I suspect the crux of the disagreement might be a skepticism about the potential impact of working within the system
I believe there are positions within the system which are more impactful than a random one in ACEās recommended charities. However, I think those are quite senior, and therefore super hard to get, especially for people wanting to go against the system in the sense of prioritising animal welfare much more.
they are often more replaceable in these roles than they would be in an APA position and their impact is limited only to the difference between their skills and the next best candidate which for many roles is not that much.
I guess this also applies to junior positions within the system, whose freedom would be determined to a significant extent by people in senior positions.
I guess this also applies to junior positions within the system, whose freedom would be determined to a significant extent by people in senior positions
The obvious difference is that an alternative candidate for a junior position in a shrimp welfare organization is likely to be equally concerned about shrimp welfare. An alternative candidate for a junior person in an MEPās office or DG Mare is not, hence the difference at the margin is (if non-zero) likely much greater. And a junior person progressing in their career may end up with direct policy responsibility for their areas of interest, whereas a person who remains a lobbyist will never have this. It even seems non-obvious that even a senior lobbyist will have more impact on policymakers than their more junior adviser or research assistant, though as you say it does depend on whether the junior adviser has the freedom to highlight issues of concern.
The obvious difference is that an alternative candidate for a junior position in a shrimp welfare organization is likely to be equally concerned about shrimp welfare.
I understand this. However, the key is the difference in impact, not in concern about animals. I agree people completing the program care much more about animals than a random person in a junior position in EUās institutions, but my impression is that there is limited room for the greater care to translate into helping animals in junior positions. The Commission has 32 k people, whereas the largest organisation recommended by ACE, The Humane League (THL), has 136, so hierarchy matters much more in the former.
And a junior person progressing in their career may end up with direct policy responsibility for their areas of interest, whereas a person who remains a lobbyist will never have this. It even seems non-obvious that even a senior lobbyist will have more impact on policymakers than their more junior adviser or research assistant, though as you say it does depend on whether the junior adviser has the freedom to highlight issues of concern.
Makes sense. On the other hand, a lobbyist can interact with more policymakers than an APA. I do not know whether a lobbyist is more or less impactful than an APA. I think it depends on the specifics.
Thanks Vasco ā I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I think there are a few different things getting a bit mixed together here, so Iād love to tease them apart and explain where I still see things differently.
You mentioned that the key is the difference in impact, not concern about animals. But Iād argue that this concern does in fact translate to impact, especially when weāre thinking in terms of counterfactuals and replaceability. For example, if someone applies for a role at SWP, their counterfactual impact is likely just the difference between them and the next-best candidateāwho is almost certainly also deeply concerned about shrimp welfare. But in an EC role, the counterfactual is likely that the position goes to someone who wouldnāt raise animal issues at all. So the marginal impact is potentially much greater, even in junior positions.
Weāve already seen specific examples, particularly in the UK, where junior staff inside government have been able to push for progress on animal welfare that would never have happened through lobbying alone. These arenāt abstract hypotheticals. Another specific i found out yesterday, someone was able to pass something through their local gov that led to 400 million animals being spared that wasnāt even on the radar before they entered. It seems extremely unlikely that this kind of leverage and counterfactual would be the case for the best vs. next best candidate in an NGO.
2. Hierarchy matters, but so does initiative, positioning, and timing.
Yes, the Commission is large and hierarchical. But so is almost every institution with leverage over major policy. What weāve seen that once someone is in, they can navigate toward departments and roles where theyāre better positioned to influence change. Thatās part of what this program is about: helping people enter the system with the long game in mind.
Itās not a passive processāit requires individuals to actively find their leverage points and pockets of influence. A lot depends on the individualās initiative and ability to spot opportunitiesābut thatās true in any sector, whether in NGOs or in policy. I would say though if that doesnt appeal its a sign working in civil service is not a good fit.
You noted that lobbyists can reach many policymakers, which is true. But that doesnāt mean theyāre more impactful than internal actorsāitās highly dependent on context. And critically, lobbyists themselves will tell you (and did on our programme) that what they need most are credible insiders who understand the system, have networks, and can champion ideas from within.
3. External lobbying vs. insider influence is a false binary.
We often hear people argue for becoming a lobbyist instead of going into the system. But I think this skips a vital step: the most effective lobbyists often were insiders first. Without that institutional knowledge, they lack the credibility and relational capital that drives real traction on issues that arenāt already politically salientālike shrimp welfare, for example.
So to me, the idea that someone without any government experience should just jump into policy advocacy seems less plausible than a pathway that starts inside the system, builds knowledge, and later leverages that from a lobbying or NGO position if thatās where personal fit leads.
So overall, Iād say the value of this programme comes not from comparing against some hypothetical ārandomā NGO role, but from offering people a realistic path into a system thatās historically been quite closed off to animal advocates and an opportunity to build essential career capital to be a more effective advocate in the future.
Thanks for the great clarifications, Lauren! Strongly upvoted.
Another specific i found out yesterday, someone was able to pass something through their local gov that led to 400 million animals being spared that wasnāt even on the radar before they entered. It seems extremely unlikely that this kind of leverage and counterfactual would be the case for the best vs. next best candidate in an NGO.
Interesting example! I would be interested to know more, but I understand it may be sensible information to share publicly. I think one can help 400 M shrimp donating 26.7 k$ (= 400*10^6/ā(15*10^3)) to the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP). So, if your example was representative of the impact of a career in policy inside the system, and the impact per animal helped in your example matched that of SWP (which I estimated to be 0.0426 DALYs averted), maximising donations could still be better. For a career of 40 years, one would only need to donate 668 $ (= 26.7*10^3/ā40) more to SWP per year relative to the career in policy inside the system.
I believe there are positions within the system which are more impactful than a random one in ACEās recommended charities. However, I think those are quite senior, and therefore super hard to get, especially for people wanting to go against the system in the sense of prioritising animal welfare much more.
I guess this also applies to junior positions within the system, whose freedom would be determined to a significant extent by people in senior positions.
The obvious difference is that an alternative candidate for a junior position in a shrimp welfare organization is likely to be equally concerned about shrimp welfare. An alternative candidate for a junior person in an MEPās office or DG Mare is not, hence the difference at the margin is (if non-zero) likely much greater. And a junior person progressing in their career may end up with direct policy responsibility for their areas of interest, whereas a person who remains a lobbyist will never have this. It even seems non-obvious that even a senior lobbyist will have more impact on policymakers than their more junior adviser or research assistant, though as you say it does depend on whether the junior adviser has the freedom to highlight issues of concern.
Thanks, David.
I understand this. However, the key is the difference in impact, not in concern about animals. I agree people completing the program care much more about animals than a random person in a junior position in EUās institutions, but my impression is that there is limited room for the greater care to translate into helping animals in junior positions. The Commission has 32 k people, whereas the largest organisation recommended by ACE, The Humane League (THL), has 136, so hierarchy matters much more in the former.
Makes sense. On the other hand, a lobbyist can interact with more policymakers than an APA. I do not know whether a lobbyist is more or less impactful than an APA. I think it depends on the specifics.
Thanks Vasco ā I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I think there are a few different things getting a bit mixed together here, so Iād love to tease them apart and explain where I still see things differently.
You mentioned that the key is the difference in impact, not concern about animals. But Iād argue that this concern does in fact translate to impact, especially when weāre thinking in terms of counterfactuals and replaceability. For example, if someone applies for a role at SWP, their counterfactual impact is likely just the difference between them and the next-best candidateāwho is almost certainly also deeply concerned about shrimp welfare. But in an EC role, the counterfactual is likely that the position goes to someone who wouldnāt raise animal issues at all. So the marginal impact is potentially much greater, even in junior positions.
Weāve already seen specific examples, particularly in the UK, where junior staff inside government have been able to push for progress on animal welfare that would never have happened through lobbying alone. These arenāt abstract hypotheticals. Another specific i found out yesterday, someone was able to pass something through their local gov that led to 400 million animals being spared that wasnāt even on the radar before they entered. It seems extremely unlikely that this kind of leverage and counterfactual would be the case for the best vs. next best candidate in an NGO.
2. Hierarchy matters, but so does initiative, positioning, and timing.
Yes, the Commission is large and hierarchical. But so is almost every institution with leverage over major policy. What weāve seen that once someone is in, they can navigate toward departments and roles where theyāre better positioned to influence change. Thatās part of what this program is about: helping people enter the system with the long game in mind.
Itās not a passive processāit requires individuals to actively find their leverage points and pockets of influence. A lot depends on the individualās initiative and ability to spot opportunitiesābut thatās true in any sector, whether in NGOs or in policy. I would say though if that doesnt appeal its a sign working in civil service is not a good fit.
You noted that lobbyists can reach many policymakers, which is true. But that doesnāt mean theyāre more impactful than internal actorsāitās highly dependent on context. And critically, lobbyists themselves will tell you (and did on our programme) that what they need most are credible insiders who understand the system, have networks, and can champion ideas from within.
3. External lobbying vs. insider influence is a false binary.
We often hear people argue for becoming a lobbyist instead of going into the system. But I think this skips a vital step: the most effective lobbyists often were insiders first. Without that institutional knowledge, they lack the credibility and relational capital that drives real traction on issues that arenāt already politically salientālike shrimp welfare, for example.
So to me, the idea that someone without any government experience should just jump into policy advocacy seems less plausible than a pathway that starts inside the system, builds knowledge, and later leverages that from a lobbying or NGO position if thatās where personal fit leads.
So overall, Iād say the value of this programme comes not from comparing against some hypothetical ārandomā NGO role, but from offering people a realistic path into a system thatās historically been quite closed off to animal advocates and an opportunity to build essential career capital to be a more effective advocate in the future.
Thanks for the great clarifications, Lauren! Strongly upvoted.
Interesting example! I would be interested to know more, but I understand it may be sensible information to share publicly. I think one can help 400 M shrimp donating 26.7 k$ (= 400*10^6/ā(15*10^3)) to the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP). So, if your example was representative of the impact of a career in policy inside the system, and the impact per animal helped in your example matched that of SWP (which I estimated to be 0.0426 DALYs averted), maximising donations could still be better. For a career of 40 years, one would only need to donate 668 $ (= 26.7*10^3/ā40) more to SWP per year relative to the career in policy inside the system.
Will reply properly later