If we decide to intervene in poor people’s lives, we should do so responsibly—ideally by shifting our power to them and being accountable for our actions.
Echoing other users’ comments, what do you think about EA global health and development (GHD) orgs’ attempts to empower beneficiaries of aid? I think that empowerment has come up in the EA context in two ways:
Letting beneficiaries make their own decisions: GiveDirectly is a longstanding charity recommendation in the GHD space, and it empowers people by giving them cash and the freedom to spend it however they see fit.
Using beneficiaries’ moral preferences to guide donors’ decisions: IDinsight has published a series of research papers (in 2018 and 2021) that ask potential GD beneficiaries about their preferences between saving lives and having more money, and the beneficiaries say they care about saving lives more. Based on this, GiveWell and Open Phil have prioritized healthcare interventions over GD-style cash transfer programs.
Also, who do you understand to be the primary “beneficiaries” here—toddlers, families, communities, nations, all of the above?
IIRC, and based on GiveWell rationales, the bulk of the benefit from its recommended charities comes from saving the lives of under-5s. If one thinks the beneficiaries are toddlers, how does one “shift[] our power to them”? Does your answer have implications for domestic aid programs, under which (e.g.,) we pay thousands per kid per year for healthcare with no real power-shifting option?
In your article, you write:
Echoing other users’ comments, what do you think about EA global health and development (GHD) orgs’ attempts to empower beneficiaries of aid? I think that empowerment has come up in the EA context in two ways:
Letting beneficiaries make their own decisions: GiveDirectly is a longstanding charity recommendation in the GHD space, and it empowers people by giving them cash and the freedom to spend it however they see fit.
Using beneficiaries’ moral preferences to guide donors’ decisions: IDinsight has published a series of research papers (in 2018 and 2021) that ask potential GD beneficiaries about their preferences between saving lives and having more money, and the beneficiaries say they care about saving lives more. Based on this, GiveWell and Open Phil have prioritized healthcare interventions over GD-style cash transfer programs.
Also, who do you understand to be the primary “beneficiaries” here—toddlers, families, communities, nations, all of the above?
IIRC, and based on GiveWell rationales, the bulk of the benefit from its recommended charities comes from saving the lives of under-5s. If one thinks the beneficiaries are toddlers, how does one “shift[] our power to them”? Does your answer have implications for domestic aid programs, under which (e.g.,) we pay thousands per kid per year for healthcare with no real power-shifting option?