I also faintly recall hearing something similar in this vicinity: apparently some volunteering groups get zero (or less!?) value from many/most volunteers, but engaged volunteers dominate donations, so it’s worthwhile bringing in volunteers and training them! (citation very much needed)
Nitpick: are these ‘externalities’? I’d have said, ‘side effects’. An externality is a third-party impact from some interaction between two parties. The effects you’re describing don’t seem to be distinguished by being third-party per se (I can imagine glossing them as such but it’s not central or necessary to the model).
Interesting argument about ‘side effects’ vs ‘externalities’. I was assuming that organizations/individuals were being ‘selfishly’ rational, and assuming that a relatively small fraction of things like the field-building effects would benefit the specific organization doing the field-building. But ‘side effects’ does seem like it might be more accurate, so possibly I should adjust the title.
Sure, take it or leave it! I think for the field-building benefits it can look more obviously like an externality (though I-the-fundraiser would in fact be pleased and not indifferent, presumably!), but the epistemic benefits could easily accrue mainly to me-the-fundraiser (of course they could also benefit other parties).
Simple, clear, thought-provoking model. Thanks!
I also faintly recall hearing something similar in this vicinity: apparently some volunteering groups get zero (or less!?) value from many/most volunteers, but engaged volunteers dominate donations, so it’s worthwhile bringing in volunteers and training them! (citation very much needed)
Nitpick: are these ‘externalities’? I’d have said, ‘side effects’. An externality is a third-party impact from some interaction between two parties. The effects you’re describing don’t seem to be distinguished by being third-party per se (I can imagine glossing them as such but it’s not central or necessary to the model).
Interesting argument about ‘side effects’ vs ‘externalities’. I was assuming that organizations/individuals were being ‘selfishly’ rational, and assuming that a relatively small fraction of things like the field-building effects would benefit the specific organization doing the field-building. But ‘side effects’ does seem like it might be more accurate, so possibly I should adjust the title.
Sure, take it or leave it! I think for the field-building benefits it can look more obviously like an externality (though I-the-fundraiser would in fact be pleased and not indifferent, presumably!), but the epistemic benefits could easily accrue mainly to me-the-fundraiser (of course they could also benefit other parties).