Vasco Grilo🔸 comments on GWWC’s Giving Multiplier

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Hi Joel,

You may be interested in my recent post estimating the giving multipler of GWWC.

Summary

• I tried to improve on Giving What We Can’s (GWWC’s) estimates for the future recorded donations of 10 % pledgers by stipulating the logarithm of the donations per pledger-year for pledges started in the same year evolves linearly (exponential growth; model 1), or quadratically (model 2) with the year of the pledge.

• My models lead to a value of a 10 % Pledge and cost-effectiveness of GWWC in 2023 and 2024 very similar to those from their Lifetime Giving Method. I got:

  • A value of a 10 % Pledge of 24.0 k and 21.4 k$ of additional donations to highly effective charities, 1.56 and 1.39 times GWWC’s estimate from the Lifetime Giving Method.

  • A giving multiplier of 9.22 and 8.34, 1.47 and 1.33 times GWWC’s estimate from the Lifetime Giving Method.

• I still recommend funding the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research’s (CEARCH’s) High Impact Philanthropy Fund (HIPF) due its effects on soil animals, which I think are practically proportional to the increase in agricultural-land-years per $. I estimate it increases agricultural land 9.42 times as cost-effectively as GiveWell’s top charities, and 2.67 times as cost-effectively as GWWC in 2023 and 2024.

[Joel Tan🔸]

Thanks Vasco! Did you use GWWC latest data? Also, would value your thoughts on GWWC’s current analysis of recorded donations per pledger over time

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

I used data from GWWC’s latest impact evaluation.

Below are my estimates for the recorded donations per pledger-year across time. I think GWWC is overestimating the initial decay in donations, and maybe underestimating the decay in donations in later years.