Dear Allegra, thank you very much for your excellent post. I couldn’t agree more. In my view, the zero-sum debate about whether bed nets are more cost effective than humanitarian action keeps us from realizing additional positive impact. It doesn’t seem to be an accurate reflection of donor behaviour. For example, there is empirical evidence which shows that salient disasters (in the US) expand total giving rather than merely shifting funds away from other causes [1]. Also, a study of several major appeals launched by the UK Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) showed that major fundraising interventions lifted total donations, even to organizations not included in the appeal, rather than crowding them out [2]. So I think we can help more effectively in Sudan without taking anything away from other global health interventions. Moreover, while Sudan is not receiving the attention it deserves, it still does motivate many people to give. The EA community (or someone else with knowledge of its concepts) should have an answer for donors who want to direct their money to the most cost-effective options within this crisis. I am currently working on such recommendations and would love to exchange further and learn more about your experience in the region.
For example, there is empirical evidence which shows that salient disasters (in the US) expand total giving rather than merely shifting funds away from other causes.
But the question here is whether that is true in the EA community. I don’t know the answer to that. I suppose each donor has to figure that out for themselves, ultimately.
The EA community (or someone else with knowledge of its concepts) should have an answer for donors who want to direct their money to the most cost-effective options within this crisis.
Dear Allegra, thank you very much for your excellent post. I couldn’t agree more. In my view, the zero-sum debate about whether bed nets are more cost effective than humanitarian action keeps us from realizing additional positive impact. It doesn’t seem to be an accurate reflection of donor behaviour. For example, there is empirical evidence which shows that salient disasters (in the US) expand total giving rather than merely shifting funds away from other causes [1]. Also, a study of several major appeals launched by the UK Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) showed that major fundraising interventions lifted total donations, even to organizations not included in the appeal, rather than crowding them out [2]. So I think we can help more effectively in Sudan without taking anything away from other global health interventions. Moreover, while Sudan is not receiving the attention it deserves, it still does motivate many people to give. The EA community (or someone else with knowledge of its concepts) should have an answer for donors who want to direct their money to the most cost-effective options within this crisis. I am currently working on such recommendations and would love to exchange further and learn more about your experience in the region.
All best and thanks again, Elias
[1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20200230
[2] https://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_papers/pdffiles/dp17687.pdf
But the question here is whether that is true in the EA community. I don’t know the answer to that. I suppose each donor has to figure that out for themselves, ultimately.
I’d agree with that.