What stood out most was the idea that prioritization functions not only as analysis but also as a form of governance
I agree with this. And I think this framing makes clear why how we allocate the community’s prioritisation is such an important question.
How much of the prioritization in EA is a design question about institutional learning, decision rights, and oversight?
From that angle, the current emphasis on within-cause work doesn’t just feel like a strategic imbalance; it may also reflect what’s easier to operationalize within existing organizational structures.
I also agree with this. As we allude to in the piece, institutional infrastructure for (and generally doing) within-cause prioritisation is generally easier: you can build on, or more easily develop, networks of domain-specialists and specialist institutions. And I think various factors push the community towards more siloed within-cause structures (e.g. network effects etc.).
So I think it’s both the case that within-cause infrastructure is easier to set up and that, as you say, our current (heavily cause-specific) infrastructure makes within-cause prioritisation easier and cross-cause prioritisation harder (e.g. there are few institutions that are well-placed or have the remit to do cross-cause work).
I agree that we would need more structured systems (or more support for the existing systems) in order to do more cross-cause prioritisation. I don’t want to communicate fatalism about this though: I think existing organizations and individuals could start doing significantly more cross-cause prioritisation if they decided it were valuable and that this would itself make it easier to build the relevant infrastructure.[1]
Thanks Ivan!
I agree with this. And I think this framing makes clear why how we allocate the community’s prioritisation is such an important question.
I also agree with this. As we allude to in the piece, institutional infrastructure for (and generally doing) within-cause prioritisation is generally easier: you can build on, or more easily develop, networks of domain-specialists and specialist institutions. And I think various factors push the community towards more siloed within-cause structures (e.g. network effects etc.).
So I think it’s both the case that within-cause infrastructure is easier to set up and that, as you say, our current (heavily cause-specific) infrastructure makes within-cause prioritisation easier and cross-cause prioritisation harder (e.g. there are few institutions that are well-placed or have the remit to do cross-cause work).
I agree that we would need more structured systems (or more support for the existing systems) in order to do more cross-cause prioritisation. I don’t want to communicate fatalism about this though: I think existing organizations and individuals could start doing significantly more cross-cause prioritisation if they decided it were valuable and that this would itself make it easier to build the relevant infrastructure.[1]
Though, of course, it would take further work for EA’s actual allocations of resources to be influenced by this prioritisation work.