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.
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.