Thanks so much for this—am loving the development focused discussions on the forum at the moment!
I’m a New Zealander who has lived in Northern Uganda for 10 years and this is exactly the kind of response I often get from Ugandan development workers. I think his argument is well intentioned but flawed, while raising a bunch of important points we can work on. Here are a few thoughts on his arguments
Unfortunately empirical evidence is rarely valued highly here—instead development theory and logic are leant on. You can see the author lean heavily on the kind of “teach a man to fish” development theory that still predominates in mainstream aid, even when that theory isn’t usually backed by evidence.
”If you visited a truly impoverished country like Uganda, you will quickly notice that many of the things that effective altruists call “effective” — from mosquito nets, to $100 business grants that are provided to groups of 3 people — are the same short-term, disposable solutions that have not only kept their recipients in abject poverty, but also, they are the very kind of solutions that often disappear the same day their proponents exit.”
His explanation for why he doesn’t believe the interventions are effective is based on theory not evidence. I’m yet to meet a Ugandan development worker here in Gulu, Northern Uganda at least who has quoted evidence about development—and that’s after 10 years working here. Unfortunately the education system here focuses heavily on theory and barely at all on evidence. Part of the reason for this is lack of resources—university students here often don’t have access to databases because their universities can’t afford it which is pretty tragic. Also many older lecturers who are 20-30 years behind on development theory.
His point on all EA charities being Western is a good one, but I think this more drives at the point that almost all large charities (with some exceptions like BRAC) are Western. The way EA operates, relying mostly on RCTs and big studies that only large charities can afford, means that for better or worse (I think often worse), only big charities can be funded. I LOVE the idea of funding potentially effective local charities while reviewing their effectveness, and I also think that many of them have opportunity for scaling. I think this comment misses the point a bit “so spending $100k on a study might be pointless when the org only has capacity to absorb $50k.” first because studies are likely to cost more than 100k, and second because many local charities do have big scalabilty potental. Maybe you fund 10, and find only 1 has the potential to become both big and effective, but that might be worth it.
“Conduct third-party surveys of the intended beneficiaries of poverty relief. So far the only instrument of this kind I’ve seen is GiveDirectly’s program.”
On this point I think before and after surveys are deeply flawed for a number of reasons but this is an interesting debate. Both sides of the argument play out a bit in the discussion about Wellbys especially in the comments here.
His observation here is brilliant and I think 100% correct, but it’ not reallys a criticism of EA, more a critcism of the uselessnes of charity in general in Uganda. I believe most charity in Uganda is useless and often even harmful. Farming improvements have come mostly through the market not aid—as one example new effective seeds for the cash crops he talks about.
”But the thing is: every household in our region that depends on maize, lives in chronic extreme poverty, and has lived in chronic poverty for eternity. Neither the effective charity nor the other big antipoverty agencies that came before it, have changed this. By contrast, those farmers who are growing crops like sugarcane, no charity or antipoverty agency has ever supported them. But today, every village in our region that you visit, is covered with sugarcane. It is also the same with many other crops (rice, tomatoes, water melon etc) that are at least providing rural farmers with some tangible income.”
Unfortunately I don’t think there’s much hope of EA theory taking off here for a long time unfortunately, due to lack of focus on evidence locally and the lack of ability for people to have critical discussion about charity. Unfortunately there’s too much self interest at stake. For social and political reasons people are VERY hesitant to criticise other charities here. It might cause you to not get a job in future or worse annoy a political establishment. As a expat here I have the white privilege of being able to speak critically without threatening my livelihood.
As a brief note, hiring locally already happens most of the time as it is a core part of mainstream development theory. Most charities mostly people from the local (ish) community.”If you are a charity working in eg Uganda, try promoting your hiring rounds among your beneficiaries and their surrounding communities” -
Unfortunately the education system here focuses heavily on theory and barely at all on evidence. Part of the reason for this is lack of resources—university students here often don’t have access to databases because their universities can’t afford it which is pretty tragic. Also many older lecturers who are 20-30 years behind on development theory.
Maybe one thing EA could do to address some of these issues and build bridges with local development workers is to package and deliver the latest empirical evidence to university students and lecturers in places like Uganda.
Thanks so much for this—am loving the development focused discussions on the forum at the moment!
I’m a New Zealander who has lived in Northern Uganda for 10 years and this is exactly the kind of response I often get from Ugandan development workers. I think his argument is well intentioned but flawed, while raising a bunch of important points we can work on. Here are a few thoughts on his arguments
Unfortunately empirical evidence is rarely valued highly here—instead development theory and logic are leant on. You can see the author lean heavily on the kind of “teach a man to fish” development theory that still predominates in mainstream aid, even when that theory isn’t usually backed by evidence.
”If you visited a truly impoverished country like Uganda, you will quickly notice that many of the things that effective altruists call “effective” — from mosquito nets, to $100 business grants that are provided to groups of 3 people — are the same short-term, disposable solutions that have not only kept their recipients in abject poverty, but also, they are the very kind of solutions that often disappear the same day their proponents exit.”
His explanation for why he doesn’t believe the interventions are effective is based on theory not evidence. I’m yet to meet a Ugandan development worker here in Gulu, Northern Uganda at least who has quoted evidence about development—and that’s after 10 years working here. Unfortunately the education system here focuses heavily on theory and barely at all on evidence. Part of the reason for this is lack of resources—university students here often don’t have access to databases because their universities can’t afford it which is pretty tragic. Also many older lecturers who are 20-30 years behind on development theory.
His point on all EA charities being Western is a good one, but I think this more drives at the point that almost all large charities (with some exceptions like BRAC) are Western. The way EA operates, relying mostly on RCTs and big studies that only large charities can afford, means that for better or worse (I think often worse), only big charities can be funded. I LOVE the idea of funding potentially effective local charities while reviewing their effectveness, and I also think that many of them have opportunity for scaling. I think this comment misses the point a bit “so spending $100k on a study might be pointless when the org only has capacity to absorb $50k.” first because studies are likely to cost more than 100k, and second because many local charities do have big scalabilty potental. Maybe you fund 10, and find only 1 has the potential to become both big and effective, but that might be worth it.
“Conduct third-party surveys of the intended beneficiaries of poverty relief. So far the only instrument of this kind I’ve seen is GiveDirectly’s program.”
On this point I think before and after surveys are deeply flawed for a number of reasons but this is an interesting debate. Both sides of the argument play out a bit in the discussion about Wellbys especially in the comments here.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uY5SwjHTXgTaWC85f/don-t-just-give-well-give-wellbys-hli-s-2022-charity
His observation here is brilliant and I think 100% correct, but it’ not reallys a criticism of EA, more a critcism of the uselessnes of charity in general in Uganda. I believe most charity in Uganda is useless and often even harmful. Farming improvements have come mostly through the market not aid—as one example new effective seeds for the cash crops he talks about.
”But the thing is: every household in our region that depends on maize, lives in chronic extreme poverty, and has lived in chronic poverty for eternity. Neither the effective charity nor the other big antipoverty agencies that came before it, have changed this. By contrast, those farmers who are growing crops like sugarcane, no charity or antipoverty agency has ever supported them. But today, every village in our region that you visit, is covered with sugarcane. It is also the same with many other crops (rice, tomatoes, water melon etc) that are at least providing rural farmers with some tangible income.”
Unfortunately I don’t think there’s much hope of EA theory taking off here for a long time unfortunately, due to lack of focus on evidence locally and the lack of ability for people to have critical discussion about charity. Unfortunately there’s too much self interest at stake. For social and political reasons people are VERY hesitant to criticise other charities here. It might cause you to not get a job in future or worse annoy a political establishment. As a expat here I have the white privilege of being able to speak critically without threatening my livelihood.
As a brief note, hiring locally already happens most of the time as it is a core part of mainstream development theory. Most charities mostly people from the local (ish) community.”If you are a charity working in eg Uganda, try promoting your hiring rounds among your beneficiaries and their surrounding communities” -
Maybe one thing EA could do to address some of these issues and build bridges with local development workers is to package and deliver the latest empirical evidence to university students and lecturers in places like Uganda.