Doesn’t it seem that politics and charity are not always substitutes?
If you want, say, money to go to disease eradication in Africa, voting in the US doesn’t help much for that, but donating to private charity does.
The question becomes interesting when the same aim could be served either by voting or by charity, and we want to estimate which is more effective. There are two main examples I can think of: social services to the poor in one’s own country (which can be provided either by government or by private charity), and changing laws (which can be accomplished either by voting for different candidates, or by donating to advocacy organizations.)
When we’re talking about government vs. charity funding, you’d have to do individual calculations on the issues that matter to you to see what the expected monetary contribution of a vote is.
The expected contribution of a vote to changing a law is much more opaque. If you want a low-probability law to be passed/repealed, I’d speculate that it’s more efficient to give to advocacy groups than to vote for politicians, because an advocacy group can develop long-term strategies and use the court system. If you’re mainly concerned about a few issues, especially if they’re not in the political mainstream, advocacy groups seem intuitively like a much better bet.
I’d speculate that it’s more efficient to give to advocacy groups than to vote for politicians, because an advocacy group can develop long-term strategies and use the court system. If you’re mainly concerned about a few issues, especially if they’re not in the political mainstream, advocacy groups seem intuitively like a much better bet.
This may very well be true and some of my friends have a similar intuition. I’m interested in learning more about this matter.
If you want, say, money to go to disease eradication in Africa, voting in the US doesn’t help much for that, but donating to private charity does.
That’s just the calculation here, and they are directly comparable. U.S. aid agencies also dispense the same interventions that the charities GiveWell and GWWC endorses do. If one can increase aid spending on those (as opposed to ‘aid’ for political purposes in Afghanistan, or to subsidize U.S. farmers) sufficiently to make up for increased government overhead/leakage they’re very directly comparable. U.S. Congress members and presidential candidates vary quite a lot in their stances on foreign aid, and helping those keener on effective aid in tight races can be compared reasonably directly against StopTB Partnership or the like.
Doesn’t it seem that politics and charity are not always substitutes?
If you want, say, money to go to disease eradication in Africa, voting in the US doesn’t help much for that, but donating to private charity does.
The question becomes interesting when the same aim could be served either by voting or by charity, and we want to estimate which is more effective. There are two main examples I can think of: social services to the poor in one’s own country (which can be provided either by government or by private charity), and changing laws (which can be accomplished either by voting for different candidates, or by donating to advocacy organizations.)
When we’re talking about government vs. charity funding, you’d have to do individual calculations on the issues that matter to you to see what the expected monetary contribution of a vote is.
The expected contribution of a vote to changing a law is much more opaque. If you want a low-probability law to be passed/repealed, I’d speculate that it’s more efficient to give to advocacy groups than to vote for politicians, because an advocacy group can develop long-term strategies and use the court system. If you’re mainly concerned about a few issues, especially if they’re not in the political mainstream, advocacy groups seem intuitively like a much better bet.
Maybe not, see Carl’s comments here and here.
This may very well be true and some of my friends have a similar intuition. I’m interested in learning more about this matter.
I forgot about foreign aid; you’re right, that does seem significant.
That’s just the calculation here, and they are directly comparable. U.S. aid agencies also dispense the same interventions that the charities GiveWell and GWWC endorses do. If one can increase aid spending on those (as opposed to ‘aid’ for political purposes in Afghanistan, or to subsidize U.S. farmers) sufficiently to make up for increased government overhead/leakage they’re very directly comparable. U.S. Congress members and presidential candidates vary quite a lot in their stances on foreign aid, and helping those keener on effective aid in tight races can be compared reasonably directly against StopTB Partnership or the like.