He could've gone two ways:
1) Spend time convincing the society to approve a mandated program by having everyone else pitch in.
2) Make money in private sector, and direct it to the causes that are relevant to him, free to run his foundation as he chooses.
Which way was more efficient?
Imagine how much progress he could've made if he started pushing this idea as a mid-level bureaucrat.
He could've gone two ways:
1) Spend time convincing the society to approve a mandated program by having everyone else pitch in.
2) Make money in private sector, and direct it to the causes that are relevant to him, free to run his foundation as he chooses.
Which way was more efficient?