Hide table of contents

I'm about to start a new job, so I will be able to donate a lot more money to charity in the coming year, but I'm really confused as to where I ought to donate. Some information about my situation and beliefs:

  • I'll be earning about $100,000 after taxes, so I anticipate that I'll want to donate between $1,000 and $5,000. I also run annual birthday fundraisers every October from my Facebook account - this year, I pulled in $400 for the Clean Air Task Force. I try to pick charities that are both high-impact by EA lights and within popular causes like climate change, so I'll be able to spend more of my own money on more neglected or obscure causes.
  • I believe that future generations and animal lives have value. This makes me think that I should donate to organizations like the Wild Animal Initiative and Fish Welfare Initiative, which may be able to help billions of animals going into the future.
  • Although I care a lot about existential risks, I worry that a lot of longtermist funding is going toward AI safety, and not enough EA funding is going toward more neglected and obscure x-risks, such as the ones on this list. I would like to see more research into how x-risks compare against one another to help with prioritization, and I would like to fund more work on underfunded areas like s-risks. Also, I'm hesitant to donate to the LTFF because it seems over-weighted toward AI safety, but I'm open to being persuaded that I should still donate to it or that AIS is underfunded.
  • I'm interested in funding "broad longtermist" interventions - ones that make society better able to deal with future challenges in general, like better institutional decision-making, reducing great-power conflict, and protecting liberal democracy. Ben Todd notes (10:34 in this talk) that this category is greatly under-resourced. I care about liberal democracy for longtermist as well as non-EA reasons, and although it seems like it's already really popular, I'm not confident that the existing funding is going to the best interventions.
  • I'm also interested in longtermist interventions to reduce global poverty and promote economic growth - maybe something like the Center for Global Development?

I would appreciate any advice as to where I should donate and what proportions I should allocate to each org in the coming year, given what I've said here.

New Answer
New Comment


3 Answers sorted by

Congratulations on the job!

  • I'm interested in funding "broad longtermist" interventions - ones that make society better able to deal with future challenges in general, like better institutional decision-making, reducing great-power conflict, and protecting liberal democracy. Ben Todd notes (10:34 in this talk) that this category is greatly under-resourced. I care about liberal democracy for longtermist as well as non-EA reasons, and although it seems like it's already really popular, I'm not confident that the existing funding is going to the best interventions.

FYI, Effective Institutions Project is highly funding-constrained and would welcome gifts in the range you're thinking about. I agree with Ben that the category in general could benefit from a lot more funding, especially to help establish strategic foundations for the work going forward.

Separately, I run a giving circle focused on liberal democracy interventions in the United States specifically and am happy to talk further about options in that space if you like. Feel free to PM me to set up a call.

How does one donate to the Effective Institutions Project?

Thanks for your interest! I'm hoping to get us set up for online donations in the near future, but until then, the easiest thing is to write me here or at ian@effectiveinstitutionsproject.org and I'll send you some options for check/wire.

I donate to, and generally advise other small donors to donate to, a donor lottery, for roughly the reasons outlined here.

In the vein of “democracy promotion” and “longer-term/less measurable global development interventions,” you might consider donating to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and/or Partnership for Transparency Fund. I know more about ICIJ than Partnership for Transparency, but both strike me as a very strong organizations with impressive track records in fighting corruption in low- and middle-income countries. In addition to anecdotes of their achievements, there is also a growing body of evidence in economics showing that local investigative journalism can have really striking (positive) effects on various sorts of favorable political outcomes. Admittedly, most of this evidence, as far as I’m aware, is not from LMICs. Assuming it generalizes to that context, though (and I think there is good reason to believe it does), ICIJ in particular may be one of the few organizations out there with a reasonable prospect of cost-effectively improving the quality of institutions in LMICs, which (as others have noted elsewhere on this forum) is likely quite important for bringing about faster economic growth and other related positive development outcomes.

Can you link to some studies on the political effects of local investigative journalism?

9
HStencil
Yeah, I’d be happy to, but I may not get around to it until next week, if that’s alright.
3
HStencil
Hey, sorry, I totally forgot about this until I stumbled across this recent discussion on donating to help with the situation in Ukraine earlier this week. I've pasted a bibliography of relevant papers below. Aker, Jenny C., Paul Collier, and Pedro C. Vicente. “Is Information Power? Using Mobile Phones and Free Newspapers during an Election in Mozambique.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 99, no. 2 (May 2017): 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00611. Armand, Alex, Alexander Coutts, Pedro C. Vicente, and Inês Vilela. “Does Information Break the Political Resource Curse? Experimental Evidence from Mozambique.” American Economic Review 110, no. 11 (November 1, 2020): 3431–53. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190842. Banerjee, Abhijit, Nils T. Enevoldsen, Rohini Pande, and Michael Walton. “Public Information Is an Incentive for Politicians: Experimental Evidence from Delhi Elections.” Working Paper. Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2020. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26925. Besley, Timothy, and Robin Burgess. “The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117, no. 4 (November 1, 2002): 1415–51. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302320935061. Bruns, Christian, and Oliver Himmler. “Newspaper Circulation and Local Government Efficiency: Newspaper Circulation and Local Government Efficiency.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 113, no. 2 (June 2011): 470–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2010.01633.x. Casey, Katherine. “Crossing Party Lines: The Effects of Information on Redistributive Politics.” American Economic Review 105, no. 8 (August 1, 2015): 2410–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130397. Conroy-Krutz, Jeffrey. “Media Exposure and Political Participation in a Transitional African Context.” World Development 110 (October 2018): 224–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.002. Drago, Francesco, Tommaso Nannicini, and Francesco Sobbrio. “Meet th
Comments2
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Congratulations on the new job! That's very exciting :)

Thank you so much! 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I can’t recall the last time I read a book in one sitting, but that’s what happened with Moral Ambition by bestselling author Rutger Bregman. I read the German edition, though it’s also available in Dutch (see James Herbert's Quick Take). An English release is slated for May. The book opens with the statement: “The greatest waste of our times is the waste of talent.” From there, Bregman builds a compelling case for privileged individuals to leave their “bullshit jobs” and tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. He weaves together narratives spanning historical movements like abolitionism, suffrage, and civil rights through to contemporary initiatives such as Against Malaria Foundation, Charity Entrepreneurship, LEEP, and the Shrimp Welfare Project. If you’ve been engaged with EA ideas, much of this will sound familiar, but I initially didn’t expect to enjoy the book as much as I did. However, Bregman’s skill as a storyteller and his knack for balancing theory and narrative make Moral Ambition a fascinating read. He reframes EA concepts in a more accessible way, such as replacing “counterfactuals” with the sports acronym “VORP” (Value Over Replacement Player). His use of stories and examples, paired with over 500 footnotes for details, makes the book approachable without sacrificing depth. I had some initial reservations. The book draws heavily on examples from the EA community but rarely engages directly with the movement, mentioning EA mainly in the context of FTX. The final chapter also promotes Bregman’s own initiative, The School for Moral Ambition. However, the school’s values closely align with core EA principles. The ITN framework and pitches for major EA cause areas are in the book, albeit with varying levels of depth. Having finished the book, I can appreciate its approach. Moral Ambition feels like a more pragmatic, less theory-heavy version of EA. The School for Moral Ambition has attracted better-known figures in Germany, such as the political e
MarieF🔸
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary * After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role. * This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again. * Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025. * I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director. Before the role When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022.  During the role I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to