Tyler Kolota

Topic Contributions

Comments

Growth and the case against randomista development

Besides the interventions mentioned for increasing free trade, immigration, or charter cities, I wonder if there is any capacity for additional less political interventions.

With new tools like the Atlas of Economic Complexity (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/), might there be some effective ways to support entrepreneurs moving up the value-add & product complexity scale to products related to the existing products & skill-sets in a country? Explainers…

https://youtu.be/2FeugaLv5Bo

https://youtu.be/5jjKDH6ijrQ

https://youtu.be/KQAarHByMTM

Or

Is there more capacity for poverty alleviation measures that can be somewhat measured by potential increases in income from products? Like JPAL or Paul Polak interventions of developing domestic production of new income generating or income saving products (treadle pumps, low-cost drip irrigation, electro-chlorination vendors, etc)? https://youtu.be/H_F8xpat4sc

Growth and the case against randomista development

A close thing I’ve seen to the “growth diagnostics” you describe is the country strategies & likely growth products sections of the Atlas of Economic Complexity (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/).

Explainers… https://youtu.be/2FeugaLv5Bo

https://youtu.be/5jjKDH6ijrQ

https://youtu.be/KQAarHByMTM

Donation Multiplier Stacking: Directing 1.2x to 6.6x More Funds

Some points for why Giving Multiplier could still be pretty good even if more funds are directed to slightly less effective GiveWell charities than things like bed-nets:

  1. As EA starts to move a lot more money each year and potentially gets more push-back for concentrating its power in the non-profit space, Giving Multiplier offers a step in the funding process that allows more non-EAs to voice where they want more of these concentrated funds directed. It gives even outsiders a bit of a democratic voice in our processes.

  2. If these outsider voices seem to tip things towards non-optimal allocations, then GiveWell’s maximum impact fund could still adjust its allocation of funds to the better marginal options. So the more democratic Giving Multiplier funds can just displace other funding sources for lower impact GiveWell charities & those displaced sources can then give to the higher impact GiveWell charities in response.

Issues with Giving Multiplier

Some good counterpoints here for why Giving Multiplier could still be pretty good even after these criticisms:

  1. As EA starts to move a lot more money each year and potentially gets more push-back for concentrating its power in the non-profit space, Giving Multiplier offers a step in the funding process that allows more non-EAs to voice where they want more of these concentrated funds directed. It gives even outsiders a bit of a democratic voice in our processes.

  2. If these outsider voices seem to tip things towards non-optimal allocations, then GiveWell’s maximum impact fund could still adjust its allocation of funds to the better marginal options. So the more democratic Giving Multiplier funds can just displace other funding sources for lower impact GiveWell charities & those displaced sources can then give to the higher impact GiveWell charities.

Land use reform

Brief compilation video explaining the basics of the floor area regulations and building construction costs: