CarlShulman comments on Efficient Charity: Cheap Utilons via bone marrow registration - Less Wrong

17 Post author: atorm 29 January 2012 03:52AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (46)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CarlShulman 29 January 2012 05:14:59PM 9 points [-]

Note that GiveWell carefully tracks room for more funding in its charities. They channeled funding to VillageReach until it had a few years worth of funding at the margin, and then moved on in their recommendation. But they keep track, and when VillageReach again shows that it can use money effectively it will be recommended easily. The problem with Haiti was that there were a lot of donors giving because of the TV images and charity fundraising even though it was clear that there was a surfeit of funding.

If those donors had been more sensible they could have used the recommendations of a service like GiveWell to identify the top organizations. Likewise for scientific research one can back a lab or fund that can allocate resources among many different experiments (or unrestricted grants to Doctors Without Borders which it can allocate to locations of greatest need). This doesn't seem to be too much of a problem in practice, as well as theory.

Comment author: atorm 30 January 2012 04:57:59PM 0 points [-]

Wow, GiveWell seems to be really good at what it does. The Haiti thing was a problem, but it DID spawn a lot of giving that otherwise wouldn't happen. Perhaps the organizations who advertise during emergencies shouldn't accept earmarked donations and instead take advantage of the surge of sympathy for disaster victims to acquire funding for the entire program. Or are there laws preventing that?

Comment author: jkaufman 09 February 2012 01:55:27PM 0 points [-]

Some people want to give you donations earmarked for Haiti. You tell them you only accept unrestricted funding. Many fewer donate.