Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Adrian Satja Kurdija
2 min read 1

10

Cause prioritizationEffective givingNews relevant to effective altruismOpinion
Frontpage

TLDR: Most donations are local. Yet, there is a lack of local cause evaluation which could potentially be high-impact by influencing donations from entities who prioritize local causes, thus making them more effective.

I was motivated for this post by today's headline story in Croatia. Namely, Croatia’s government awarded the Eurovision 2024 runner-up Baby Lasagna (real name Marko Purišić) €50,000 for “promoting the international visibility of Croatia.” He responded on social media with a message to the government to donate the money instead:

I thank the Croatian Government for the monetary award in the amount of 50.000 euros. However, I cannot accept that money. I could give many reasons why, but the first, most important and sufficient one is that there are many other individuals and organizations that this money will help much more.

Hereby, I am asking Mr. Plenković to donate 25.000 euros on behalf of me and the Croatian Government to the Institute for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology with the “Mladen Ćepulić” Day Hospital. Furthermore, I would like to donate the other 25.000 euros to the Institute for Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, KBC Zagreb.

This is an admirable altruistic move, although probably not the most effective one. However, even if we assume that Purišić wants to donate locally (to causes based in Croatia) for various reasons, we generally do not known whether the causes he has chosen are the most effective under this constraint. His decision-making process is unknown, but it is possible that some intuitive biases and PR choices, like prioritizing children's healthcare, played a role.

The situation would be quite different if we had a local cause evaluator like Give Well. In this case, donations from Purišić and many other non-effective givers who prioritize local/national causes, and potentially from governments as well, might be influenced and redirected to more effective causes. Most donations are local, and yet, we don't have a local Give Well.

Of course, the most effective donations are not local - they are often transcontinental. However, the difference made by making a local donation more effective, multiplied by the total amount of the affected donations, might make the local evaluator a high-impact organization. Which is why I am puzzled that there isn't such an organization for most countries. (Some statistics and numerical estimates of cost-effectiveness would be much welcomed!)

To address this gap, I encourage stakeholders in the effective altruism community to consider the establishment of local cause evaluators. By doing so, we can ensure that local donations are as impactful as possible, benefiting those who need it most and making the most out of the available resources.

10

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Mo Putera9
0
0

There have been some previous attempts, e.g. EA Philippines’ Local Charity Effectiveness Research and Tentative List of Recommended Charities (list here) and the EA Malaysia Cause Prioritisation Report (2021) (see also the local priorities research tag for more). 

It's also (understandably) quite hard to get charities to share sensitive financial information re: room for more funding considerations, especially if you're not e.g. a large funder. 

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
145
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
93
Updates on Open Philanthropy’s Effective Giving and Careers program
2 authors
· · 6m read
0
0
19
GiveWell is hiring a Talent Acquisition Specialist
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
View more