View source for Blog:Docmoates/effective-altruism-and-evidence-based-giving-choosing-where-impact-matters

GiveWell was founded in 2007 by two former hedge fund analysts who asked a question that seems obvious once articulated: which charities do the most good per dollar? The answer, they discovered, was not reflected in existing charity ratings that focused primarily on administrative overhead ratios rather than impact. Their research initiated what became the effective altruism movement, an approach to philanthropy that applies rigorous empirical methods and explicit value frameworks to the question of where charitable resources can do the most good. The movement has influenced billions of dollars of philanthropic giving and generated significant intellectual debate about how to reason about doing good under uncertainty.

<span id="the-evidence-for-high-impact-giving"></span>
== The Evidence for High-Impact Giving ==

GiveWell's top-rated charities are selected through a process of examining evidence quality, cost-effectiveness analysis, and organizational capacity to use additional funding. The interventions that consistently rise to the top of this analysis share several characteristics: they address conditions with enormous burden, primarily in low-income countries; they deploy interventions with strong randomized controlled trial evidence of efficacy; and they reach populations who have been underserved by both market and government provision.

Insecticide-treated bed nets for malaria prevention are the archetypal example. Malaria kills hundreds of thousands of children per year, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Insecticide-treated nets reduce malaria transmission with high efficacy and at very low cost per net distributed. Multiple randomized trials have confirmed the mortality reduction effect. The Against Malaria Foundation, which distributes nets and tracks distributions carefully, has been repeatedly identified as among the most cost-effective ways to save a life that charitable resources can fund. GiveWell estimates the cost to save a statistical life through their top charities at $3,000 to $5,000, a figure that is dramatically lower than the cost of comparable life-saving in high-income country health systems.

<span id="direct-cash-transfers"></span>
== Direct Cash Transfers ==

GiveDirectly's model of direct cash transfers to extremely poor households in Kenya and other countries has been extensively evaluated through randomized controlled trials and longitudinal follow-up. The evidence shows that recipients of unconditional cash transfers invest in productive assets, food security, housing, and children's education at rates that produce sustained economic benefit years after the transfer. The paternalistic assumption that poor people will misspend cash is not supported by the evidence. Poor people are, on average, better judges of their own needs than outside donors, and giving them resources to address those needs directly produces better outcomes than many program-based alternatives that impose conditions and administrative costs.

<span id="the-uncomfortable-implications-for-donors"></span>
== The Uncomfortable Implications for Donors ==

The effective altruism framework produces conclusions that are uncomfortable for many donors. It suggests that geography and emotional proximity do not correlate with impact, and that giving to local organizations that serve visible, relatable needs may produce far less benefit per dollar than giving to organizations working on less visible problems in distant places. It suggests that the warm feeling of giving to a cause close to your experience is not a reliable guide to where your giving will do the most good. These conclusions do not invalidate local giving or giving motivated by personal experience. They do suggest that donors who want to maximize impact benefit from actively investigating the evidence rather than relying on emotional resonance, institutional prestige, or social pressure as guides to philanthropic decision-making.

<span id="critiques-and-limitations"></span>
== Critiques and Limitations ==

Effective altruism has been critiqued from multiple directions. The focus on quantifiable, short-term, individual-level outcomes can underweight structural and political change that is harder to measure but potentially more transformative. The reliance on randomized trials in global health creates a bias toward interventions that are amenable to trial methodology, which is not all interventions. And the movement's historical concentration in a specific demographic and cultural milieu has shaped its priorities and blind spots in ways that its proponents have increasingly acknowledged. These critiques are worth engaging seriously. They identify real limitations without invalidating the core commitment to evidence-informed giving that distinguishes effective altruism from unreflective charity.

----
''Originally published October 24, 2022 on [https://docmoates.com/blog/effective-altruism-and-evidence-based-giving-choosing-where-impact-matters/ docmoates.com].''