Thank you for the text. In principle, I think that effective giving and earning to give are underestimated within EA. However, when it comes to advocating for more attention to these topics, focusing on LMICs would be the last thing that comes to mind for me, simply because the earning and donation potential is significantly lower.
The points you mention are broadly correct, but the question is whether they compensate for the enormous differences in potential when it comes to the amount of money. In Uganda, the median income per day is $2.56, while in the US it is $70 (source: Our World in Data). If someone pursues earning to give, earns twice the median income, and donates half of it, the amount donated in the US is 27 times higher. To generate the same level of donations, you would therefore need either one person in the US doing earning to give or 27 people in Uganda. Even if the person in the US cannot allocate the money within Uganda as effectively because of their outsider perspective, it would already be enough if they donated just one twenty-seventh of their donations to the most effective organizations for the outcome to be better overall.
Of course, for any individual person in an LMIC it is impossible to say in general terms which career path will be the most impactful. If someone does not want to work for an NGO, in politics, or for a company relevant to animal welfare, then earning to give could certainly be interesting (effective giving can also be practiced while having direct impact). But I would assume that this case occurs rather rarely. As far as I know, the underfunding of the animal movement in places like Africa is also partly due to funders in the global North not knowing where they can sensibly donate money, or believing that they do not know, meaning they suspect that the opportunities they already know might not be as effective. In that case, it would be even more important to have people doing strong direct work in those countries.
More generally, I also consider dependence on funders from the global North to be problematic. However, that primarily reflects the global disparities in income and wealth, and we will unfortunately not change that significantly in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we should focus on how to deal with that reality.
Regarding a few of the arguments mentioned: “Even modest local funding can change how work is framed: from ‘externally funded projects’ to ‘something people here care about.’” → I would say that one can also say that people care about it if they are directly working for the NGO. “External funding priorities can shift with philanthropic trends, macroeconomic conditions, or changing attention.” → Philanthropic trends exist among all donors, including local donors. And if the goal is to be less dependent on macroeconomic conditions, it would be best to have a globally diversified donor base. If there are disproportionately many donors from a single country, for example the country where the projects are carried out, fluctuations are actually more likely when that country experiences something like an economic crisis.
If we want to address the problem of underfunding and some of the other points raised, regranting initiatives such as the one Vasco already proposed could help in my view. Another option would be a stronger focus on small donors in the global North. At the moment, this barely exists, partly because the work in places like Africa is not widely known, and partly because of tax disadvantages. These disadvantages do not exist for large donors, since with larger sums it becomes worthwhile to set up a corresponding contract or similar arrangement to obtain the tax benefits.
More generally, I would think that if we are discussing whether there should be more earning to give in LMICs, this mainly shows that we are still neglecting it far too much in industrialized countries.
First and foremost, I also think that E2G is generally/globally neglected within AW (the sub area of EA I know most about, not sure about EA more broadly) and that its potential is biggest in the Global North.
I also agree that we don’t necessarily need local donors to increase local participation—this bottleneck can be solved differently (Vasco’s point and Mo’s examples).
I do think it’s important to distinguish E2G from EG. People can do the latter without doing the former. As you know, I’ve become excited about people taking jobs in government, corporations, etc. to drive change for animals from the inside (forcontext). This could be combined with some (modest) giving. What do you think about these paths?
Regarding the other constraints you mentioned (lack of knowledge about impactful opportunities, tax deductibility, etc.): We’re currently thinking about how we can help solve these through AAA. Will keep you posted!
Thank you for the text. In principle, I think that effective giving and earning to give are underestimated within EA. However, when it comes to advocating for more attention to these topics, focusing on LMICs would be the last thing that comes to mind for me, simply because the earning and donation potential is significantly lower.
The points you mention are broadly correct, but the question is whether they compensate for the enormous differences in potential when it comes to the amount of money. In Uganda, the median income per day is $2.56, while in the US it is $70 (source: Our World in Data). If someone pursues earning to give, earns twice the median income, and donates half of it, the amount donated in the US is 27 times higher. To generate the same level of donations, you would therefore need either one person in the US doing earning to give or 27 people in Uganda. Even if the person in the US cannot allocate the money within Uganda as effectively because of their outsider perspective, it would already be enough if they donated just one twenty-seventh of their donations to the most effective organizations for the outcome to be better overall.
Of course, for any individual person in an LMIC it is impossible to say in general terms which career path will be the most impactful. If someone does not want to work for an NGO, in politics, or for a company relevant to animal welfare, then earning to give could certainly be interesting (effective giving can also be practiced while having direct impact). But I would assume that this case occurs rather rarely. As far as I know, the underfunding of the animal movement in places like Africa is also partly due to funders in the global North not knowing where they can sensibly donate money, or believing that they do not know, meaning they suspect that the opportunities they already know might not be as effective. In that case, it would be even more important to have people doing strong direct work in those countries.
More generally, I also consider dependence on funders from the global North to be problematic. However, that primarily reflects the global disparities in income and wealth, and we will unfortunately not change that significantly in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we should focus on how to deal with that reality.
Regarding a few of the arguments mentioned:
“Even modest local funding can change how work is framed: from ‘externally funded projects’ to ‘something people here care about.’” → I would say that one can also say that people care about it if they are directly working for the NGO.
“External funding priorities can shift with philanthropic trends, macroeconomic conditions, or changing attention.” → Philanthropic trends exist among all donors, including local donors. And if the goal is to be less dependent on macroeconomic conditions, it would be best to have a globally diversified donor base. If there are disproportionately many donors from a single country, for example the country where the projects are carried out, fluctuations are actually more likely when that country experiences something like an economic crisis.
If we want to address the problem of underfunding and some of the other points raised, regranting initiatives such as the one Vasco already proposed could help in my view. Another option would be a stronger focus on small donors in the global North. At the moment, this barely exists, partly because the work in places like Africa is not widely known, and partly because of tax disadvantages. These disadvantages do not exist for large donors, since with larger sums it becomes worthwhile to set up a corresponding contract or similar arrangement to obtain the tax benefits.
More generally, I would think that if we are discussing whether there should be more earning to give in LMICs, this mainly shows that we are still neglecting it far too much in industrialized countries.
Thanks Felix, I agree with many of your points.
First and foremost, I also think that E2G is generally/globally neglected within AW (the sub area of EA I know most about, not sure about EA more broadly) and that its potential is biggest in the Global North.
I also agree that we don’t necessarily need local donors to increase local participation—this bottleneck can be solved differently (Vasco’s point and Mo’s examples).
I do think it’s important to distinguish E2G from EG. People can do the latter without doing the former. As you know, I’ve become excited about people taking jobs in government, corporations, etc. to drive change for animals from the inside (for context). This could be combined with some (modest) giving. What do you think about these paths?
Regarding the other constraints you mentioned (lack of knowledge about impactful opportunities, tax deductibility, etc.): We’re currently thinking about how we can help solve these through AAA. Will keep you posted!