None of give well top charities focus on women or girls, given that women and girls are valued less in poor countries, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, this is a miss for the EA movement
But maybe the best interventions aren’t easy or efficient to target towards women only—if you give out bed nets, best to give them to everyone. If we extend this logic, we’re going to ask “why do none of our charities focus on ugly girls in poor countries?” and it never ends because you can always find a sub-group of people that is in still more dire straits on average (but it gets unlikely that that will lead to the best charity).
Generally speaking I don’t think you can easily empirically confirm or disprove that EA is ‘on the right track’, either position is going to boil down to a lot of subjective assumptions. Instead I just trust that we’re ultimately competent and encourage constant debate and reconsideration of specific charities and causes. That’s the most productive route. If thinking about justice helps you make your argument—more power to you. No need for us to worry about how each other thinks.
You may be interested in Founders’ Pledge report: Women’s Empowerment
Thanks for this.
But maybe the best interventions aren’t easy or efficient to target towards women only
There has been very little effort to find and prove this. I have seen very little research from give well or else where on women’s issues.
Give Directly could easily run a pilot and test giving to women only. I cant imagine why this would be inefficient.
When there is actual discrimination e.g. missing women It means that women’s lives are less happier. A track of “saving lives” would not care about this difference. (As the list of top charities of Give Well show).
A justice oriented thinking would adjust for this and spend more money of women’s empowerment.
Thanks much, that was good reading. Education is not like Childbirth or Breast Cancer (99% female) which are women specific. It makes sense that Girls learning outcomes can be improved without specifically targeting them. However access to school should be done specifically by targeting them.
Hypothetically if only 50% of kids can be educated, having them be all boys is much worse than if 50% of all genders make it to school. Thankfully we don’t need to make such a choice there is enough money to educate everyone to 12 years of education regardless of gender. Whats lacking is political will.
But maybe the best interventions aren’t easy or efficient to target towards women only—if you give out bed nets, best to give them to everyone. If we extend this logic, we’re going to ask “why do none of our charities focus on ugly girls in poor countries?” and it never ends because you can always find a sub-group of people that is in still more dire straits on average (but it gets unlikely that that will lead to the best charity).
Generally speaking I don’t think you can easily empirically confirm or disprove that EA is ‘on the right track’, either position is going to boil down to a lot of subjective assumptions. Instead I just trust that we’re ultimately competent and encourage constant debate and reconsideration of specific charities and causes. That’s the most productive route. If thinking about justice helps you make your argument—more power to you. No need for us to worry about how each other thinks.
You may be interested in Founders’ Pledge report: Women’s Empowerment
Thanks for this.
There has been very little effort to find and prove this. I have seen very little research from give well or else where on women’s issues.
Give Directly could easily run a pilot and test giving to women only. I cant imagine why this would be inefficient.
When there is actual discrimination e.g. missing women It means that women’s lives are less happier. A track of “saving lives” would not care about this difference. (As the list of top charities of Give Well show). A justice oriented thinking would adjust for this and spend more money of women’s empowerment.
There is a paper from the Centre for Global Development that might be relevant.
“We Can Learn a Lot about Improving Girls’ Education from Interventions That Don’t Target Girls”
Thanks much, that was good reading. Education is not like Childbirth or Breast Cancer (99% female) which are women specific. It makes sense that Girls learning outcomes can be improved without specifically targeting them. However access to school should be done specifically by targeting them.
Hypothetically if only 50% of kids can be educated, having them be all boys is much worse than if 50% of all genders make it to school. Thankfully we don’t need to make such a choice there is enough money to educate everyone to 12 years of education regardless of gender. Whats lacking is political will.