While I liked seeing the reasons for your belief in your subsequent comment, I also really appreciate the meta-level point this comment evoked in me (though I don’t know whether this is what you meant):
“In general, most causes are unlikely to be competitive with the very best causes. Thus, a simple explanation for an organization’s not getting funding is that potential funders didn’t think it was among the very best opportunities after carefully thinking about it. This may be a much more important factor than arguments like ‘too risky’ or ‘not tax-deductible’.”
(Of course, risk may be factored into calculations about “the best opportunity”, but I can also imagine some funders just looking at the portfolio of projects, estimating a reasonable “helpfulness” coefficient for how much value the Hotel adds, and deciding that the number didn’t add up, even without consideration of risk.)
Similarly, if AMF had trouble fundraising one year, and someone asked why, the explanation I’d think of immediately wouldn’t be “risk of mosquito-net fishing” or “concerns about their deal with Country X”. It would be “their program’s EV slipped below the EV of several other global-health charities, and many donors chose other charities on the margin instead of AMF, even if AMF is still a great charity”.
While I liked seeing the reasons for your belief in your subsequent comment, I also really appreciate the meta-level point this comment evoked in me (though I don’t know whether this is what you meant):
“In general, most causes are unlikely to be competitive with the very best causes. Thus, a simple explanation for an organization’s not getting funding is that potential funders didn’t think it was among the very best opportunities after carefully thinking about it. This may be a much more important factor than arguments like ‘too risky’ or ‘not tax-deductible’.”
(Of course, risk may be factored into calculations about “the best opportunity”, but I can also imagine some funders just looking at the portfolio of projects, estimating a reasonable “helpfulness” coefficient for how much value the Hotel adds, and deciding that the number didn’t add up, even without consideration of risk.)
Similarly, if AMF had trouble fundraising one year, and someone asked why, the explanation I’d think of immediately wouldn’t be “risk of mosquito-net fishing” or “concerns about their deal with Country X”. It would be “their program’s EV slipped below the EV of several other global-health charities, and many donors chose other charities on the margin instead of AMF, even if AMF is still a great charity”.
--
I work for CEA, but these views are my own.
Yep, that’s what I meant.