Thanks for sharing, Joris! I also really liked the program. I can hardly imagine something better for people interested in helping animals working in EUās institutions.
Based on what I learned in the program, and my background beliefs, I guess:
For over 90 % of the positions in the Commission, donating 10 % of oneās net income to the Shrimp Welfare Project would imply over 90 % of oneās impact coming from those donations. Relatedly, I think donating more and better is the best strategy to maximise impact for the vast majority of people working in impact-focussed organisations.
The direct (expectedcounterfactual) impact of working in a random role in Animal Charity Evaluatorsā (ACEās) recommended charities is larger than that of a random APA, and this is larger than that of a random role in the Commision.
I disagree quite strongly with this! But I think as discussed during this week it is because you have the need for greater certainty over direct impact and policy in general has a much messier theory of change and over a longer time period.
I also think this missed the point entirely of personal fit, which as a multiplier for every personās impact should be heavily weighted. It is unlikely that the people who were selected for the programme would get a random role at an ACE recommended charity at this current point, in fact many have tried and not succeeded.
Therefore offering them opportunities for potential impact and career capital through this programme should be compared against no role in the movement at all, not another hypothetical role at an ACE recommended charity.
I find it hard to be confident considering the lack of detailed quantitative analyses about the counterfactual impact of policy roles.
But I think as discussed during this week it is because you have the need for greater certainty over direct impact and policy in general is a much messier theory of change.
My guesses above refer to the expected counterfactual impact of the roles. They are supposed to be risk neutral with respect to maximising expected total hedonistic welfare, which I strongly endorse. I most likely act as if I prefer averting 1 h of disabling pain with certainty over decreasing by 10^-100 the chance of 10^100 h of disabling pain, but still recognise 1 h of disabling is averted in expectation in both scenarios, and therefore think both scenarios are equally good.
I also think this missed the point entirely of personal fit which is a multiplier for every persons impact.
My guesses are about the impact of people in the roles, who have to be a good fit. Otherwise, they would not have been selected.
Therefore offering them opportunities for potential impact and career capital should be compared against no role in the movement at all, not another hypothetical role
I would also consider working outside animal welfare to earn more, and therefore donate more to the best animal welfare organisations. I think this may well be more impactful than working in impact-focussed animal welfare organisations.
I completely agree that for many people, earning more in another sector and donating to the most effective animal welfare organizations could be the most impactful pathāespecially if theyāre comfortable working outside a like-minded community and have the resilience to avoid value drift. Thatās no small ask, but for the right person, it can be highly effective.
However, Iād push back on this part:
āThe direct (expected counterfactual) impact of working in a random role in Animal Charity Evaluatorsā (ACEās) recommended charities is larger than that of a random APA, and this is larger than that of a random role in the Commission.ā
One of the key reasons we ran this program is the very limited number of roles in high-impact nonprofits. Additionally, unless someone is in one of the hardest-to-hire-for positions, such as fundraising, leadership, founding a nonprofit, or campaigning, 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. Additionally, most participants in our program donāt have the specific skill set for those high-impact roles but to to excel in a policy role inside the system, which is a very important consideration.
I suspect the crux of the disagreement might be a skepticism about the potential impact of working within the system, which Iād love to discuss further. But to be fair, I also think the counterfactual impact of working in a ārandom roleā at an ACE-recommended charity is much harder to quantify than youāre assuming.
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.
Thanks for sharing, Joris! I also really liked the program. I can hardly imagine something better for people interested in helping animals working in EUās institutions.
Based on what I learned in the program, and my background beliefs, I guess:
For over 90 % of the positions in the Commission, donating 10 % of oneās net income to the Shrimp Welfare Project would imply over 90 % of oneās impact coming from those donations. Relatedly, I think donating more and better is the best strategy to maximise impact for the vast majority of people working in impact-focussed organisations.
The direct (expected counterfactual) impact of working in a random role in Animal Charity Evaluatorsā (ACEās) recommended charities is larger than that of a random APA, and this is larger than that of a random role in the Commision.
I disagree quite strongly with this! But I think as discussed during this week it is because you have the need for greater certainty over direct impact and policy in general has a much messier theory of change and over a longer time period.
I also think this missed the point entirely of personal fit, which as a multiplier for every personās impact should be heavily weighted. It is unlikely that the people who were selected for the programme would get a random role at an ACE recommended charity at this current point, in fact many have tried and not succeeded.
Therefore offering them opportunities for potential impact and career capital through this programme should be compared against no role in the movement at all, not another hypothetical role at an ACE recommended charity.
Thanks for sharing your views, Lauren!
I find it hard to be confident considering the lack of detailed quantitative analyses about the counterfactual impact of policy roles.
My guesses above refer to the expected counterfactual impact of the roles. They are supposed to be risk neutral with respect to maximising expected total hedonistic welfare, which I strongly endorse. I most likely act as if I prefer averting 1 h of disabling pain with certainty over decreasing by 10^-100 the chance of 10^100 h of disabling pain, but still recognise 1 h of disabling is averted in expectation in both scenarios, and therefore think both scenarios are equally good.
My guesses are about the impact of people in the roles, who have to be a good fit. Otherwise, they would not have been selected.
I would also consider working outside animal welfare to earn more, and therefore donate more to the best animal welfare organisations. I think this may well be more impactful than working in impact-focussed animal welfare organisations.
Thanks, Vasco!
I completely agree that for many people, earning more in another sector and donating to the most effective animal welfare organizations could be the most impactful pathāespecially if theyāre comfortable working outside a like-minded community and have the resilience to avoid value drift. Thatās no small ask, but for the right person, it can be highly effective.
However, Iād push back on this part:
One of the key reasons we ran this program is the very limited number of roles in high-impact nonprofits. Additionally, unless someone is in one of the hardest-to-hire-for positions, such as fundraising, leadership, founding a nonprofit, or campaigning, 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. Additionally, most participants in our program donāt have the specific skill set for those high-impact roles but to to excel in a policy role inside the system, which is a very important consideration.
I suspect the crux of the disagreement might be a skepticism about the potential impact of working within the system, which Iād love to discuss further. But to be fair, I also think the counterfactual impact of working in a ārandom roleā at an ACE-recommended charity is much harder to quantify than youāre assuming.
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