11.a. I’ve observed cronyism in EA funding decisions that benefits insiders.
Needs not fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice
Associated emotions: worry, anger
Description: “I’ve observed concerning patterns where influential EAs have diverted funding from more deserving recipients to themselves or their close associates in ways that seem ethically questionable, even if technically legal. Even when these arrangements follow proper procedures on paper, they violate the spirit of merit-based allocation that EA claims to uphold. I worry that this undermines trust in EA institutions and means that truly impactful projects may be overlooked in favour of those connected to the right people. The movement’s emphasis on personal relationships and trust networks, whilst valuable in some ways, creates opportunities for this kind of self-dealing that damages EA’s credibility and effectiveness.”
11.b. I’ve observed fair and merit-based EA funding decisions with strong oversight.
Needs fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice
Associated emotions: confidence, trust, calmness
Description: “I’ve consistently observed EA funding decisions that prioritise merit and impact over personal connections or insider status. When conflicts of interest do exist, they’re transparently disclosed and properly managed through recusal processes or independent review panels. I’ve seen funding opportunities designed with clear, objective criteria that focus on potential impact rather than benefiting particular individuals or networks. There’s robust independent oversight and transparent reporting that makes it easy to distinguish between legitimate awards and any potential favouritism. I feel confident that truly impactful projects receive fair consideration regardless of the applicants’ connections to funding bodies. The movement’s emphasis on personal relationships and trust networks operates within appropriate ethical boundaries, enhancing rather than undermining fair decision-making.”
11. Fair funding vs. insider dealing
11.a. I’ve observed cronyism in EA funding decisions that benefits insiders.
Needs not fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice
Associated emotions: worry, anger
Description: “I’ve observed concerning patterns where influential EAs have diverted funding from more deserving recipients to themselves or their close associates in ways that seem ethically questionable, even if technically legal. Even when these arrangements follow proper procedures on paper, they violate the spirit of merit-based allocation that EA claims to uphold. I worry that this undermines trust in EA institutions and means that truly impactful projects may be overlooked in favour of those connected to the right people. The movement’s emphasis on personal relationships and trust networks, whilst valuable in some ways, creates opportunities for this kind of self-dealing that damages EA’s credibility and effectiveness.”
11.b. I’ve observed fair and merit-based EA funding decisions with strong oversight.
Needs fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice
Associated emotions: confidence, trust, calmness
Description: “I’ve consistently observed EA funding decisions that prioritise merit and impact over personal connections or insider status. When conflicts of interest do exist, they’re transparently disclosed and properly managed through recusal processes or independent review panels. I’ve seen funding opportunities designed with clear, objective criteria that focus on potential impact rather than benefiting particular individuals or networks. There’s robust independent oversight and transparent reporting that makes it easy to distinguish between legitimate awards and any potential favouritism. I feel confident that truly impactful projects receive fair consideration regardless of the applicants’ connections to funding bodies. The movement’s emphasis on personal relationships and trust networks operates within appropriate ethical boundaries, enhancing rather than undermining fair decision-making.”