I noticed that Open Philanthropy generally focuses on US policy. The political climate in the US is especially hostile to immigration—see, for example, the US Congress’s failure to pass bipartisan immigration legislation in 2013, and Trump reducing immigration and refugee caps throughout his presidency—so it’s unsurprising that Open Phil hasn’t been successful at influencing it. I’d like to see donors (including Open Phil) try to influence immigration policy in other countries, such as those that scored highly in this survey.
Good point. My understanding is that Open Phil made a general decision to focus only on US policy for most of their policy areas, for the reason that there are high fixed costs to getting familiar with a policy space. In some areas like animal welfare they’ve gone beyond US policy, but those are areas where they are spending way more money.
Their grants to Labor Mobility Partnerships stand out as not being US-specific, though LaMP is still currently more focused on the US.
I do expect that if there are shovel-ready, easy-to-justify opportunities outside the US, Open Phil would take them.
I noticed that Open Philanthropy generally focuses on US policy. The political climate in the US is especially hostile to immigration—see, for example, the US Congress’s failure to pass bipartisan immigration legislation in 2013, and Trump reducing immigration and refugee caps throughout his presidency—so it’s unsurprising that Open Phil hasn’t been successful at influencing it. I’d like to see donors (including Open Phil) try to influence immigration policy in other countries, such as those that scored highly in this survey.
Good point. My understanding is that Open Phil made a general decision to focus only on US policy for most of their policy areas, for the reason that there are high fixed costs to getting familiar with a policy space. In some areas like animal welfare they’ve gone beyond US policy, but those are areas where they are spending way more money.
Their grants to Labor Mobility Partnerships stand out as not being US-specific, though LaMP is still currently more focused on the US.
I do expect that if there are shovel-ready, easy-to-justify opportunities outside the US, Open Phil would take them.
For what it’s worth, the Center for Global Development and Migration Policy Institute do work on policy advocacy outside the United States.