This might be confirmation bias but reading last year's Nobel Prize for Economics paper strengthened my judgement on this by quite a lot.
At first glance, it might seem like a radical idea but I see that as more of a measure of impact than anything else.
I think the hypothesis is simple, worth exploring and has clear outsized returns if it works.
A couple thoughts on this:
1. Perhaps it's true that elections are mostly sold to the highest bidder in developing poor countries. (I'm not familiar with the research on this, and I'd be reluctant to simply trust your Wikipedia link.) Should EAs help the "better" candidate buy their way to power? It seems like this risks undermining the legitimacy of their elections.
2. It's not clear to me that it's easy to figure out who the better candidate is. In one's own country that can often be difficult. Understanding the politics of a foreign country would be even harder. And I'm skeptical that we can just defer to whatever the majority of a country wants because a) it won't always be clear what the majority wants and b) there are reasons to think the majority will be mistaken due to bias or ignorance.
And I don't see how the footnote you cite on this point supports your position. It summarizes research about the effects of information dissemination on voters' choices. It finds that in some cases voters change their decisions after receiving information about social policies or political candidates. In other words, it shows that the citizens were ignorant--they did not know what was happening in politics. As the researchers note:
Voters may lack information about the qualifications and policy positions of candidates, making it difficult to make an informed vote choice.
Moreover, the upshot of the research is that sometimes people change their minds when given information about policies or candidates. This doesn't show that they ended up choosing the better policy or candidate.
I think the standard of evidence needs to be much higher before EAs get involved in foreign countries' political affairs.
It is widely understood that many developing nations suffer from problems that are largely a result of poor institutions. [1]
By institutions here, I'm mainly talking about:
a. Political institutions: Systems that determine how power is obtained and exercised. Some effective forms of this include: free and fair electoral systems, independent judiciaries and legislatures, term limits, freedom of press, anti-corruption bodies/commissions
b. Economic institutions: Systems that affect how wealth is created, shared and protected. Some of these include: property rights, financial systems
These institutions should be designed to help people get themselves out of debt cycles by providing them with access to basic needs. By basic needs here I mean stuff they need to survive, and not have to pay a heavy premium to access (which would make them poorer) like clean running water, cheap nutritious food and cheap and reliable healthcare. Often, these needs are best met via government provision.
Institutions are built by governments, and governments are run by leaders. I think it would make sense to spend more on founding and supporting PACs (Political Action Committees) for candidates who actually have good interests for the country in question. Campaign strength is a good proxy for election results; and strong campaigns require a lot of funding. In many democratic poor countries, elections simply often go to the highest bidder. [7]
Also, It is often not hard to identify these candidates as they usually have the popular vote. Citizens are usually generally aware of which candidates actually have their best interests at heart and know who the bad guys are. [8]
Good leaders can definitely save poor countries; and there is a lot of evidence supporting this claim. Singapore is perhaps the most extreme example, but countries like Botswana and Rwanda have achieved more reasonable, reproducible growth rates too.
Now you might ask: Why should I (a foreigner) meddle with the affairs of other countries that I have nothing to do with? Isn't that just neo-colonialism with extra steps?
And to that I answer: You should meddle because you want to help, and this is the most effective way to do it.
One thing about EAs is that they are focused on seeing the direct results of they're collective actions. If they raised $1 million last month, they want to see pictures of 10,000 different people with $100 in their hands. Now, institutional change doesn't necessarily work like that. It is more of a slow, long-winded progression of results. But I'd argue that it is not terribly difficult to quantify. For instance, if you manage to help get a (for the purposes of simplicity) good leader elected, you could measure improvements in the quality of life of the population over time via surveys [6]
I would argue that another way donations could help would be via giving startups/early stage companies access to credit. Venture capital does not have much of a presence in most African countries because of the risky nature of business in these countries. If foreign VC ends up finding its way into a country's startup scene, it is often given to foreigners who usually do not understand the problem they're trying to solve or the market [2]. Banks haven't been particularly good with this either because of problems like collateral requirements [4] and poor credit infrastructure [5]
Since you can't really solve all problems faced by poor people, you're better off helping the ones who will do the max good for the future of the nation, even if they happen to profit from it. Isn't that what (all hail) capitalism is about anyways? So far, It's been a net good for society [9]
Funding such startups will generate more economic output via jobs (youth unemployment rate in some countries is as high as 67%! [3]) , taxes paid and overall increased GDP.
I'm not implying that you should stop buying mosquito nets for the less fortunate. Charity organizations have their place and have directly saved a lot of lives via buying and administering vaccines to populations that would've otherwise foregone them, UTCs and many more goodwill devices. My proposals are intended to supplement the excellent work EA already does.
I also don't want to give the illusion that I have all the answers. I put this up to open up some discourse and update my models on this topic. Feel free to change my mind in the comments or send me your feedback.
[1] 2024 Nobel Prize for Economics Popular Science Background
[2] Why and how to start a startup serving emerging markets
[3] Youth Unemployment in Kenya
[5] World Bank on getting credit
[6] I'd assume that if you asked someone in 1965 Singapore if their life has improved since (2025), they'd probably agree. And you might argue that that's because of all the technological change that has made our lives more comfortable, but it still took a competent leader to take advantage of general improvements like this. In some parts of the world, the difference in QoL from 1965 is marginal and the people who still live that way have their leaders to blame.
[8] The risks and rewards of voter information campaigns in low- and middle-income countries
[9] "Capitalism has played a significant role in reducing global poverty. Since 1990, the rate of extreme poverty worldwide has declined from 38% to approximately 8.5% in 2024. This reduction is largely attributed to the expansion of global trade and market-driven economies, which have lifted over 800 million people out of poverty in countries like China, India, and Vietnam." ~Vox
Agree. Some problems can’t be fixed by just giving money to charities.