What about donor coalitions instead of donor lotteries?
Instead of 50 people putting $2000 into a lottery, you could have groups of 5-10 putting $2000 into a pot that they jointly agree where to distribute.
Pros:
-People might be more invested in the decision, but wouldn’t have to do all the research by themselves.
-Might build an even stronger sense of community. The donor coalition could meet regularly before the donation to decide where to give, and meet up after the donation for updates from the charity.
-Avoids the unilateralist’s curse.
-Less legally fraught than a lottery.
Cons:
-Time consuming for all members, not just a few.
-Decision-making by committee often leads to people picking ‘safe’, standard options.
I like this idea, though to boost your signal I’d switch the “donor coalitions” for “donor crews,” in reference to the Microsolidarity movement, which I hope will collide with the EA community soon enough.
In a nutshell, Microsolidarity argues for (1) a theory of social groups with more categories—those below—and (2) more organizational plans to consider different strategies for different categories. Therefore, I’d describe your strategy as experimenting with “donor crews” as opposed to the much more common “donor selves” where donors choose charities alone or “donor crowds” where everyone settles on donating to GiveWell or some other common aggregator. I think there is wide-open space for EA strategies revolving around crews
This certainly seems like a viable option. I agree with the pros and cons described here, and think it’d make sense for local groups to decide which one made more sense.
What about donor coalitions instead of donor lotteries?
Instead of 50 people putting $2000 into a lottery, you could have groups of 5-10 putting $2000 into a pot that they jointly agree where to distribute.
Pros:
-People might be more invested in the decision, but wouldn’t have to do all the research by themselves.
-Might build an even stronger sense of community. The donor coalition could meet regularly before the donation to decide where to give, and meet up after the donation for updates from the charity.
-Avoids the unilateralist’s curse.
-Less legally fraught than a lottery.
Cons:
-Time consuming for all members, not just a few.
-Decision-making by committee often leads to people picking ‘safe’, standard options.
I like this idea, though to boost your signal I’d switch the “donor coalitions” for “donor crews,” in reference to the Microsolidarity movement, which I hope will collide with the EA community soon enough.
In a nutshell, Microsolidarity argues for (1) a theory of social groups with more categories—those below—and (2) more organizational plans to consider different strategies for different categories. Therefore, I’d describe your strategy as experimenting with “donor crews” as opposed to the much more common “donor selves” where donors choose charities alone or “donor crowds” where everyone settles on donating to GiveWell or some other common aggregator. I think there is wide-open space for EA strategies revolving around crews
Self (1 person)
Dyad (2 people)
Crew (3-8)
Congregation (30-200)
Crowd (200+)
This certainly seems like a viable option. I agree with the pros and cons described here, and think it’d make sense for local groups to decide which one made more sense.