In global health, one challenge is that there are a massive number of players, each with their own agendas. You’ve got developing countries, Western governments, Gates, traditional NGOs, EA, and many other players besides.
Only a small fraction of the funding is EA-aligned, so it’s unclear how much benefit tighter EA coordination would bring. Moreover, my guess is that having so much of the EA funding routing through GiveWell has some coordinating effects (e.g., GW would likely know and react if two programs it recommended were duplicating efforts).
In global health, one challenge is that there are a massive number of players, each with their own agendas. You’ve got developing countries, Western governments, Gates, traditional NGOs, EA, and many other players besides.
Only a small fraction of the funding is EA-aligned, so it’s unclear how much benefit tighter EA coordination would bring. Moreover, my guess is that having so much of the EA funding routing through GiveWell has some coordinating effects (e.g., GW would likely know and react if two programs it recommended were duplicating efforts).