5 ms·

I think GiveWell does a great job at determining where we get the best bang for our buck when it comes to aid, but at a more fundamental level, I don't think I'

by imagist 10y ago

I think GiveWell does a great job at determining where we get the best bang for our buck when it comes to aid, but at a more fundamental level, I don't think I'm in a position to tell someone else what they need. That's condescending and I'll never have the whole picture. That's why I give to GiveDirectly--I think people should be able to determine how they are helped. Deworming programs might help kids the most, but then that money goes to a (likely American) pharmaceutical company and the benefit is over. In contrast, give someone money and a lot of that money will stay in their community. Maybe the iron roof they buy provides them a smaller benefit than deworming, but the guy who makes and installs the iron roof can now buy a cow from his neighbor, who can now buy seed for next year's crops. Maybe eventually the money allows someone to get deworming medication for their kids, but now that money had benefited a bunch of people in the community first. It's hard to collect data on this kind of stuff (although GiveDirectly is collecting a lot of data). But I think we need to recognize that the only reason we collect data is to control outcomes, and we're not really helping people if we don't allow them control over their own lives.

Retric 10y ago
Some problems like smallpox can be permanently fixed with targeted aid. In those cases the benefits to local economies can be huge and long lasting. I feel a mix of the highest ROI directed aid along side programs like give directly, is probably ideal.
- imagist 10y ago
  Not to be pedantic, but ROI as a concept only makes sense when you're trying to achieve your own goals. If you're really empowering other people, then they are the ones who should be evaluating the ROI on their decisions, not you. Ultimately, I do agree that a mix of giver-goal aid and receiver-goal aid is useful. I think it's a very laudable goal to i.e. end polio. But I think that western aid has very little concept of helping people achieve their own goals. As a result, we're very far unbalanced in favor of the goals of those giving aid rather than the goals of those receiving aid. Until that balance is fixed, I think there's far more need in receiver-goal programs. Incidentally, besides GiveDirectly, I give to Planned Parenthood and the FSF. While they both have slightly more complex models, I think both of those organizations are geared toward empowering people to achieve their own goals.
  - imgabe 10y ago
    Worms and other parasites are known to influence behavior. If you give money to someone whose decisions are being influenced by a parasite, are you really giving the money to them, or are you giving it to the parasite?
  - Retric 10y ago
    People give Aid so things the giver wants to happen happen. As such, you can talk about ROI in terms of achieving the givers goals.
    - imagist 10y ago
      That's what I said.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    > ROI as a concept only makes sense when you're trying to achieve your own goals. If you're really empowering other people, then they are the ones who should be evaluating the ROI on their decisions, not you. While a noble concept in theory, people are notoriously both selfish and short-sighted. Especially when basic infrastructure is missing, and assuming the giver-goals are unbiased, I would expect that an observer would typically say that the society helped by giver-goal aid is better off than the society helped by receiver-goal aid. Receivers, being selfish and shortsighted, will be unlikely to invest in things like a local hospital, or sewage, water, and electricity. They'll buy themselves a trip to a hospital to get taken care of, and purchase a private well, a septic tank (or just a longer pipe to the local canal) and a generator. If they get a propane tank, propane delivery service, and a modern furnace and stove, that's great for them, but the observer would probably say it would be better to run natural gas to all the houses rather than individual propane tanks to a small number of residents. And you may have better results in the short term by giving people money to buy the generator they want rather than a solar array that puts out fewer watts per dollar, but the city will eventually be covered in smog. Or they might invest in better tires for their vehicle to navigate the potholed roads, but they won't pay to pave or maintain them. And while individual smartphones are a wonderful luxury, many more people would benefit if you put PCs in the local library. Perhaps these things would have eventually sorted themselves out when the empowered receivers start using their elevated position on Maslow's hierarchy of needs to become wealthier. They would then contribute more to the tax base and eventually an effective government will have the funds to start investing in these public works that eventually people realize they want for a few percent of their wealth. But I think it's more effective to skip that "perhaps" stage.
notahacker 10y ago
If we're doing fair comparisons, the gift to a single family that allowed them to buy the iron roof could have dewormed 200-1000 children and at least some of those funds pass into the hands of local administrators spending in the local economy. I also doubt the profit margin for an East African roof installer buys him a cow, and it may not even be as much as the local thatcher stands to lose from no longer being required to undertake as many biennal rethatching projects. (Estimating all the side effects of a programme is really quite tricky) I don't buy the argument that deworming doesn't really help people because they weren't offered the choice of buying the equivalent value of cigarettes instead. Just because a person freely chooses to do something doesn't mean it helps them, and vice versa. Donors and aid agencies' systematic biases in favour of things that don't work particularly well (this, not "control" is the real reason for all the data collection attempts) is certainly worth worrying about, but that can't be fairly assessed without realising that recipients also have systematic biases in favour of things that don't work or against things that do too. There's a reason why countries where the average person has a lot of disposable income spend even more as a proportion of income on publicly subsidised healthcare programmes. Edit: This shouldn't be interpreted as a particular criticism of GiveDirectly, if the idea of making a fairly big difference to a small number of randomly-selected very poor Kenyan people appeals to you.
- Veedrac 10y ago
  The mention of cigarette spending is an extremely dangerous strawman, largely because for some reason people actually believe it. There's fairly strong evidence that there is no increase in tobacco or alcohol spending[1][2] with direct cash transfers to the extremely poor. These stereotypes are frequently used to argue against charity or welfare to the needy, and I can only consider this line of argument to be harmful. This is not to take away from the rest of your point, but I would appreciate it if you chose a different comparison next time. [1] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly [2] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers
  - notahacker 10y ago
lima 10y ago
GiveDirectly is one of the charities recommended by GiveWell (in fact, it's their top charity by amount of money moved [1]). [1] http://www.givewell.org/about/impact http://www.givewell.org/about/impact
cmdrfred 10y ago
I like Kiva. You can fund loans to businesses and individuals that would normally not have access to capitol. The agencies that administer the loans charge some interest to the borrower that is used to cover the costs of the loan as well as do charitable work. They have a less than 1% default rate, though there is some risk of loss during currency conversion back to dollars.
- lkbm 10y ago
  I lend a lot on Kiva, in part because it's more fun, and in part because I dumped a lot of money in there prior to getting into EA, but the evidence of effectiveness for microfinance seems much more limited/tenuous than Give Directly, Deworm the World, or AMF. For what it's worth, though, One Acre Fund (one of the Kiva field partners) is a recommended charity on The Life You Can Save (another EA charity evaluator)[0]. Since discovering that, I've been focusing my loans towards that specific partner. They currently have a lot of loans which are nearing expiration, if you're interested: https://www.kiva.org/lend?partner=202&sortBy=expiringSoon https://www.kiva.org/lend?partner=202&sortBy=expiringSoon [0] https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/Where-to-Donate/One-Acre-Fund https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/Where-to-Donate/One-Acre-F...
witty_username 10y ago
> Maybe the iron roof they buy provides them a smaller benefit than deworming, but the guy who makes and installs the iron roof can now buy a cow from his neighbor, who can now buy seed for next year's crops. Maybe eventually the money allows someone to get deworming medication for their kids, but now that money had benefited a bunch of people in the community first. Then just directly give money to the guy who installs the iron roof and guy who buys seeds. This is a poor way of giving to those three people (it is hard to control the amount of money the three receive).
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  > it is hard to control the amount of money the three receive Since it's very hard to know how much that should be, we just inject some cash into the bottom of the market, and let the market distribute the cash. The debate about giving cash vs. medicine is that cash moves around the target community and stimulates lots of things, rather than going direct to a multinational pharma corp's Swiss bank. The risk is that too much of the cash is absorbed by bad actors. As usual, it's a complex trade off and maybe a bit of both would give best results.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    The market does not have charity in mind; it will allocate capital to maximize the total size of the economy.
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      That's completely orthogonal to what I said. The local market moves money around locally, where it can be useful.

by imagist 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

Some problems like smallpox can be permanently fixed with targeted aid. In those cases the benefits to local economies can be huge and long lasting. I feel a mix of the highest ROI directed aid along side programs like give directly, is probably ideal.

imagist 10y ago
Not to be pedantic, but ROI as a concept only makes sense when you're trying to achieve your own goals. If you're really empowering other people, then they are the ones who should be evaluating the ROI on their decisions, not you. Ultimately, I do agree that a mix of giver-goal aid and receiver-goal aid is useful. I think it's a very laudable goal to i.e. end polio. But I think that western aid has very little concept of helping people achieve their own goals. As a result, we're very far unbalanced in favor of the goals of those giving aid rather than the goals of those receiving aid. Until that balance is fixed, I think there's far more need in receiver-goal programs. Incidentally, besides GiveDirectly, I give to Planned Parenthood and the FSF. While they both have slightly more complex models, I think both of those organizations are geared toward empowering people to achieve their own goals.
- imgabe 10y ago
  Worms and other parasites are known to influence behavior. If you give money to someone whose decisions are being influenced by a parasite, are you really giving the money to them, or are you giving it to the parasite?
- Retric 10y ago
  People give Aid so things the giver wants to happen happen. As such, you can talk about ROI in terms of achieving the givers goals.
  - imagist 10y ago
    That's what I said.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  > ROI as a concept only makes sense when you're trying to achieve your own goals. If you're really empowering other people, then they are the ones who should be evaluating the ROI on their decisions, not you. While a noble concept in theory, people are notoriously both selfish and short-sighted. Especially when basic infrastructure is missing, and assuming the giver-goals are unbiased, I would expect that an observer would typically say that the society helped by giver-goal aid is better off than the society helped by receiver-goal aid. Receivers, being selfish and shortsighted, will be unlikely to invest in things like a local hospital, or sewage, water, and electricity. They'll buy themselves a trip to a hospital to get taken care of, and purchase a private well, a septic tank (or just a longer pipe to the local canal) and a generator. If they get a propane tank, propane delivery service, and a modern furnace and stove, that's great for them, but the observer would probably say it would be better to run natural gas to all the houses rather than individual propane tanks to a small number of residents. And you may have better results in the short term by giving people money to buy the generator they want rather than a solar array that puts out fewer watts per dollar, but the city will eventually be covered in smog. Or they might invest in better tires for their vehicle to navigate the potholed roads, but they won't pay to pave or maintain them. And while individual smartphones are a wonderful luxury, many more people would benefit if you put PCs in the local library. Perhaps these things would have eventually sorted themselves out when the empowered receivers start using their elevated position on Maslow's hierarchy of needs to become wealthier. They would then contribute more to the tax base and eventually an effective government will have the funds to start investing in these public works that eventually people realize they want for a few percent of their wealth. But I think it's more effective to skip that "perhaps" stage.

notahacker 10y ago

If we're doing fair comparisons, the gift to a single family that allowed them to buy the iron roof could have dewormed 200-1000 children and at least some of those funds pass into the hands of local administrators spending in the local economy. I also doubt the profit margin for an East African roof installer buys him a cow, and it may not even be as much as the local thatcher stands to lose from no longer being required to undertake as many biennal rethatching projects. (Estimating all the side effects of a programme is really quite tricky) I don't buy the argument that deworming doesn't really help people because they weren't offered the choice of buying the equivalent value of cigarettes instead. Just because a person freely chooses to do something doesn't mean it helps them, and vice versa. Donors and aid agencies' systematic biases in favour of things that don't work particularly well (this, not "control" is the real reason for all the data collection attempts) is certainly worth worrying about, but that can't be fairly assessed without realising that recipients also have systematic biases in favour of things that don't work or against things that do too. There's a reason why countries where the average person has a lot of disposable income spend even more as a proportion of income on publicly subsidised healthcare programmes. Edit: This shouldn't be interpreted as a particular criticism of GiveDirectly, if the idea of making a fairly big difference to a small number of randomly-selected very poor Kenyan people appeals to you.

Veedrac 10y ago
The mention of cigarette spending is an extremely dangerous strawman, largely because for some reason people actually believe it. There's fairly strong evidence that there is no increase in tobacco or alcohol spending[1][2] with direct cash transfers to the extremely poor. These stereotypes are frequently used to argue against charity or welfare to the needy, and I can only consider this line of argument to be harmful. This is not to take away from the rest of your point, but I would appreciate it if you chose a different comparison next time. [1] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly [2] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers
- notahacker 10y ago

lima 10y ago

GiveDirectly is one of the charities recommended by GiveWell (in fact, it's their top charity by amount of money moved [1]). [1] http://www.givewell.org/about/impact http://www.givewell.org/about/impact

cmdrfred 10y ago

I like Kiva. You can fund loans to businesses and individuals that would normally not have access to capitol. The agencies that administer the loans charge some interest to the borrower that is used to cover the costs of the loan as well as do charitable work. They have a less than 1% default rate, though there is some risk of loss during currency conversion back to dollars.

lkbm 10y ago
I lend a lot on Kiva, in part because it's more fun, and in part because I dumped a lot of money in there prior to getting into EA, but the evidence of effectiveness for microfinance seems much more limited/tenuous than Give Directly, Deworm the World, or AMF. For what it's worth, though, One Acre Fund (one of the Kiva field partners) is a recommended charity on The Life You Can Save (another EA charity evaluator)[0]. Since discovering that, I've been focusing my loans towards that specific partner. They currently have a lot of loans which are nearing expiration, if you're interested: https://www.kiva.org/lend?partner=202&sortBy=expiringSoon https://www.kiva.org/lend?partner=202&sortBy=expiringSoon [0] https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/Where-to-Donate/One-Acre-Fund https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/Where-to-Donate/One-Acre-F...

witty_username 10y ago

> Maybe the iron roof they buy provides them a smaller benefit than deworming, but the guy who makes and installs the iron roof can now buy a cow from his neighbor, who can now buy seed for next year's crops. Maybe eventually the money allows someone to get deworming medication for their kids, but now that money had benefited a bunch of people in the community first. Then just directly give money to the guy who installs the iron roof and guy who buys seeds. This is a poor way of giving to those three people (it is hard to control the amount of money the three receive).

robotresearcher 10y ago
> it is hard to control the amount of money the three receive Since it's very hard to know how much that should be, we just inject some cash into the bottom of the market, and let the market distribute the cash. The debate about giving cash vs. medicine is that cash moves around the target community and stimulates lots of things, rather than going direct to a multinational pharma corp's Swiss bank. The risk is that too much of the cash is absorbed by bad actors. As usual, it's a complex trade off and maybe a bit of both would give best results.
- witty_username 10y ago
  The market does not have charity in mind; it will allocate capital to maximize the total size of the economy.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    That's completely orthogonal to what I said. The local market moves money around locally, where it can be useful.