There are already mechanisms working at each stage of this process. Trying to improve the system at one of these points sounds valuable. I have initial concerns about over-reach in trying to do all of it at once.
One of the mechanisms working at one stage of this process is “people start charities because they learn about an under-implemented effective intervention.” You can “improve the system” by having there be more people who do this, i.e. by being one of those people. This isn’t doing a bunch of things at once, this is being one of the stages in the process.
(2) The interventions with very good evidence from RCTs aren’t implemented by charities or aren’t scaled up appropriately.
It’s pretty clear that this is true; for instance, GiveWell has a number of priority interventions that they do not currently recommend any charities in.
One of the mechanisms working at one stage of this process is “people start charities because they learn about an under-implemented effective intervention.” You can “improve the system” by having there be more people who do this, i.e. by being one of those people. This isn’t doing a bunch of things at once, this is being one of the stages in the process.
Absolutely agree with this—this was the major method of improving the system I had in mind (perhaps could have stood to be clearer about that).
It’s pretty clear that this is true; for instance, GiveWell has a number of priority interventions that they do not currently recommend any charities in.
I think this is a helpful data point but it doesn’t follow from this. GiveWell has had finite resources and has only been able to evaluate a certain number of charities. Additionally they have (with good reasons) strong desires for transparency in charities that they recommend. Both of these mean that there is quite a space of possibility for these interventions to be well-executed and scaled by existing charities. However, I’d ask GiveWell!
Does EA Ventures not share the goal—to facilitate and support high impact ventures that wouldn’t have happened (as well) otherwise? I’d have thought you’d have already discussed these issues having the fantastic staff etc. that you do?
One of the mechanisms working at one stage of this process is “people start charities because they learn about an under-implemented effective intervention.” You can “improve the system” by having there be more people who do this, i.e. by being one of those people. This isn’t doing a bunch of things at once, this is being one of the stages in the process.
It’s pretty clear that this is true; for instance, GiveWell has a number of priority interventions that they do not currently recommend any charities in.
Absolutely agree with this—this was the major method of improving the system I had in mind (perhaps could have stood to be clearer about that).
I think this is a helpful data point but it doesn’t follow from this. GiveWell has had finite resources and has only been able to evaluate a certain number of charities. Additionally they have (with good reasons) strong desires for transparency in charities that they recommend. Both of these mean that there is quite a space of possibility for these interventions to be well-executed and scaled by existing charities. However, I’d ask GiveWell!
Where did EA ventures get to with this? If human capital constrained—some kind of Teach First model might work / Rocket Internet model might work?
I’m not sure what you mean—where does EA Ventures come into this?
Does EA Ventures not share the goal—to facilitate and support high impact ventures that wouldn’t have happened (as well) otherwise? I’d have thought you’d have already discussed these issues having the fantastic staff etc. that you do?