Large multipurpose charities like Oxfam are difficult to evaluate and (perhaps mostly for that reason, perhaps not) don’t get recommendations from organizations like Givewell.
Is there anything resembling a consensus on the effectiveness of any of these charities? Better still, a comparison of them with (one or more of, or a crude estimate of the effectiveness of) Givewell’s top charities?
This seems like it might be useful for at least four reasons.
Firstly, for reasons similar to Holden Karnofsky’s for skepticism about questionable high-EV causes, some givers might prefer to give to a charity that does lots of obviously-probably-valuable things rather than one that does a single thing that seems to be very valuable but where some single error (e.g., it turns out that distributing mosquito nets just results in mosquitos evolving resistance and after a couple of years the nets no longer do much good and other ways of dealing with the mosquitos have become less effective) could make it hugely less valuable or even harmful. So if it turns out that Oxfam is half as effective (in expectation) as AMF, you might still prefer Oxfam on these grounds.
Secondly, some givers may be uneasy about weird unfamiliar charities doing weird unfamiliar things, as opposed to household names feeding the starving and funding infrastructure projects in the developing world. My guess is that most people inclined towards “effective altruism” won’t feel much unease of this sort but, e.g., other members of your family might. If it turns out that Oxfam is half as effective (in expectation) as AMF but you can much more easily persuade your spouse to give to Oxfam than to AMF, giving to Oxfam might be the best available outcome.
Thirdly, the truth might actually be that Oxfam is 1% as effective as AMF (in which case, some not-particularly-EA folks might be persuaded to switch away to something more effective) or that actually it’s probably 2x as effective but harder to measure (in which case, some EA folks might choose to switch away from the smaller more easily evaluated charities preferred by Givewell).
Fourthly, a comparison might give more insight into how it comes about that Givewell’s top charities manage to be more effective (e.g., maybe the best bits of Oxfam are as good as anything else, but there’s a lot of much less effective stuff in there too and they’re hard to separate; or maybe the kinds of project Oxfam does are just systematically really hard; or maybe it’s just that Oxfam is really big and diminishing returns set in for any given kind of work; etc.).
[EDITED formatting only, to give more prominence to the central question amid all the other blather I wrote.]
Large multipurpose charities like Oxfam are difficult to evaluate and (perhaps mostly for that reason, perhaps not) don’t get recommendations from organizations like Givewell.
Is there anything resembling a consensus on the effectiveness of any of these charities? Better still, a comparison of them with (one or more of, or a crude estimate of the effectiveness of) Givewell’s top charities?
This seems like it might be useful for at least four reasons.
Firstly, for reasons similar to Holden Karnofsky’s for skepticism about questionable high-EV causes, some givers might prefer to give to a charity that does lots of obviously-probably-valuable things rather than one that does a single thing that seems to be very valuable but where some single error (e.g., it turns out that distributing mosquito nets just results in mosquitos evolving resistance and after a couple of years the nets no longer do much good and other ways of dealing with the mosquitos have become less effective) could make it hugely less valuable or even harmful. So if it turns out that Oxfam is half as effective (in expectation) as AMF, you might still prefer Oxfam on these grounds.
Secondly, some givers may be uneasy about weird unfamiliar charities doing weird unfamiliar things, as opposed to household names feeding the starving and funding infrastructure projects in the developing world. My guess is that most people inclined towards “effective altruism” won’t feel much unease of this sort but, e.g., other members of your family might. If it turns out that Oxfam is half as effective (in expectation) as AMF but you can much more easily persuade your spouse to give to Oxfam than to AMF, giving to Oxfam might be the best available outcome.
Thirdly, the truth might actually be that Oxfam is 1% as effective as AMF (in which case, some not-particularly-EA folks might be persuaded to switch away to something more effective) or that actually it’s probably 2x as effective but harder to measure (in which case, some EA folks might choose to switch away from the smaller more easily evaluated charities preferred by Givewell).
Fourthly, a comparison might give more insight into how it comes about that Givewell’s top charities manage to be more effective (e.g., maybe the best bits of Oxfam are as good as anything else, but there’s a lot of much less effective stuff in there too and they’re hard to separate; or maybe the kinds of project Oxfam does are just systematically really hard; or maybe it’s just that Oxfam is really big and diminishing returns set in for any given kind of work; etc.).
[EDITED formatting only, to give more prominence to the central question amid all the other blather I wrote.]