Executive summary: The EA community exhibits an unusual degree of deference to funders, leading to strategic shifts based on minimal feedback, distorted information flows, and misaligned incentives, which could be mitigated by diversifying grantmaking structures and reducing automatic deference to funders’ opinions.
Key points:
Unusual deference to funders – Unlike other charitable communities, EA organizations often treat funders’ opinions as highly authoritative, even when they lack direct expertise in the work being funded.
Funders lack critical information – They often receive incomplete or distorted data, particularly regarding negative aspects of projects, due to incentives for grantees to present overly positive narratives.
Misalignment of values – Major EA funders, such as Open Philanthropy, do not always align with EA consensus, yet their funding choices often set de facto strategic priorities for the movement.
Grantmaking differs from direct work – Funders typically specialize in evaluating grants rather than executing projects, leading to potential misjudgments in funding decisions.
Potential solutions – Reducing deference to funders, increasing the number of funders and evaluators, and distributing grantmaking decisions more widely could improve funding quality and ecosystem resilience.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The EA community exhibits an unusual degree of deference to funders, leading to strategic shifts based on minimal feedback, distorted information flows, and misaligned incentives, which could be mitigated by diversifying grantmaking structures and reducing automatic deference to funders’ opinions.
Key points:
Unusual deference to funders – Unlike other charitable communities, EA organizations often treat funders’ opinions as highly authoritative, even when they lack direct expertise in the work being funded.
Funders lack critical information – They often receive incomplete or distorted data, particularly regarding negative aspects of projects, due to incentives for grantees to present overly positive narratives.
Misalignment of values – Major EA funders, such as Open Philanthropy, do not always align with EA consensus, yet their funding choices often set de facto strategic priorities for the movement.
Grantmaking differs from direct work – Funders typically specialize in evaluating grants rather than executing projects, leading to potential misjudgments in funding decisions.
Potential solutions – Reducing deference to funders, increasing the number of funders and evaluators, and distributing grantmaking decisions more widely could improve funding quality and ecosystem resilience.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.