The consideration of whether to help people in poverty without solving the problem of poverty itself is a good one! In a slightly different formulation, it had been addressed in this amazing work—Growth and the case against randomista development.
However, the question of how exactly we can alleviate poverty is still very tough. For example, GiveWell’s analysis of educational programs in developing countries concludes that there’s very limited evidence on the impact of education on improved future earnings, and their cost-effectiveness model suggests that they are about (0.5x-3x) as cost-effective as direct cash transfers. This contrasts with the large potential effects of direct health interventions, like deworming, which could be much higher (but there’s still a lot of uncertainty and debate).
For readers, here are links to The Malala Fund and the Global Health and Development Fund (part of EA Funds).
The consideration of whether to help people in poverty without solving the problem of poverty itself is a good one! In a slightly different formulation, it had been addressed in this amazing work—Growth and the case against randomista development.
However, the question of how exactly we can alleviate poverty is still very tough. For example, GiveWell’s analysis of educational programs in developing countries concludes that there’s very limited evidence on the impact of education on improved future earnings, and their cost-effectiveness model suggests that they are about (0.5x-3x) as cost-effective as direct cash transfers. This contrasts with the large potential effects of direct health interventions, like deworming, which could be much higher (but there’s still a lot of uncertainty and debate).