Room for more funding: Why doesn’t the Gates foundation just close the funding gap of AMF and SCI?




I've written down a few thoughts and collected a few statistics on 'room for more funding for global health' here:

I'm thinking of publishing this on the Giving What We Can blog... so comments and feedback are very welcome!

Hauke :)

4 comments, sorted by Highlighting new comments since Today at 6:50 AM
New Comment

Just one comment: the essay asks "Why doesn’t the Gates foundation just close the funding gap of AMF and SCI?" but doesn't seem to offer an answer. The closest seems to be 3b/c which suggests it's a coordination problem or donor's dilemma: everyone is expecting everyone else to fund these organizations.

If that's the case, the relevant question would seem to be: what does the Gates foundation want? If the EA community finds something that GF wants that we can potentially offer (such as new high-risk high-return charities doing something totally innovative), then we can potentially do a moral trade with them.

Here's the published version of the Appendix:

The cost of fighting Malaria, Malnutrition, Neglected Tropical Diseases, and HIV/AIDS

Please share!

Wow, great write up. Would be a good post for GWWC. I'd heard through the grapevine (I work at an organization funded by Gates) that they are having trouble giving away all of their money to good causes and are not giving it away fast enough. It seems most of the reasons given here involve resource constraints that it's not clear to me they are in practical terms.

Looks like a very in-depth analysis, congratulations. What I've read so far has effectively reassured me that room for more funding isn't ultimately a worry here and that global health is an excellent cause taking it into account. Do link to the final Giving What We Can blog version here, though I imagine most of us who are interested will spot it there and in the newsletter.