As it happens, we’re about to put up an impact evaluation.
Glad to hear it! I look forward to seeing the data.
I’m don’t think that we should think of members who joined under the newer pledge as ‘lower quality’. … People who plan to donate to animal charities because they think that they can help fellow creatures even more by doing so seem every bit as serious in helping others effectively as those donating to eradicate extreme poverty.
Well, that’s true unless you don’t think animals count as ‘others’. Presumably we should discount their value by whatever credence we place in animals counting as moral agents. A wide range of new focuses are now acceptable to GWWC members, and regardless of one’s specific personal beliefs, it seems likely that some of those members will focus on something you don’t personally think is very valuable. For example, it seems plausible that some people might (falsely) think that donating to a political party was the best way of helping people. Yet presumably no-one would think that increasing donations to both Democrat and Republican parties by $100 is equal to $200 going to AMF!
However, my complaint wasn’t really about the target of their donations—I assume that in practice most will mainly donate to AMF etc. anyway—but that they’ll see a higher dropout rate. I don’t think this concern can really be verified or refuted without seeing the data.
But doing it online means that an email immediately gets sent to the person,
This seems like a bit of a misnomer. People were always requesting a signup form online—you could combine paper forms in the post with an email saying ‘Welcome … the forms are on their way’.
Your point about the overhead costs is a good one though. My impression is this could be outsourced—at least in the US I’m pretty sure there are firms that will deal with your mailing for you, but that still costs money.
By the way, you seem very comfortable with numbers, knowledgable and engaged – how would you feel about working with our research team? We’d be very grateful for the help!
Very kind of you. Unfortunately I work a more-than-full-time job, so can’t really commit to anything. However, I get the impression that the EA community has a fair number of math-literate people who would be willing to work on relevant questions just out of interest if the data was available. In this case I’d probably analyse the cohort data if it was available—and the same probably goes for object-level issues as well. This would have a couple of advantages:
Save CEA resources
Get third parties more involved
Provide independent evaluation, which is more credible than internal evaluation (in the same way that companies get independent auditors, etc.)
Regardless of one’s specific personal beliefs, it seems likely that some of those members will focus on something you don’t personally think is very valuable
The relevance of this isn’t clear. Both before and after the change, every particular GWWC donor is giving to a charity that the donor likes but that some people don’t consider maximally valuable. The question is whether the change made things worse. On average, I expect it made things better, since I expect cause neutrality to be helpful.
Perhaps your point is that previously this impact was valuable to one constituency—people who prioritize development—whereas now the value is spread to a wider range of donors with a wider range of values. I can see why this might make fundraising harder, since it’s a classic example of a public goods problem, but it doesn’t seem to make the project less impactful overall.
but that they’ll see a higher dropout rate
I expect that GWWC’s dropout rate is increasing over time. I don’t see why this change in particular would be expected to lead to a higher dropout rate. At face value, one might expect a broader pledge to have a lower dropout rate.
On average, I expect it made things better, since I expect cause neutrality to be helpful.
I’m implicitly assuming that global poverty is an unusually uncontroversial cause.
I don’t see why this change in particular would be expected to lead to a higher dropout rate. At face value, one might expect a broader pledge to have a lower dropout rate.
I guess in the limit if the pledge became sufficiently expansive it would become impossible to fail to comply!
I think locally the effect is likely to be negative, though I don’t have much confidence either way till we see the data. Nor do I see much value in speculating on this, save to encourage the release of such data.
Thanks! We actually have had quite a few people with expertise go over the impact evaluation—as you say, it’s pretty fun. I was thinking of other things we could do with more researchers on. Sounds like you’re already plenty busy though!
Thanks for the response.
Glad to hear it! I look forward to seeing the data.
Well, that’s true unless you don’t think animals count as ‘others’. Presumably we should discount their value by whatever credence we place in animals counting as moral agents. A wide range of new focuses are now acceptable to GWWC members, and regardless of one’s specific personal beliefs, it seems likely that some of those members will focus on something you don’t personally think is very valuable. For example, it seems plausible that some people might (falsely) think that donating to a political party was the best way of helping people. Yet presumably no-one would think that increasing donations to both Democrat and Republican parties by $100 is equal to $200 going to AMF!
However, my complaint wasn’t really about the target of their donations—I assume that in practice most will mainly donate to AMF etc. anyway—but that they’ll see a higher dropout rate. I don’t think this concern can really be verified or refuted without seeing the data.
This seems like a bit of a misnomer. People were always requesting a signup form online—you could combine paper forms in the post with an email saying ‘Welcome … the forms are on their way’.
Your point about the overhead costs is a good one though. My impression is this could be outsourced—at least in the US I’m pretty sure there are firms that will deal with your mailing for you, but that still costs money.
Very kind of you. Unfortunately I work a more-than-full-time job, so can’t really commit to anything. However, I get the impression that the EA community has a fair number of math-literate people who would be willing to work on relevant questions just out of interest if the data was available. In this case I’d probably analyse the cohort data if it was available—and the same probably goes for object-level issues as well. This would have a couple of advantages:
Save CEA resources
Get third parties more involved
Provide independent evaluation, which is more credible than internal evaluation (in the same way that companies get independent auditors, etc.)
The relevance of this isn’t clear. Both before and after the change, every particular GWWC donor is giving to a charity that the donor likes but that some people don’t consider maximally valuable. The question is whether the change made things worse. On average, I expect it made things better, since I expect cause neutrality to be helpful.
Perhaps your point is that previously this impact was valuable to one constituency—people who prioritize development—whereas now the value is spread to a wider range of donors with a wider range of values. I can see why this might make fundraising harder, since it’s a classic example of a public goods problem, but it doesn’t seem to make the project less impactful overall.
I expect that GWWC’s dropout rate is increasing over time. I don’t see why this change in particular would be expected to lead to a higher dropout rate. At face value, one might expect a broader pledge to have a lower dropout rate.
I’m implicitly assuming that global poverty is an unusually uncontroversial cause.
I guess in the limit if the pledge became sufficiently expansive it would become impossible to fail to comply!
I think locally the effect is likely to be negative, though I don’t have much confidence either way till we see the data. Nor do I see much value in speculating on this, save to encourage the release of such data.
Thanks! We actually have had quite a few people with expertise go over the impact evaluation—as you say, it’s pretty fun. I was thinking of other things we could do with more researchers on. Sounds like you’re already plenty busy though!