I particularly liked hearing the extensive list of concerns raised by the Korean representatives that you mentioned.
This makes a good case for research organizations (Givewell, etc.) to help identify and prioritize interventions and opportunities in addition to those that are the most demonstrably impact/cost-effective.
I’ve made the argument that donations are a sort of two-sided market catering to both the beneficiaries and the donors, and there may be charities/interventions that are particularly effective when we think about the net benefits to both, or when we consider willingness to donate.
There’s an even more straightforward case for ODA/Foreign aid. We may want to identify, prioritize among, and promote interventions that will be particularly politically appealing to the donor country governments and citizens, even if these are somewhat less impact/cost-effective in a strict sense.
E.g., one often hears that requiring food aid to be purchased from U.S. farmers makes it far more costly. However, this provides a natural constituency.
There may also be some interventions that harness particular cultural and religious affinities, e.g., “Helping educate Christian girls in Muslim countries” or some such. We may find this type of spin particularly distasteful in some ways, but the benefit may outweigh the cost in terms of making aid (and charity) politically appealing.
I particularly liked hearing the extensive list of concerns raised by the Korean representatives that you mentioned.
This makes a good case for research organizations (Givewell, etc.) to help identify and prioritize interventions and opportunities in addition to those that are the most demonstrably impact/cost-effective.
I’ve made the argument that donations are a sort of two-sided market catering to both the beneficiaries and the donors, and there may be charities/interventions that are particularly effective when we think about the net benefits to both, or when we consider willingness to donate.
There’s an even more straightforward case for ODA/Foreign aid. We may want to identify, prioritize among, and promote interventions that will be particularly politically appealing to the donor country governments and citizens, even if these are somewhat less impact/cost-effective in a strict sense.
E.g., one often hears that requiring food aid to be purchased from U.S. farmers makes it far more costly. However, this provides a natural constituency.
There may also be some interventions that harness particular cultural and religious affinities, e.g., “Helping educate Christian girls in Muslim countries” or some such. We may find this type of spin particularly distasteful in some ways, but the benefit may outweigh the cost in terms of making aid (and charity) politically appealing.