I agree that “people in EA” are not representative of the people that EA is working to help. But I don’t think it follows that “EA doesn’t listen” and I would actually argue that EA charities are systematically listening to beneficiaries in ways that are actually quite deviant and unusual in foreign aid.
GiveDirectly is arguably the most extreme example of this, moving money directly to beneficiaries to spend as they like. What could be less “designed from the outside” than that? But there are also other cases as well. For example, in 2019 GiveWell commissioned a survey of beneficiaries to ask about how they would trade off different possible program outcomes.
Finally, most GHD EA charities (including AMF, GiveDirectly, and others), and indeed by my understanding most foreign NGOs, operate their programs in consultation with local authorities.
The claim that EA charities “focus on projects which apply across communities regardless of need” seems to be making a normative claim about what is needed. Did the person making this claim consult the local communities beforehand? I would be curious to hear an example of a community where an EA GHD charity is executing unneeded or even unwanted projects. Some villages have said “no” to GiveDirectly, and GD is perfectly happy to respect that choice.
I agree that “people in EA” are not representative of the people that EA is working to help. But I don’t think it follows that “EA doesn’t listen” and I would actually argue that EA charities are systematically listening to beneficiaries in ways that are actually quite deviant and unusual in foreign aid.
GiveDirectly is arguably the most extreme example of this, moving money directly to beneficiaries to spend as they like. What could be less “designed from the outside” than that? But there are also other cases as well. For example, in 2019 GiveWell commissioned a survey of beneficiaries to ask about how they would trade off different possible program outcomes.
Finally, most GHD EA charities (including AMF, GiveDirectly, and others), and indeed by my understanding most foreign NGOs, operate their programs in consultation with local authorities.
The claim that EA charities “focus on projects which apply across communities regardless of need” seems to be making a normative claim about what is needed. Did the person making this claim consult the local communities beforehand? I would be curious to hear an example of a community where an EA GHD charity is executing unneeded or even unwanted projects. Some villages have said “no” to GiveDirectly, and GD is perfectly happy to respect that choice.