To be clear—I think that this is on net a good thing. This podcast will probably introduce both GiveDirectly and EA ideas to a wider audience. Having written up this transcript, I am also less disappointed about how this came across than I was when I first heard this at 2x-speed. That said, I still find two things fairly depressing:
Someone who has worked in international development for 30 years and headed DfID(!) is only just now finding out about cash transfers, and thinks it’s the most effective intervention you can do. (Although perhaps with his caveat about “for a single poor family” makes it true?
That the head of DfID thinks that it would have been better off spending the money on cash transfers. I had gotten the impression (mostly from posts on the EA Forum) that DfID was fairly well regarded in the space of effective giving so would have at least been aware of cash transfers.
This mostly made me think (slightly) less of Rory Stewart rather than DfID because my prior for a minister not being across their breif is higher than my prior of DfID not being aware of cash transfers, although I’d be curious to know what others think.
Thanks v much for posting this transcript! I agree this is on net good and think I took a more positive impression from Rory Stewart’s points :)
Someone who has worked in international development for 30 years and headed DfID(!) is only just now finding out about cash transfers, and thinks it’s the most effective intervention you can do. (Although perhaps with his caveat about “for a single poor family” makes it true?
I didn’t get the impression from this transcript that Rory Stewart has just heard of cash transfers—is there any part which implied that? It felt to me more like bringing-the-listener-with-him kind of speak to convey a weird but exciting idea.
That the head of DfID thinks that it would have been better off spending the money on cash transfers. I had gotten the impression (mostly from posts on the EA Forum) that DfID was fairly well regarded in the space of effective giving so would have at least been aware of cash transfers.
I would argue his point that ‘giving people cash is probably the most effective single intervention that you can do for a very poor family’ is pretty accurate and I think it implies he understands it maybe isn’t as effective as larger scale interventions (larger than ‘a single intervention for one family’). But agree with you that the joke at the end “We should have kept DfID, but we should have spent the money on cash transfers” is wrong!
Anecdotally, from my experience in DfID in 2019-20, people working on cross-cutting development prioritisation often mentioned cash transfers in a way implying familiarity. The main question wasn’t whether this weird idea works, but how it compares to bigger interventions like conflict-prevention or aid-for-trade.
So I come out even more cheerful about this interview!
I didn’t get the impression from this transcript that Rory Stewart has just heard of cash transfers—is there any part which implied that? It felt to me more like bringing-the-listener-with-him kind of speak to convey a weird but exciting idea.
Reading the transcript cold, maybe it doesn’t give that impression. If you’re willing to listen to the episodes (there’s two of them and the topic comes up a few times intersperced throughout) I’d be interested if your view changes with his joke. (He certainly gives off a tone of surprise). I also think this:
I’ve never seen anything like it in 30 years working in international development
Pretty strongly gives the impression that he hadn’t seen it before.
I would argue his point that ‘giving people cash is probably the most effective single intervention that you can do for a very poor family’ is pretty accurate and I think it implies he understands it maybe isn’t as effective as larger scale interventions (larger than ‘a single intervention for one family’).
Again, I think it’s worth listening to the full context, the impression the listener is given is very much that this is a pancea and better than “charities who are going in doing [..] health programs”.
I’m very happy to be wrong on this so I am very keen to grab onto anything saying the opposite, I just can’t shake the first impression I got from listening.
Thanks! Yes this was just my impression from reading, not listening. I’ll hopefully get round to listening later and see if that updates my impression.
I listened and come away with the same feeling as I commented above- IMO Rory is being a good ambassador for GiveDirectly here!
Also, I was excited about this because I thought Rory Stewart was the new Comms Director at No. 10, which I’ve just realised was an April Fools prank...
To be clear—I think that this is on net a good thing. This podcast will probably introduce both GiveDirectly and EA ideas to a wider audience. Having written up this transcript, I am also less disappointed about how this came across than I was when I first heard this at 2x-speed. That said, I still find two things fairly depressing:
Someone who has worked in international development for 30 years and headed DfID(!) is only just now finding out about cash transfers, and thinks it’s the most effective intervention you can do. (Although perhaps with his caveat about “for a single poor family” makes it true?
That the head of DfID thinks that it would have been better off spending the money on cash transfers. I had gotten the impression (mostly from posts on the EA Forum) that DfID was fairly well regarded in the space of effective giving so would have at least been aware of cash transfers.
This mostly made me think (slightly) less of Rory Stewart rather than DfID because my prior for a minister not being across their breif is higher than my prior of DfID not being aware of cash transfers, although I’d be curious to know what others think.
Thanks v much for posting this transcript! I agree this is on net good and think I took a more positive impression from Rory Stewart’s points :)
I didn’t get the impression from this transcript that Rory Stewart has just heard of cash transfers—is there any part which implied that? It felt to me more like bringing-the-listener-with-him kind of speak to convey a weird but exciting idea.
I would argue his point that ‘giving people cash is probably the most effective single intervention that you can do for a very poor family’ is pretty accurate and I think it implies he understands it maybe isn’t as effective as larger scale interventions (larger than ‘a single intervention for one family’). But agree with you that the joke at the end “We should have kept DfID, but we should have spent the money on cash transfers” is wrong!
Anecdotally, from my experience in DfID in 2019-20, people working on cross-cutting development prioritisation often mentioned cash transfers in a way implying familiarity. The main question wasn’t whether this weird idea works, but how it compares to bigger interventions like conflict-prevention or aid-for-trade.
So I come out even more cheerful about this interview!
Reading the transcript cold, maybe it doesn’t give that impression. If you’re willing to listen to the episodes (there’s two of them and the topic comes up a few times intersperced throughout) I’d be interested if your view changes with his joke. (He certainly gives off a tone of surprise). I also think this:
Pretty strongly gives the impression that he hadn’t seen it before.
Again, I think it’s worth listening to the full context, the impression the listener is given is very much that this is a pancea and better than “charities who are going in doing [..] health programs”.
I’m very happy to be wrong on this so I am very keen to grab onto anything saying the opposite, I just can’t shake the first impression I got from listening.
Thanks! Yes this was just my impression from reading, not listening. I’ll hopefully get round to listening later and see if that updates my impression.
I listened and come away with the same feeling as I commented above- IMO Rory is being a good ambassador for GiveDirectly here!
Also, I was excited about this because I thought Rory Stewart was the new Comms Director at No. 10, which I’ve just realised was an April Fools prank...
Thank you—I will update accordingly.