International development has a burgeoning prize market. SSC or OB suggests setting prizes, instead of donating as incentive. I’m wondering what extent different members of our community recommend local government councilors advocate for prizes as an alternative to grants?
On semi-related note, markets maybe somewhat efficient at the transactional level, but inefficient in regards to my demands for others’ transactions. Less development in the world means less technological advancement and less chance I’ll get some cool future tech. Empirically, market-based solutions in development contexts don’t work to supply to need. Experimental results reveal that In most cases, user fees neither improved nor worsened targeting among those who obtained the product, but it did reduce the fraction of individuals in need who got the product.
While I’m discussing the importance of empirical evidence and overreliance on conceptual models—I’m increasingly concerned by the EA foray into politics. EA’s are making tremendous assumptions about the way public policy works. For instance, the new public policy writing think tank the dothack crew are starting seems very naive and based on a chain of tenuous assumptions about impact. I’ll start with an obvious assumption that’s wrong. Policy briefs don’t acually influence anyone involved in policy cause they have opinions already. It’s useful for influencing uninformed men (women don’t care, evidently) who self-rate themselves as influential. So basically, self-aggrandising members of the public. I suspect many of the dotimpact crew are just following Givewell’s lead into public policy. There’s a reason Givewell does things the way they do and not other ways—you can read about it in their blog. Soon, presented with the right opportunity ideally from some collaborators reading this who are inspired, I’d like to start a coordinated effort to
Policy briefs don’t acually influence anyone involved in policy cause they have opinions already
Not everybody involved in policy has his opinions already formed. When a new issue comes up, politicians have to form an opinion about it and don’t have to have a premade opinion.
The point of lobbying often isn’t to convince a politician but to provide the politician with arguments to back up a position that he already holds.
It’s also to help with written the actual law. As far as I know the Global Priorities Project succeeded into getting an amendment that they wrote in actual law.
International development has a burgeoning prize market. SSC or OB suggests setting prizes, instead of donating as incentive. I’m wondering what extent different members of our community recommend local government councilors advocate for prizes as an alternative to grants?
On semi-related note, markets maybe somewhat efficient at the transactional level, but inefficient in regards to my demands for others’ transactions. Less development in the world means less technological advancement and less chance I’ll get some cool future tech. Empirically, market-based solutions in development contexts don’t work to supply to need. Experimental results reveal that In most cases, user fees neither improved nor worsened targeting among those who obtained the product, but it did reduce the fraction of individuals in need who got the product.
While I’m discussing the importance of empirical evidence and overreliance on conceptual models—I’m increasingly concerned by the EA foray into politics. EA’s are making tremendous assumptions about the way public policy works. For instance, the new public policy writing think tank the dothack crew are starting seems very naive and based on a chain of tenuous assumptions about impact. I’ll start with an obvious assumption that’s wrong. Policy briefs don’t acually influence anyone involved in policy cause they have opinions already. It’s useful for influencing uninformed men (women don’t care, evidently) who self-rate themselves as influential. So basically, self-aggrandising members of the public. I suspect many of the dotimpact crew are just following Givewell’s lead into public policy. There’s a reason Givewell does things the way they do and not other ways—you can read about it in their blog. Soon, presented with the right opportunity ideally from some collaborators reading this who are inspired, I’d like to start a coordinated effort to
Not everybody involved in policy has his opinions already formed. When a new issue comes up, politicians have to form an opinion about it and don’t have to have a premade opinion.
The point of lobbying often isn’t to convince a politician but to provide the politician with arguments to back up a position that he already holds. It’s also to help with written the actual law. As far as I know the Global Priorities Project succeeded into getting an amendment that they wrote in actual law.