But there is another sense in which some readers may judge we do not avoid double-counting. Suppose there was someone else for whom GWWC and GiveWell were both necessary for them to give to charity (i.e., if either did not exist, they would not give anything). In this instance, we would fully count their donations towards our impact, as in the counterfactual scenario of GWWC not existing (but GiveWell still existing), this donor would not have given at all. We think this is the right way of counting impact for our purposes, as our goal here is usefulness over “correct” attribution: we think we should be incentivised to work with this donor for the full extent of their donations (given GiveWell’s existence). However, we know there is disagreement about this and we want to be upfront about our approach here.
For example, some readers may hold the view that in such a case GiveWell and GWWC should each only attribute a percentage of the impact to themselves, with the two percentages summing to 100%.
Because what we’re really interested in is marginal cost-effectiveness, GiveWell not existing is probably too extreme of a scenario anyway, and we should be thinking in terms of GiveWell’s marginal work, too. But there can still be a problem for marginal work. From Triple counting impact in EA:
It would be very easy for an EA to find out about EA from Charity Science, to read blog posts from both GWWC and TLYCS, sign up for both pledges, and then donate directly to GiveWell (who would count this impact again). This person would become quadruple counted in EA, with each organization using their donations as impact to justify their running. The problem is that, at the end of the day, if the person donated $1000, TLYCS, GWWC, GiveWell, and Charity Science may each have spent $500 on programs for getting this person into the movement/donating. Each organization would proudly report they have 2:1 ratios and give themselves a pat on the back, when really the EA movement as a whole just spent $2000 for $1000 worth of donations.
So, we’d want to ask: if, together and across charities, we give
$X1 more to GWWC,
$X2 more to GiveWell,
$X3 more to OFTW,
$X4 more to Founders Pledge,
$X5 more to TLYCS,
$X6 more to ACE,
$X7 more for EA community building (e.g. local groups),
etc.,
how much more in donations all together (not just from GWWC pledges) do we get for direct work (orgs)? If it ended up being that $X1 +… + $Xn was greater than the counterfactual raised (including possibly lower donations from staff at these orgs that could donate more if they worked elsewhere with higher incomes), then we’d actually be bringing in less than we’re spending.
However, we might still allocate funding more effectively, because some of these orgs do more cost-effectiveness research with marginal funding. And there are non-funding benefits to consider, e.g. more/better direct work from getting people more engaged.
(And direct work orgs also do their own fundraising, too.)
We’re interested in increasing the counterfactual donated to direct work (orgs) - ($X1 + … + $Xn).[1]
If/when GWWC’s own marginal multiplier (fixing the funding to other orgs) is only a few times greater than 1, then I’d worry about spending more than we’re raising as a community through marginal donations to GWWC.
In the report, you write:
Because what we’re really interested in is marginal cost-effectiveness, GiveWell not existing is probably too extreme of a scenario anyway, and we should be thinking in terms of GiveWell’s marginal work, too. But there can still be a problem for marginal work. From Triple counting impact in EA:
So, we’d want to ask: if, together and across charities, we give
$X1 more to GWWC,
$X2 more to GiveWell,
$X3 more to OFTW,
$X4 more to Founders Pledge,
$X5 more to TLYCS,
$X6 more to ACE,
$X7 more for EA community building (e.g. local groups),
etc.,
how much more in donations all together (not just from GWWC pledges) do we get for direct work (orgs)? If it ended up being that $X1 +… + $Xn was greater than the counterfactual raised (including possibly lower donations from staff at these orgs that could donate more if they worked elsewhere with higher incomes), then we’d actually be bringing in less than we’re spending.
However, we might still allocate funding more effectively, because some of these orgs do more cost-effectiveness research with marginal funding. And there are non-funding benefits to consider, e.g. more/better direct work from getting people more engaged.
(And direct work orgs also do their own fundraising, too.)
We’re interested in increasing the counterfactual donated to direct work (orgs) - ($X1 + … + $Xn).[1]
If/when GWWC’s own marginal multiplier (fixing the funding to other orgs) is only a few times greater than 1, then I’d worry about spending more than we’re raising as a community through marginal donations to GWWC.
Maybe after weighing by cost-effectiveness of the direct work, e.g. something like the quality factor in https://founderspledge.com/stories/giving-multipliers.
Oh man