Thanks for writing this. On the one hand, I think these calls for democracy are caused by a lack of trust in EA orgs to spend the money as they see fit. On the other hand, that money comes from donors. If you don’t agree with a certain org or some actions of an org in the past, just don’t donate to them. (This sounds so obvious to me that I’m probably missing something.) Whether somebody else (who might happen to have a lot of money) agrees with you is their decision, as is where they allocate their money to.
In addition, EA is about “doing the most good”, not “doing what the majority believes to be the most good”, probably because the majority isn’t always right. I think it’s good that EA Funds are distributed in a technocratic way, rather than a democratic way, although I agree that more transparency would help people at least understand the decision processes behind granting decisions and allow for them to be criticized and improved.
“If you don’t agree with a certain org or some actions of an org in the past, just don’t donate to them. (This sounds so obvious to me that I’m probably missing something.) Whether somebody else (who might happen to have a lot of money) agrees with you is their decision, as is where they allocate their money to.“
I think what you’re missing is that a significant aspect of EA has always (rightly) been trying to influence other people’s decisions on how they spend their money, and trying to make sure that their money is spent in a way that is more effective at improving the world.
When EA looks at the vast majority of Westeners only prioritising causes within their own countries, EA generally doesn’t say “that is your money so it’s your decision and we will not try to influence your decision, and we will just give our own money to a different cause”, it says “that is your money and it’s your decision, but we’re going to try to convince you to make a different decision based on our view of what is more effective at improving the world”.
I believe the “democratise EA funding decisions” critics are doing the same thing.
There’s a big difference between your two examples. EA has historically tried to influence people to use their money differently through persuasion: actually making an argument that they should use their money in a particular way and persuading them of it.
“Democratising funding decisions” instead gives direct power over decisions, regardless of argumentation. You don’t have to persuade people if you have a voting bloc that agrees with you.
And the old route is still there! If you think people should donate differently, then make this case. This might be a lot of work, but so be it. I think a good example of this is Michael Plant and HLI: they’ve put in serious work in making their case and they get taken seriously.
I don’t see why people are entitled to more power than that.
I think it’s good that EA Funds are distributed in a technocratic way, rather than a democratic way, although I agree that more transparency would help people at least understand the decision processes behind granting decisions and allow for them to be criticized and improved.
I generally agree with this, though I don’t have a strong sense of how good EA Funds grants are. It just seems like a more reasonable grounds for debate than making demands of EA donors in general.
If the money for EA Funds comes from donors who have the impression the fund is allocated in a technocratic way do you still think it is a reasonable compromise for EA Funds to become more democratic? It seems low intergrity for an entity to raise funding after communicating a fairly specific model for how the funding will be used and then change it’s mind and spend it on a different program (unless we have made it pretty clear upfront that we might do other programs).
If the suggestion is to start a new fund that does not use existing donations that seems more reasonable to me, but then I don’t think that EA Funds has a substantial advantage in doing this over other organisations with similarly competent staff.
Agree on maintaining existing EA Funds largely as is, but I am curious what other non-EVF organizations might be in a good position to pull this off. I’m not a non-profit (or other) tax expert, but it seems that the number of non-EVF good homes for a new fund could be somewhat limited. In particular, my guess is that EVF/CEA USA’s dual corporate existence in the US and UK is a major practical advantage. E.g., if the new funds only had a US corporate existence, they’d not only start off at a major disadvantage for UK donors, but would also face extra challenges granting to non-profits from the UK—presumably they would need to obtain an equivalency determination costing several thousand dollars, or assume expenditure responsibility, for each non-US non-profit grantee. And then you’d probably want some practical grantmaking-operations experience in the fiscal sponsor org as well for efficiency reasons.
Thanks for writing this. On the one hand, I think these calls for democracy are caused by a lack of trust in EA orgs to spend the money as they see fit. On the other hand, that money comes from donors. If you don’t agree with a certain org or some actions of an org in the past, just don’t donate to them. (This sounds so obvious to me that I’m probably missing something.) Whether somebody else (who might happen to have a lot of money) agrees with you is their decision, as is where they allocate their money to.
In addition, EA is about “doing the most good”, not “doing what the majority believes to be the most good”, probably because the majority isn’t always right. I think it’s good that EA Funds are distributed in a technocratic way, rather than a democratic way, although I agree that more transparency would help people at least understand the decision processes behind granting decisions and allow for them to be criticized and improved.
“If you don’t agree with a certain org or some actions of an org in the past, just don’t donate to them. (This sounds so obvious to me that I’m probably missing something.) Whether somebody else (who might happen to have a lot of money) agrees with you is their decision, as is where they allocate their money to.“
I think what you’re missing is that a significant aspect of EA has always (rightly) been trying to influence other people’s decisions on how they spend their money, and trying to make sure that their money is spent in a way that is more effective at improving the world.
When EA looks at the vast majority of Westeners only prioritising causes within their own countries, EA generally doesn’t say “that is your money so it’s your decision and we will not try to influence your decision, and we will just give our own money to a different cause”, it says “that is your money and it’s your decision, but we’re going to try to convince you to make a different decision based on our view of what is more effective at improving the world”.
I believe the “democratise EA funding decisions” critics are doing the same thing.
There’s a big difference between your two examples. EA has historically tried to influence people to use their money differently through persuasion: actually making an argument that they should use their money in a particular way and persuading them of it.
“Democratising funding decisions” instead gives direct power over decisions, regardless of argumentation. You don’t have to persuade people if you have a voting bloc that agrees with you.
And the old route is still there! If you think people should donate differently, then make this case. This might be a lot of work, but so be it. I think a good example of this is Michael Plant and HLI: they’ve put in serious work in making their case and they get taken seriously.
I don’t see why people are entitled to more power than that.
I generally agree with this, though I don’t have a strong sense of how good EA Funds grants are. It just seems like a more reasonable grounds for debate than making demands of EA donors in general.
If the money for EA Funds comes from donors who have the impression the fund is allocated in a technocratic way do you still think it is a reasonable compromise for EA Funds to become more democratic? It seems low intergrity for an entity to raise funding after communicating a fairly specific model for how the funding will be used and then change it’s mind and spend it on a different program (unless we have made it pretty clear upfront that we might do other programs).
If the suggestion is to start a new fund that does not use existing donations that seems more reasonable to me, but then I don’t think that EA Funds has a substantial advantage in doing this over other organisations with similarly competent staff.
Agree on maintaining existing EA Funds largely as is, but I am curious what other non-EVF organizations might be in a good position to pull this off. I’m not a non-profit (or other) tax expert, but it seems that the number of non-EVF good homes for a new fund could be somewhat limited. In particular, my guess is that EVF/CEA USA’s dual corporate existence in the US and UK is a major practical advantage. E.g., if the new funds only had a US corporate existence, they’d not only start off at a major disadvantage for UK donors, but would also face extra challenges granting to non-profits from the UK—presumably they would need to obtain an equivalency determination costing several thousand dollars, or assume expenditure responsibility, for each non-US non-profit grantee. And then you’d probably want some practical grantmaking-operations experience in the fiscal sponsor org as well for efficiency reasons.
See here. I’m not sure how EA Funds is pitched to donors. A new fund probably would be better regardless.
(Adding for context: I had heard EA Funds was being reorganized at one point, which suggested to me it might be looking for a new funding model)