Thanks Vasco â I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I think there are a few different things getting a bit mixed together here, so Iâd 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 Iâd argue that this concern does in fact translate to impact, especially when weâre 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 candidateâwho 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 wouldnât raise animal issues at all. So the marginal impact is potentially much greater, even in junior positions.
Weâve 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 arenât 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 wasnât 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 weâve seen that once someone is in, they can navigate toward departments and roles where theyâre better positioned to influence change. Thatâs part of what this program is about: helping people enter the system with the long game in mind.
Itâs not a passive processâit requires individuals to actively find their leverage points and pockets of influence. A lot depends on the individualâs initiative and ability to spot opportunitiesâbut thatâs 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 doesnât mean theyâre more impactful than internal actorsâitâs 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 arenât already politically salientâlike 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 thatâs where personal fit leads.
So overall, Iâd say the value of this programme comes not from comparing against some hypothetical ârandomâ NGO role, but from offering people a realistic path into a system thatâs 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 wasnât 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/â(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/â40) more to SWP per year relative to the career in policy inside the system.
Thanks Vasco â I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I think there are a few different things getting a bit mixed together here, so Iâd 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 Iâd argue that this concern does in fact translate to impact, especially when weâre 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 candidateâwho 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 wouldnât raise animal issues at all. So the marginal impact is potentially much greater, even in junior positions.
Weâve 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 arenât 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 wasnât 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 weâve seen that once someone is in, they can navigate toward departments and roles where theyâre better positioned to influence change. Thatâs part of what this program is about: helping people enter the system with the long game in mind.
Itâs not a passive processâit requires individuals to actively find their leverage points and pockets of influence. A lot depends on the individualâs initiative and ability to spot opportunitiesâbut thatâs 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 doesnât mean theyâre more impactful than internal actorsâitâs 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 arenât already politically salientâlike 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 thatâs where personal fit leads.
So overall, Iâd say the value of this programme comes not from comparing against some hypothetical ârandomâ NGO role, but from offering people a realistic path into a system thatâs 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/â(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/â40) more to SWP per year relative to the career in policy inside the system.
Will reply properly later