Making EA more inclusive, representative, and impactful in Africa
Authors: Ashura Batungwanayo (University of KwaZulu Natal) and Hayley Martin (University of Cape Town)
DISCLAIMER: This paper draws from our collective experiences, perspectives, and conversations with community builders in Africa who share similar experiences and perspectives.
Introduction
In our engagement with EA, we noted a distinct emphasis on Existential Risks, notably concerning AI, alongside a focus on animal welfare —issues that carry nuanced significance, differing between Western societies and Africa due to diverse factors in animal husbandry. However, our initial allure lay in EA’s focus on Global Health and Development (GH&D). GH&D holds a special significance for us as it directly confronts the realities we, as Africans, encounter daily.
Amidst this, the need for balance arises: acknowledging existential risks while prioritising urgent issues like poverty and education. Our vision extends to an EA Africa initiative that blends bottom-up and top-down approaches for effective, contextually attuned change. However, challenges persist, including navigating a competitive altruistic landscape and balancing immediate impact with long-term prevention. A critical thread is Africa’s self-sufficiency, with EA acting as a catalyst for local partnership, co-designed interventions, and self-reliance. The path forward involves forging strategic collaborations, knowledge sharing, and empowerment, all underpinned by a commitment to inclusivity, representation, and comprehensive change.
Global Health and Development’s Urgent Call to Address African Realities
The challenges it addresses are not abstract concepts, but tangible issues that our communities and loved ones have grappled with. As university students, we acknowledge the privilege bestowed upon us and feel a profound responsibility to address the issues that plague our homeland. Our identity is intertwined with the principles of Ubuntu, which emphasise our shared humanity and interconnectedness. This cultural ethos, coupled with the weight of the “black tax,” the financial responsibilities we bear for our families and communities, amplifies our desire to contribute meaningfully to the well-being of our people. Incorporating the principles of GH&D into our personal cause area is more than a mere pursuit; it’s a calling driven by the urgent need to translate our empathy into action. By understanding the nuances of diplomatic engagement and the complexities of GH&D, we can channel our aspirations into effective strategies that uplift our communities while respecting our cultural values.
GH&D resonates deeply with our African identity, our educational privilege, and our unwavering commitment to making a positive impact in the places we call home. While AI Alignment and Animal Welfare remains a critical concern, we acknowledge the complexities in communicating its relevance to African audiences. The messaging around AI Safety and Animal Welfare doesn’t inherently speak with the immediate and intersecting challenges we face as a continent, although we recognise its significance in the broader global context (and acknowledge that there are people working on AI Alignment and Animal Advocacy on the continent as well). It’s important to note that concentrating solely on existential risks could inadvertently diminish the urgency of current issues, such as poverty and education. Striving for a comprehensive approach that appreciates the distinctive dynamics of African contexts is paramount. It’s worth contemplating the establishment of an EA Africa initiative, one that aspires to harmonise both bottom-up and top-down methodologies to address the “real, urgent, and intergenerational” issues that reverberate across our continent. By incorporating this hybrid approach, we can effectively navigate the complexity of Africa’s challenges and contribute to a sustainable transformation that resonates deeply within our communities
As a student at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and an organiser for the EA UCT group, navigating the landscape of altruistic societies has been a unique challenge. In this context, EA UCT finds itself in a competitive environment where distinguishing our focus as a research- and evidence-based movement becomes an intricate endeavour. The prevailing narrative often places an emphasis on tangible, immediate impact, which has occasionally posed hurdles in conveying the nuanced nature of EA’s approach. Within this context, we recognise that this prevalent emphasis might not consistently align with the principles of AI safety, where the focus extends to addressing long-term existential risks that may not yield immediate visible outcomes. This discrepancy highlights the need for a more balanced understanding that appreciates both the urgency of current issues and the significance of preventive measures to safeguard our future. It’s noteworthy that while EA undeniably demonstrates its capacity to generate meaningful impact, there exists an observable concentration of attention on the Western and Eastern Regions of Africa. This tendency might partly stem from practical considerations, as financial resources often stretch further in these areas due to various factors, making it more cost-effective to address issues and bring about positive change. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that this concentration can inadvertently overshadow the equally pressing challenges faced by other regions within the continent. Striking a balance between allocating resources where they can have the greatest immediate impact and ensuring equitable distribution across the diverse landscape of Africa is a complex but necessary endeavour in the pursuit of comprehensive change.
.
Empowering African Self-Sufficiency
Central to our discourse is the aspiration for Africa to become self-reliant and cease dependency on external interventions. A shift towards capacity building, education, and community empowerment is advanced as a strategy to facilitate sustainable development. EA’s role in this paradigm is to facilitate partnerships with local experts, organisations, and community leaders, promoting the co-design of interventions that resonate with local aspirations and values.
It seems that a substantial portion of this article has been subject to critique. It is essential to have open discussions and critiques to improve and make positive changes.
To address the issues mentioned and work towards making EA more inclusive, representative, and impactful in Africa, here are some possible solutions:
Forge partnerships with organisations and individuals in Africa who have a deep understanding of the local context and challenges. Collaborate closely with local experts and community leaders, following models like J-PAL, to craft impactful interventions. Invest in funding economists from developing countries to pinpoint the most effective resource allocation strategies, adopting a long-term perspective that acknowledges that sustained progress takes time. Recognise that, due to limited personal resources in LMICs, direct giving might have a relatively smaller impact. More is achieved by improving policy. We have more power to sway our government than wealthy nations do. It is also possible that we have more access to areas of our own society where we can research various viewpoints. Keeping in mind that even with evidence-based recommendations, policy implementation can be a bottleneck due to bureaucratic hurdles, political challenges, and limited institutional capacity.
Knowledge Sharing and Empowerment: Promote knowledge sharing within the EA community about the specific challenges faced by African nations. Continue organising opportunities like the African Forum Post Competition and The African Movement-building Summit in 2022, which facilitated dialogue and engagement around EA-related topics in the African context. Ensure these events are well-publicised to attract a diverse range of participants and speakers from various African nations. Encourage African students and researchers to participate actively and share their insights and experiences, like the Zanzibar Residency Fellowship. Actively seeking out and involve more community builders and contributors from diverse African backgrounds to ensure a broader range of perspectives. Explore the possibility of hosting an EAGx conference in Africa, which could serve as a platform for sharing knowledge, facilitating collaboration, and driving impactful initiatives.
Conclusion
The journey of EA within the African context is an evolving one, marked by growth, collaboration, and the willingness to adapt for greater impact. Open discussions and critiques play a pivotal role in identifying challenges and shaping positive change. The path forward involves fostering partnerships, investing in local expertise, promoting knowledge sharing, and addressing bottlenecks through innovative solutions. By continuously engaging with the unique complexities of Africa, EA can pave the way for transformative and lasting progress that resonates deeply within our communities.
Sources
Are Bottom-Up Approaches in Development More Effective than Top-Down Approaches?
How not to be a “white in shining armor”
The Challenges Facing Development Policy and Projects Implementation in Malawi
Thanks for sharing this post both :) I also think it’s an important discussion, so I’ve broken up a few points I’d like to make and hope you find useful
I think all of these suggestions are great and I’d be very happy if they came about, especially if the agenda and talks/themes were chosen by African EAs and not prescribed by ‘central’ EA
It’s interesting that this is the environment you find EA to be in at UCT—and I’d definitely defer to you about how EA is perceived, or what kinds of EA arguments and stories would be best received in an African context. It’s interesting because I feel a lot of EA criticism in the West is that it focuses too much on immediate impact and not the nuanced, longer-term ones (though this may have changed in recent years)
I think many EAs would agree with this—and many of the points made here seem similar to me to those made in “Growth and the case against randomista development” and I think that argument could be strengthened when coupled with African perspectives and experiences. But also don’t think these criticisms have been ignored by GHD EA, on a recent podcast the CEO of GiveWell responded to this critique, and seems to be unconvinced at the evidence base for systemic interventions and concerned that supporting them could cause harmful backfire effects (i’d recommend listening yourself rather than just accepting my summary)
My main ‘critical’ take on this post, if there is one, is that is seems to buy into the idea that EA used to be about Global Health and is now about ‘crazy ideas’[1] like wild animal welfare or longtermism. Your experience is of course your experience and I don’t deny it. I’d be very interested to find out why your impressions does lean this way.
I also don’t think that the link makes the strongest case for longtermism being potentially harmful—the last paragraph could apply to essentially any ideology at all. And the piece Singer links to that brings up this potential harm is from Émile Torres, who I don’t think is a credible critic of EA or longtermism.[2]
My emphasis, not yours! I’m not even saying you believe this per se, but the ideas seem in the same area
Cards on the table, I don’t think they’re credible full stop
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your input.
Your observation about the perception of EA at UCT and the emphasis on immediate impact versus long-term considerations is an intriguing one. It underscores the adaptability of EA principles to different contexts and highlights the ongoing discussions and critiques within the EA community about focus areas.
The aspiration for Africa to become self-reliant is a point of agreement that many EAs share, we appreciate your mention of this perspective, “Growth and the case against randomista development” as we hadn’t heard nor read about it until you mentioned it. We’re also grateful for the podcast suggestion and will be sure to check it out.
Your critique about the post potentially perpetuating the idea that EA is solely about existential risks or “crazy ideas” is duly noted. As you said, our experience is our experience. It’s important to emphasise that EA encompasses a broad range of cause areas, including global health and development, and it’s crucial to recognise the diversity of focus within the movement.
We appreciate your feedback on the credibility of the sources cited and acknowledge that criticisms and debates are ongoing within the EA community.
This is really amazing! I really agree with you. I think these and many more reasons will make EA concepts not to have that deep impacts in Africa. What the west considers a problem versus what Africans considers important and relevant to us. While AI and animal safety are very important cause priority. I think EA should be very adaptive to listen to us and not tell us what they think is important. Maybe what makes this happen this way is that African’s are not contributing much financially to EA pool of funding hence the person that blows the piper calls its tone.
Thank you for sharing your valuable perspective. Your insights shed light on the importance of cultural context in shaping priorities within EA. It’s crucial for EA to be adaptive and inclusive, listening to the voices and concerns of diverse regions like Africa rather than prescribing priorities from afar. Financial contributions to the EA funding pool are one aspect, but the movement’s true strength lies in its ability to engage with and learn from a global community with different perspectives and needs.
I think EA forum should decide on what they would define as impact in Africa. I think, they should bring together key players from Africa a path for impact.
I think the recommendations at the end of this post are great. In particular, I think there is a high expected value (EV) middle ground between the approaches EA takes to randomista development and animal welfare vs the approach it takes to longtermism. This middle ground would involve a focus on economics and social sciences education and training in low-income countries to increase the supply of individuals with local knowledge, appropriate language skills and the skills to implement evidence-based approaches to improving health and reducing extreme poverty.
However I do disagree with “Striking a balance between allocating resources where they can have the greatest immediate impact and ensuring equitable distribution across the diverse landscape of Africa is a complex but necessary endeavour in the pursuit of comprehensive change.”
I appreciate that “equity” can mean different things to different people, but I believe equity generally refers to something along the lines of “distributing different amounts of resources to different people according to their needs, to achieve equal outcomes”.
So I think the equitable approach is the same as the impact maximising approach—resources should be focused on the poorest countries and should not be evenly spread across African countries.
I understand your perspective, and I agree that there’s often a fine balance between prioritising resources for the greatest immediate impact and ensuring equity in resource distribution, especially in the context of international development and poverty alleviation efforts.
You’re correct that equity typically involves distributing resources based on need to achieve equal outcomes, and in many cases, this might align with an impact-maximising approach. However, it’s also important to consider factors like historical disparities, political stability, and varying levels of capacity in different regions or countries.
For example, some regions or countries might require more initial investment to build the necessary infrastructure and capacity to effectively utilise resources for long-term development. In these cases, it could be argued that equitable distribution might mean temporarily directing more resources to such regions, even if it doesn’t yield immediate impact comparable to areas with more established infrastructure.
So, while focusing on the poorest countries is often a sound strategy for immediate impact, it’s also essential to take into account the broader context, acknowledge historical inequalities, and ensure that long-term strategies promote equitable development in the region as a whole.
Good insights.
Great post!
thank you Daniel
Really nice post, I think that a lot of EA doesn’t appeal to people from all backgrounds(especially global south countries)at the same level of enthusiasm which is a real shame given that a lot of good which can be done in the world right now in the most cost-effective way is in those very backgrounds
so true Heramb! thank you.
Thank you very much Aden