Interesting; I hadn’t previously thought much about the analogy between (macro) economic planning and (micro) goods-and-services-oriented charity, and it probably does deserve some thought.
Still, the analogy isn’t exact. If we’re talking about basic necessities, things like food and clothes, then the argument seems strong: people’s exact needs will differ in ways that aren’t easy to predict, and direct distribution of goods will therefore incur inefficiencies that cash transfers won’t. I’m pretty sure that GiveWell and its various peers know about these pitfalls, as evidenced by GiveDirectly’s consistently high ranking. But I can also think of situations where there are information, infrastructure, or availability problems to overcome—market defects, in other words—that cash won’t do much for in the medium term, and it’s plausible to me that many of the EA community’s traditional beneficiaries do work in this space.
As to existential risk… well, that’s a completely different approach. To borrow a phrase from GiveWell’s blog, existential risk reduction is an extreme charity-as-investment strategy, and there’s very little decent analysis covering it. I don’t entirely trust MIRI’s in-house estimates, but I couldn’t point you to anything better, either.
Interesting; I hadn’t previously thought much about the analogy between (macro) economic planning and (micro) goods-and-services-oriented charity, and it probably does deserve some thought.
Still, the analogy isn’t exact. If we’re talking about basic necessities, things like food and clothes, then the argument seems strong: people’s exact needs will differ in ways that aren’t easy to predict, and direct distribution of goods will therefore incur inefficiencies that cash transfers won’t. I’m pretty sure that GiveWell and its various peers know about these pitfalls, as evidenced by GiveDirectly’s consistently high ranking. But I can also think of situations where there are information, infrastructure, or availability problems to overcome—market defects, in other words—that cash won’t do much for in the medium term, and it’s plausible to me that many of the EA community’s traditional beneficiaries do work in this space.
As to existential risk… well, that’s a completely different approach. To borrow a phrase from GiveWell’s blog, existential risk reduction is an extreme charity-as-investment strategy, and there’s very little decent analysis covering it. I don’t entirely trust MIRI’s in-house estimates, but I couldn’t point you to anything better, either.
Well, you just raised my opinion of GiveWell.