= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lmm comments on Open thread, Oct. 13 - Oct. 19, 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (355)
Givewell already analyzes the effectiveness of various charities, so I'd start there.
I don't agree with their emphasis on direct cash transfers. It reminds me of the Canadian Revenue Agency's statement that "preventing poverty is not charity, only relieving it." Givewell has always struck me as being more concerned about balancing one's karma than actually causing lasting improvement anywhere. That's just my perception, though.
It's really hard to measure lasting improvements, which does bias the choice of interventions Givewell considers, but they endorse direct transfers because it has been shown to be more effective at lasting improvements than other things they've considered.
Lasting improvements for whom? Measured how?
Not addressing the underlying issues means there is no stem to the "supply" (so to speak) of people requiring charitable help.
They measured the outcomes of cash transfers by asking them tons of questions about their happiness and their increase in assets a year later. Happiness questions include things like "how often in the last week have you felt hopeless?"; "How often in the last week have you felt happy?"; "How would you rate your satisfaction with life as whole?". It increased their happiness (which I think as a utilitarian is the most important outcome) as well as increased their assets a year later.
Deworming has also been found to impact income many years later. And increasing income is just another way of saying pulling out of poverty, albeit incrementally.
The question of getting to root causes is appealing and I used to be interested in this but the unfortunate truth of the matter is that nobody really has the answer. Economics is insanely complicated. In studies where you retroactively see whether economists predictions came true, the economists didn't do better than chance. So given that we don't know the root cause, but we do have interventions that provide long-lasting effects, we should focus on those.
You might be (probably are not) right, but it is definitely something that requires research instead of just taking their word for it.
While Givewell does recommend one charity that focuses on direct cash transfer not every charity recommended by Givewell does and Givewell analyses Charities in detail, so even if you don't agree with their conclusion reading their analysis of a particular charity can help you evaluate the charity.
They don't publish very long write-ups, it's more like a checklist of their particular criteria.
I do think the length of the analysis of GiveDirectly is fairly long (http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/give-directly). If you think that the recommendation of GiveDirectly is a mistake based on naive assumptions it makes sense to read the article.
I didn't say that, top level commenter did. I wish their evaluations of all charities were at least as detailed as that.
They would needs hundreds of staff if not more to do that.