We believe CGD does great work, and hope to build on some of their success in the space! We think there is a lot of potential for impact through aid policy and a diversity of approaches is valuable in and of itself.
That being said, we think there are a few areas that differentiate us from CGD:
Direct advocacy—Although CGD is an exemplary “think and do” tank, they are positioned closer to the research side of things. We believe there is room to operate through a more advocacy focused lens. This very well could involve doing some leg-work advocating for CGD’s policy recommendations.
Geographic scope—We are operating without a geographic specialization, intending to seize upon policy windows and opportunities wherever they may evolve. There are certainly downsides to this approach (reduced ability to build long term relationships, reduced specialization and nuance in recommendations about a specific country’s political situation), but we believe the upsides (ability to operate in places/times where tractability is highest) are sizable.
Organizational size—As a very small and nascent organization, we can take on some higher variance initiatives without risking a well-established reputation. We are also able to operate very lean, which stretches your dollar a bit further.
Zoe, this summary looks pretty good to us! The only change I would suggest is changing “grassroots EA campaign in Switzerland redirected funding” to “grassroots EA campaign in Switzerland increased funding”, as the result of the campaign was an increase to the overall development cooperation budget in Zurich.
Thanks!