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.
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.