This is a really hard analysis to do because it’s very hard to assess what the money would have been spent on counterfactually- see my comment above to Khorton.
My subjective impression is that the $75k for the Better Science campaign was heavily skewed towards EA donors and would have gone to EA causes anyway. However, assuming returns to research this might have still improved the quality of donation within the EA community, which counterintuitively can sometimes be more effective than growing the pie.
However, the $200k raised for the climate change campaign was heavily skewed towards non-EA donor and perhaps the counterfactual here were less effective charities or even conspicuous consumption.
Yes, excellent question.
This is a really hard analysis to do because it’s very hard to assess what the money would have been spent on counterfactually- see my comment above to Khorton.
My subjective impression is that the $75k for the Better Science campaign was heavily skewed towards EA donors and would have gone to EA causes anyway. However, assuming returns to research this might have still improved the quality of donation within the EA community, which counterintuitively can sometimes be more effective than growing the pie.
However, the $200k raised for the climate change campaign was heavily skewed towards non-EA donor and perhaps the counterfactual here were less effective charities or even conspicuous consumption.