As far as fungibility, I think you partially answered the question by later referring to a “group of teenage friends inscribed by their wealthy parents.” Much of the money for these kinds of endeavors comes from funding sources that wouldn’t be counterfactually available for charitable work. However, I’d add as someone who grew up in a lower-middle-class subculture where “short term mission trips,” often voluntourism, were heavily promoted—I’d add that the parents of kids who go on short-term trips are often not wealthy by US standards.
If EA has a comparative advantage in this space, it may be in providing pre- and especially post-trip education and guidance. Experiences like you describe help broaden the participant’s moral circle, and for some participants open a window of time in which they are more interested in / open to thinking about longer-term ways of generating impact. But participants’ parents aren’t generally interested in funding that kind of work.
That’s a good argument I hadn’t considered, about how it opens the window for interest in EA. It would be interesting to know how many came to EA after volunteering abroad.
Also, as you said, many times the money spent on volunteering would have been spent on other leisure activities such as non-volunteering trips. Which means it usually can’t be net-negative in terms of the allocation of money; it can still be, however, in terms of the impact it has on the developing country.
Agreed that any program needs to be careful to not be net-negative for the developing country. That is an easier bar to clear than being an effective use of money based on direct benefits alone. There’s also the possibility that better programs could benefit the developing country by competing with, and partially displacing, voluntourism programs that are net-negative.
As far as fungibility, I think you partially answered the question by later referring to a “group of teenage friends inscribed by their wealthy parents.” Much of the money for these kinds of endeavors comes from funding sources that wouldn’t be counterfactually available for charitable work. However, I’d add as someone who grew up in a lower-middle-class subculture where “short term mission trips,” often voluntourism, were heavily promoted—I’d add that the parents of kids who go on short-term trips are often not wealthy by US standards.
If EA has a comparative advantage in this space, it may be in providing pre- and especially post-trip education and guidance. Experiences like you describe help broaden the participant’s moral circle, and for some participants open a window of time in which they are more interested in / open to thinking about longer-term ways of generating impact. But participants’ parents aren’t generally interested in funding that kind of work.
That’s a good argument I hadn’t considered, about how it opens the window for interest in EA. It would be interesting to know how many came to EA after volunteering abroad.
Also, as you said, many times the money spent on volunteering would have been spent on other leisure activities such as non-volunteering trips. Which means it usually can’t be net-negative in terms of the allocation of money; it can still be, however, in terms of the impact it has on the developing country.
Agreed that any program needs to be careful to not be net-negative for the developing country. That is an easier bar to clear than being an effective use of money based on direct benefits alone. There’s also the possibility that better programs could benefit the developing country by competing with, and partially displacing, voluntourism programs that are net-negative.