cell research. The right answer to that, however, isn't to change the American culture of giving, but to make sure that voices of reason can match the deep coffers of religious pressure groups.