Bara on EA Hub
Research of the most cost-effective causes, interpreted as means to create additional impact can inform long-term priorities – in regions of any levels of development. E. g. in Lokoja in Northern Nigeria, that means may be very different from that in Bangkok or Washington, D. C. Maybe in Lokoja that is informing mothers on the available prenatal and early childhood healthcare incentives (that in the long term gives rise to institutions perpetuating increased wellbeing), in Bangkok supporting regional norms on migrant work, and in Washington, D. C. lobbying for trade policy favorable to LMICs.
Different locally-identified measures can be globally compared in their cost-effectiveness, complementarities potentially concluded, and individual EAs may decide, based on their expertise and the extent of the fulfillment of care of more inner moral circles, whether they wish to focus on a local or more distant measure, or even relocate.
For this global cost-effectiveness comparison and insights into complementarities, knowledge of the entire field of possible impact, as well as the global structure within which the intervention extends and cascades impact, is needed.
Research of the most cost-effective local causes, interpreted as means to help locals, may also inform long-term priorities – also in regions of any levels of development. First, comparison can show where a local should allocate their focus to help most effectively (e. g. a person in Washington, D. C. can conclude that supporting migrant laborers in Southeast Asia is more cost-effective than supporting local homeless persons). Second, complementarities can be also drawn—e. g. a DC-based person may be able to benefit from focusing on a positive measure (e. g. migrant labor laws in Southeast Asia) as opposed to negative-emotions based advertisement—and person in Bangkok can benefit from increased ability to institutionalize positive change. Third, the identification of cost-effective means to help locals enables persons to fulfill their need to care for more inner moral circles more cost-effectively, so that further funds are left for more outer moral circles.
~~ Learn global development negotiation techniques from a trained negotiator. ~~
MA in Economic Diplomacy, international development focus
Negotiating for cost-effective environmental actions with the UN
Why to negotiate for global development? (0-1 min)
Negotiation techniques (with examples) (1-5 min)
Ask for more, insist & refine
Repetition & Memos
Respond, then advocate
Focus on outcome, not power dynamics
Q&A (5-13 min)
Role-playing workshop on the Icebreaker platform (13-21 min)
1. Customer representative lobbies their CFO
2. College student lobbies a local celebrity
3. Mid-level manager lobbies their CEO
4. Yacht owner lobbies their friend
Reflection and further steps (21-30 min)
(Strong preference for the late session.)
Thank you for sharing this. As a non-binary person (this clause is excessive yet I wish to include), I can second Rowan_Stanley’s viewpoint that I too am familiar with most of the resources. Yet, there are some that I did not know before. Specifically, that is EA Work Club—and, the linked ImpactMatters website that rates charities based on the cost per unit output in several cause areas. Co-founded by Dean Karlan, the co-founder of IPA, this site has the potential to outcompete GiveWell. Apparently, they are looking for support/interns ;)
Thanks! This is interesting. I studied lobbying in my MA program in Washington, DC.
1. Could you please embolden (make bold) parts (in every paragraph or once in few paragraphs) that you find particularly important? This would help readers to orient themselves in the text better and skim more easily.
2. I submitted some comments—can you see them? Please let me know what you think about them.
(Sidenote) Is the “inflection point in history” (p. 3) both from convex to concave and vice versa since humanitarian and environmental progress can be measured in addition to GDP (p. 4)?
Informing the “Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises” (p. 65, para. 101) could be valuable. What are the requests? Develop skills to respond to crises that are impossible to prevent since funding by a multilateral system can be agreed upon?
What are the investments into “resilience and prevention” (p. 55, para. 77) constrained by? Is this decisionmaking of large players, such as G20 governments? Is there a way to inform such, for example by tech giants’ (Google, Facebook) advocacy? How would one best make sure that such resilience includes all across geographies and roles? Is this a matter of compiling data on past emergencies and viable responses and pre-negotiating cooperation?
From the report it seems to me that a complex global crisis is already occurring. Concretizing this to what I am familiar with, 1) multinational corporations fail to consider labor and environmental standards alongside value chains beyond potentially relatively unimpactful PR measures, 2) media fail to consider users in addition to advertisers, 3) conflict zone actors understand power by economic not development metrics scores, and 4) human health is lacking the One Health benefits.
Based on my thinking, a potentially valuable addition could be 1) a PR organization that would score companies based on their GVC policies/counterfactual impact, 2) regulation of the media market based on accuracy and users’ freedom (e. g. not addicted), 3) conflict zone structures’ assistance in greater and better power over all, 4) One Health normalization across signatories.
Together, this should reduce stakeholders’ willingness and ability to act without solidarity and effectively address issues that may jeopardize a working multilateral system.
With any requests, feel free to contact the new organization High Impact Professionals that gathers professionals willing to work on high-impact projects pro bono or submit your requests to the EA Impact CoLabs.