One of the plausible ways EA could be worsening instead of improving resources allocation is if, in fact, resources are better with the very rich instead of the very poor countries. I do not believe this question was rightly assessed by the EA movement. More often than not, it is just assumed as evident resources are better on the hands of the ones who don’t have it, which would make sense inside an egalitarian-ethics, but not on utilitarianism. I do know there are texts, articles, etc. on this question, but I do not think they are nearly enough given how important the question is.
Prima facie, most extreme cases of moving resources from the rich to the poorer (i.e. USA or UK to Africa) seems right. Nevertheless, analyzing this same question for the less extreme cases could reveal some problems with this prior seemingly evident assumption. For if it were the case resources will create more utility in, say, UK rather than in Brazil, then it might be the case expending resources to make African countries more close to Brazil is counterproductive.
Consider these worlds, which could be created with the same amount of resources:
A: Most African countries become as developed as South Africa
B: All developed countries become similar to Scandinavians on average, or probably even more developed
Now consider these actions:
P: expending $x resources on developed countries
Q: expending $x on developing (but not miserable) ones
If P is better than Q – which does not seem implausible at all -, then it would seem the long-term net benefit of creating world B (modulo ceiling effects on development) is far greater than creating A. In other words and exemplifying, since resources are much better expended in UK than in South Africa, they might be also better expended in UK than in Niger—even if this is not true in the short-term.
(Note: I wrote parts of this on a discussion about improving resource allocation, but I believe it is much better placed here.)
I think the standard long-run argument here would be that it’s much cheaper to influence conditions in the very poor countries: a given chunk of altruistic resources will be larger relative to poor countries and smaller relative to rich countries, and the cost difference could outweigh a difference in desirability of the outcomes purchased.
One of the plausible ways EA could be worsening instead of improving resources allocation is if, in fact, resources are better with the very rich instead of the very poor countries. I do not believe this question was rightly assessed by the EA movement. More often than not, it is just assumed as evident resources are better on the hands of the ones who don’t have it, which would make sense inside an egalitarian-ethics, but not on utilitarianism. I do know there are texts, articles, etc. on this question, but I do not think they are nearly enough given how important the question is.
Prima facie, most extreme cases of moving resources from the rich to the poorer (i.e. USA or UK to Africa) seems right. Nevertheless, analyzing this same question for the less extreme cases could reveal some problems with this prior seemingly evident assumption. For if it were the case resources will create more utility in, say, UK rather than in Brazil, then it might be the case expending resources to make African countries more close to Brazil is counterproductive. Consider these worlds, which could be created with the same amount of resources: A: Most African countries become as developed as South Africa B: All developed countries become similar to Scandinavians on average, or probably even more developed Now consider these actions: P: expending $x resources on developed countries Q: expending $x on developing (but not miserable) ones If P is better than Q – which does not seem implausible at all -, then it would seem the long-term net benefit of creating world B (modulo ceiling effects on development) is far greater than creating A. In other words and exemplifying, since resources are much better expended in UK than in South Africa, they might be also better expended in UK than in Niger—even if this is not true in the short-term.
(Note: I wrote parts of this on a discussion about improving resource allocation, but I believe it is much better placed here.)
I think the standard long-run argument here would be that it’s much cheaper to influence conditions in the very poor countries: a given chunk of altruistic resources will be larger relative to poor countries and smaller relative to rich countries, and the cost difference could outweigh a difference in desirability of the outcomes purchased.
And, of course in the short-term marginal utility of income is many times higher in poor countries.