Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Vasco Grilo🔸
3 min read 6

-8

Cause prioritizationEffective givingImpact assessment
Frontpage

Summary

  • Very tentatively, I estimate:
    • Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are the 2 people among the 10 richest in the world whose donations have achieved the most social impact.
    • The social impact of the donations of the 10 richest people in the world is equivalent to donating 172 M$ to the Longtermism Fund.
  • This analysis is very (too?) shallow. I encourage you to get in touch with Elliot Olds in case you would like to be involved in the project proposed here.

Methods

I have collected 65 donations made by the 10 richest people in the world, on 25 December 2022 according to this page from Forbes. I used the following sources, which I last checked on 25 December 2022:

I have included donations made together with partners, but excluded pledges. For the Wikipedia pages, I disregarded donations whose specific year or amount was unclear.

I set the cost-effectiveness of the donations in terms of increasing the expected value of the future. I only defined non-null values for those to:

I assumed null cost-effectiveness for the other donations due to very tentatively thinking they are neither robustly beneficial nor harmful. Feel free to check this post to get a sense of why I think this also applies to donations in the area of global health and development.

Results

The table below contains the amount, social impact, and cost-effectiveness of the donations I collected, listed by descending social impact[1]. The calculations and data are in this Sheet.

Donor

Donations (G$)

Social impact (bp)

Cost-effectiveness (bp/G$)

Jeff Bezos

10.3

0.640

0.0620

Elon Musk

5.82

0.0395

0.00679

Bill Gates

20.4

0

0

Carlos Slim Helu & family

8.00

0

0

Warren Buffett

1.08

0

0

Steve Ballmer

0.728

0

0

Larry Ellison

0.0316

0

0

Gautam Adani & family

0.0138

0

0

Bernard Arnault & family

0

0

ND

Mukesh Ambani

0

0

ND

Discussion

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk top the list. This is in agreement with my prior expectations. However, the present analysis is very (too?) shallow:

  • My data are very incomplete. For example:
    • Forbes claims here that:
      • Bill Gates has donated 33.4 G$, but only 67.1 % (= 20.4/33.4) of this was captured in the sources I have used.
      • Warren Buffet has donated 46.1 G$, but only 2.33 % (= 1.08/33.4) of this was captured in the sources I have used.
    • This article from The Art Newspaper suggests Bernard Arnault donated 0.2 G$ to Fondation Notre Dame.
  • My cost-effectiveness estimates have very low resilience:
    • I only spent about 5 s setting the cost-effectiveness of each donation, guessing it based solely on the name of the recipient.
    • So I assumed the cost-effectiveness to be null whenever it was not obviously net positive or negative from my very quick impression.

The social impact of 0.680 bp I estimated for the donations of the 10 richest people in the world is equivalent to donating 172 M$ (= 0.680/3.95*10^3) to the Longtermism Fund, supposing its cost-effectiveness is 3.95 bp/G$ as I estimated here for the spending of the effective altruism community on longtermism and catastrophic risk prevention.

Another shallow analysis was published here by Nuño Sempere, and a proposal for a more detailed one was presented here by Elliot Olds.

  1. ^

     In case of null social impact, I listed the names by descending amount donated. If this was also null, I listed the names alphabetically. ND stands for not defined.

-8

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments6


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Yonatan Cale10
5
1

I think Bill Gates' donations are probably very high impact, not zero.

 

Example source:

Against Against Billionaire Philanthropy / Scott Alexander

Nobody knows exactly how many lives the Gates Foundation has saved. The Guardian says it’s some appreciable fraction of the 122 million lives saved in general from progress fighting infectious diseases over the last few decades. This article says Gates has saved seven million people through his vaccination campaign alone, provided another seven million with antiretroviral treatment (usually life-saving), “tested and treated” twelve million people for tuberculosis (often fatal, but there’s a big difference between testing and treatment), and been responsible for a big part of the seven million lives saved from malaria. I expect these numbers are inflated, but even by conservative estimates the Gates Foundation may have saved ten million people.

 

In your sheet, you seem to count it as zero (without any formula, it's hard coded zero)

Reply
Vasco Grilo🔸5
1
0

Hi Yonatan,

Thanks for commeting. I agree the Gates Foundation has saved many lives, but I am very unsure about the sign of global health and development interventions for the reasons I point to here.

Reply
NickLaing8
0
0

To be clear (a genuine question, not a criticism, although I do strongly disagree), have you counted the cost-effectiveness of all donations to global  health and development as zero because of possible harm to terrestrial arthropods?

If you really have that much uncertainty along that line of thinking, I'm not sure there's too much benefit in an analysis like this when of course most billionaires give most of their money to those initiatives. Happy to be pushed back on this though!

 

Reply
Vasco Grilo🔸4
0
0

Hi Nick,

Yes, something along those lines. As of now, I am pretty clueless about the effects of global health and development interventions on terrestrial arthropods in the near term, and I am also quite unsure about their longterm effects. 

This is a little hard for me too. Obviously, I feel a strong intuitive pull towards preventing deaths from malaria and malnutrition. In the past, I donated to GiveWell's top charities, and wrote articles in the online newspaper of my university applauding them (here and here; you can right click, and translate to English).

If you really have that much uncertainty along that line of thinking, I'm not sure there's too much benefit in an analysis like this

My hope was that the data about the donations could still be useful.

Reply
Alexander Herwix 🔸2
2
1

Just wondering how it is possible to be so unsure about the impact of global health interventions but still have „enough“ certainty regarding the positive impact of orgs like FLI? I mean there is still lots of stuff that can go wrong based on FLI interventions. Maybe that’s just the work that tipps us into an astronomical suffering scenario?

It seems rather arbitrary how you make those decisions. Imo, for this to have any value beyond being personal speculation, you should at least start to make explicit your reasoning process in more detail and also express the range of uncertainty you see. Maybe using conditionals as well to cover different scenarios.

Valuing Bill Gates philanthropy at 0 value outright without justification does not seem to be plausible or rigorous to me.

Reply
Vasco Grilo🔸2
0
0

Hi Alexander,

I mean there is still lots of stuff that can go wrong based on FLI interventions. Maybe that’s just the work that tipps us into an astronomical suffering scenario?

I agree longtermist interventions are quite uncertain too. Moreover, I actually think they have wider confidence intervals for reasons like the one you pointed to. However, since they explicitly try to ensure the longterm effects are positive, and I believe most of the expected effects of interventions tend to be in the future, I guess the expected value of longtermist interventions is more likely to be positive than that of neartermist ones.

Imo, for this to have any value beyond being personal speculation, you should at least start to make explicit your reasoning process in more detail and also express the range of uncertainty you see.

I explained my process:

I only spent about 5 s setting the cost-effectiveness of each donation, guessing it based solely on the name of the recipient.

I agree it is not rigorous. This was supposed to be represented by elements like the title including "very shallow analysis" and the point in the summary saying (emphasis added only here, not in the summary):

This analysis is very (too?) shallow.

Reply
More from Vasco Grilo🔸
92
Yes, Shrimp Matter
Vasco Grilo🔸
· · 8m read
10
10
34
Cost-effectiveness of Veganuary and School Plates
Vasco Grilo🔸
· · 11m read
9
9
98
GiveWell may have made 1 billion dollars of harmful grants, and Ambitious Impact incubated 8 harmful organisations via increasing factory-farming?
Vasco Grilo🔸
· · 11m read
108
108
View more
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