4 ms·

When I get home I'm going to read the article thoroughly and do some digging. I've heard of organized charities failing miserably but this sounds too good to b

When I get home I'm going to read the article thoroughly and do some digging. I've heard of organized charities failing miserably but this sounds too good to be true.

notahacker 11y ago
A few points to start you off. Randomised Controlled Trials aren't at all novel or unusual in international development, despite what the article says. (though some of the parties conducting them aren't particularly inclined to share the data, especially the microfinance guys...) The survey referenced is here http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapiro_Policy_Brief_2013.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapir... The margin for error in these studies is high. The study notes that their relative measure of "women's empowerment"[1] for women whose neighbours received money increased by a similar degree to the food security of people that actually did receive money. Plausible? The only viable causal mechanism the survey authors and I can think of that leads women who haven't received any money to be more "empowered" as a result of a few neighbours receiving it is the spreading of rumours that aid money is linked to people treat their women (something randomised study authors would really prefer didn't happen. Subjects trying to second-guess the surveyors' intentions is a big problem) The only other hypothesis that seems to fit is secular trends or differences in village behaviour contaminating the study results, despite the best efforts to control for them. Either way that result is unhelpful, not least because it puts into perspective the surprisingly small proportionate increase in food security Taking the statistics at face value, they strongly suggest the recipients don't waste the money and don't have it stolen from them, but the non-cherry-picked stats aren't as spectacular as the article makes out Ultimately, it shows that households receiving $287 in cash had $278 more in wealth later on. Their businesses are larger but generate no more profit than before. People receiving a total of $1085 are only $531 better off in assets and actually have slightly worse returns on the businesses than the people who received lower handouts[2] The one thing this wealth does enable people to do is consume more, quite a lot more ($40 more for people previously spending presumably because they have less need for savings or debt repayments. Whether this pattern continues further into the future (and how that affects their income/assets) isn't studied. Effects on the other villagers' income and wealth appeared negative, but not to a statistically significant degree. I'm reasonably convinced that at this end of the scale the cash transfers are better than the more fashionable approach of loaning the small amounts of money (with high overheads and commensurately high interest payment burdens on the recipients) but the study supports the view that its a band-aid rather than a solution. [1]which, reading the full text, is actually a measure of reduced domestic abuse [2]whilst not statistically significant, the result that larger handouts resulted in a smaller increase in revenue is unhelpful
- reagency 11y ago
  Most people, including startups , will inefficiently spend if they get too much money in one series of funding. Cash flush can make you rush to purchase. Better to have a good plan before raising more funds. Consumption isn't so bad to be worthless. At this level , consumption includes stuff life increased food for better health , which isn't reported in ROI. And a slightly silly analogy: Britain's elevate handouts kept many people afloat but generated one $billion profit enterprise (Harry Potter)
ceras 11y ago
Here's a great place to start: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-dir... For background, GiveWell is a meta-charity that evaluates charities by the amount of suffering they reduce per dollar. It was started by former hedge-fund managers and highly transparent, and about as rigorous as you can get in this field. They publish all of their research, for both their "top charities" research and their more long-term Open Philanthropy Project division (which researches more abstract threats like labor migration, AIs becoming evil, land use regulation, scientific research funding, and more). There's a wealth of knowledge there for anyone interested in making the world a better place through altruism.

When I get home I'm going to read the article thoroughly and do some digging. I've heard of organized charities failing miserably but this sounds too good to be true.

notahacker 11y ago

A few points to start you off. Randomised Controlled Trials aren't at all novel or unusual in international development, despite what the article says. (though some of the parties conducting them aren't particularly inclined to share the data, especially the microfinance guys...) The survey referenced is here http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapiro_Policy_Brief_2013.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapir... The margin for error in these studies is high. The study notes that their relative measure of "women's empowerment"[1] for women whose neighbours received money increased by a similar degree to the food security of people that actually did receive money. Plausible? The only viable causal mechanism the survey authors and I can think of that leads women who haven't received any money to be more "empowered" as a result of a few neighbours receiving it is the spreading of rumours that aid money is linked to people treat their women (something randomised study authors would really prefer didn't happen. Subjects trying to second-guess the surveyors' intentions is a big problem) The only other hypothesis that seems to fit is secular trends or differences in village behaviour contaminating the study results, despite the best efforts to control for them. Either way that result is unhelpful, not least because it puts into perspective the surprisingly small proportionate increase in food security Taking the statistics at face value, they strongly suggest the recipients don't waste the money and don't have it stolen from them, but the non-cherry-picked stats aren't as spectacular as the article makes out Ultimately, it shows that households receiving $287 in cash had $278 more in wealth later on. Their businesses are larger but generate no more profit than before. People receiving a total of $1085 are only $531 better off in assets and actually have slightly worse returns on the businesses than the people who received lower handouts[2] The one thing this wealth does enable people to do is consume more, quite a lot more ($40 more for people previously spending presumably because they have less need for savings or debt repayments. Whether this pattern continues further into the future (and how that affects their income/assets) isn't studied. Effects on the other villagers' income and wealth appeared negative, but not to a statistically significant degree. I'm reasonably convinced that at this end of the scale the cash transfers are better than the more fashionable approach of loaning the small amounts of money (with high overheads and commensurately high interest payment burdens on the recipients) but the study supports the view that its a band-aid rather than a solution. [1]which, reading the full text, is actually a measure of reduced domestic abuse [2]whilst not statistically significant, the result that larger handouts resulted in a smaller increase in revenue is unhelpful

reagency 11y ago
Most people, including startups , will inefficiently spend if they get too much money in one series of funding. Cash flush can make you rush to purchase. Better to have a good plan before raising more funds. Consumption isn't so bad to be worthless. At this level , consumption includes stuff life increased food for better health , which isn't reported in ROI. And a slightly silly analogy: Britain's elevate handouts kept many people afloat but generated one $billion profit enterprise (Harry Potter)

ceras 11y ago

Here's a great place to start: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-dir... For background, GiveWell is a meta-charity that evaluates charities by the amount of suffering they reduce per dollar. It was started by former hedge-fund managers and highly transparent, and about as rigorous as you can get in this field. They publish all of their research, for both their "top charities" research and their more long-term Open Philanthropy Project division (which researches more abstract threats like labor migration, AIs becoming evil, land use regulation, scientific research funding, and more). There's a wealth of knowledge there for anyone interested in making the world a better place through altruism.