I’m currently a co-director at EA Netherlands (with Marieke de Visscher). We’re working to build and strengthen the EA community here.
Before this, I worked as a consultant on urban socioeconomic development projects and programmes funded by the EU. Before that, I studied liberal arts (in the UK) and then philosophy (in the Netherlands).
Hit me up if you wanna find out about the Dutch EA community! :)
If you’re looking for the meta organisations Ben is talking about, you can see all of the city and national groups funded by the Centre for Effective Altruism’s Community Building Grants programme under the ‘Groups’ tab on this page. This is probably one of the bigger groupings of meta organisations (in terms of longterm stable funding). You also check Marieke’s mindmap for a bunch of other meta organisations.
That’s an interesting point, and it does seem impactful when organisations succeed in introducing new talent to the EA/impact space, especially when it leads to long-term contributions. Isn’t this a key focus for most community building organisations, though? Or is there a nuance in the approach you’re describing that perhaps I’m missing?
Thanks!
Great stuff! Many thanks to the team and whoever commissioned this! Looking forward to future research in this direction.
So you think so far it’s mostly been OK? If that’s the case, and if it’s plausible that high-quality discussions about politics would be valuable, shouldn’t we lean towards loosening the policy and seeing what happens?
Best case, good discussions happen and the forum does a better job of meeting its objective. Worst case, bad discussion happens, but then it should be pretty simple to tighten the policy up and no lasting harm would be done.
Which posts? (you don’t need to list them, just briefly describe them so I can find them myself)
FWIW my impression is that EAG events are not generally considered to be a good fit for election discussion.
Could you provide examples of political discussions on the EA Forum that appear to have negatively impacted the forum’s environment or impaired its ability to achieve its objectives? While I find this plausible, I’d also expect the EA Forum to be one of the most conducive spaces online for constructive political discourse.
My understanding is that the forum’s primary goal is to support discussions relevant to effective altruism and facilitate the coordination of related projects. Given that politics is highly relevant to these aims, I believe there should be a strong(er) justification for any restrictions on political topics.
What do you see as the potential for non-EA funding opportunities for community building organisations like EA Netherlands? Currently, 95% of our funding comes from CEA, OP, and EA IF.
My sense is that non-EA funding might be viable for specific initiatives, like talent development programmes, but securing such funding for core EA community building activities — like community events, office spaces, organiser support, and outreach — seems much more challenging.
Thanks! And yeah, I didn’t find it valuable. It’s been a while since I read it but I wrote some thoughts here recently.
Delft have done in-depth fellowships if I’m not mistaken. Have you chatted with Brooke? Or people from the previous boards, e.g., Annemieke, Nils, Joep, or Jan?
Oh and also check out Impact Makers. A few ex-uni organisers from NL (Lotte et al.) set it up to solve exactly this problem.
Ping me if you’ve got any questions about the above!
This doesn’t really answer your question but there is a Dutch org with a very similar model to GD: 100weeks.
There’s a good chance you’re already in touch with Paul Smeets via Bram at Doneer Effectief but, if not, check out his work on the effectiveness of different messaging strategies. His takeaway: use the ”100x more impactful” argument, but do not use the ”$5,000 per life saved”. He gave a talk at EAGxUtrecht on the subject.
But absolute terms isn’t very useful if we’re trying to spot success stories, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?
But yeah, something seems off about Ireland. The rest of the list feels quite good though. David Moss said they have some per capita estimates in the pipeline, so I’m excited to see what they produce!
I wanted to figure out where EA community building has been successful. Therefore, I asked Claude to use EAG London 2024 data to assess the relative strength of EA communities across different countries. This quick take is the result.
The report presents an analysis of factors influencing the strength of effective altruism communities across different countries. Using attendance data from EA Global London 2024 as a proxy for community engagement, we employed multiple regression analysis to identify key predictors of EA participation. The model incorporates geographic, economic, linguistic, and social factors, explaining 52.3% of the variance in per capita attendance.
Per capita attendance at EAG London 2024 for 62 countries
Geographic proximity (distance from London, UK)
Economic development (GDP per capita)
English language proficiency
Income inequality (Gini coefficient)
Youth population percentage
Social media penetration
Religiosity
Trust in institutions
Philanthropic culture
Multiple regression analysis with per capita EAG London 2024 attendance as the dependent variable
Model Performance:
R-squared value: 0.523
The model explains 52.3% of the variance in per capita attendance
Significant Predictors:
GDP per capita (positive relationship)
Distance from London (negative relationship)
Philanthropic culture (positive relationship)
Social media penetration (positive relationship)
English proficiency (positive relationship)
Non-significant Factors:
Gini coefficient
Youth population percentage
Religiosity
Trust in institutions
Top 10 Countries with Strongest EA Communities (based on positive residuals):
Switzerland
Norway
Netherlands
Estonia
Sweden
Singapore
Finland
Czech Republic
Australia
Ireland
Economic Factors: GDP per capita emerges as the strongest predictor of EA engagement, suggesting that economic development plays a crucial role in fostering EA communities.
Geographic Considerations: Distance from London negatively correlates with engagement, which is expected given that the event was held in London. This finding should be interpreted cautiously: a) It may reflect the ease of attending for nearby countries rather than overall EA engagement. b) The strong performance of some distant countries (e.g., Australia, Singapore) suggests that highly engaged EA communities can overcome geographic barriers.
Cultural Factors: A country’s philanthropic culture strongly predicts EA engagement, highlighting the importance of pre-existing charitable inclinations.
Technological Infrastructure: Social media penetration positively correlates with EA engagement, underscoring the role of online connectivity in community building.
Language: English proficiency remains a significant factor, though its impact is less pronounced than economic and cultural variables.
Proxy Measure: EAG attendance may not fully capture all forms of EA engagement.
Single Time Point: The analysis is based on one conference in one year, potentially missing temporal variations.
Unmeasured Variables: Other factors not included in the model may influence EA community strength.
Linear Model Assumptions: The analysis assumes linear relationships, potentially missing complex interactions or non-linear effects.
Host Country Bias: The UK’s attendance is likely inflated due to hosting the event, potentially skewing overall results.
They were second largest in absolute terms, 214 attendees. But that means only 0.6 per million, putting them in 24th place in the per capita ranking.
In absolute terms, the top 4 ranking was: UK (675), US (214), DE (95), NL (61). Why am I giving a top 4 ranking instead of a top 3 ranking? No reason…
A great post-mortem, and thanks for your kind words about the Dutch EA community—it was really inspirational to see you in action!
Your line, “Spending aid money to prevent migration is a vote winner, vaccinating needy kids in Africa is not” made me think of the Make Poverty History campaign, timed to coincide with the UK’s hosting of the G8 in 2005.
According to Wikipedia, these were the main health and development agreements from that summit:
US$50 billion pledged (some of it previously announced) in aid to developing countries by 2010, of which US$25 billion for Africa, on top of the ministerial-level agreement to forgive debt to Highly Indebted Poor Countries
Universal access to anti-HIV drugs in Africa by 2010
G8 members from the European Union committed to a collective foreign aid target of 0.56% of GDP by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015
Stated commitment to reduce subsidies and tariffs that inhibit trade
Also, from memory, I think most UK political parties committed to the target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid and, although this was rolled back for a bit under Johnson, the next Labour government have pledged to reinstate it.
I think there’s an argument to be made that these agreements were heavily influenced by the campaign.
Blair, chair of the summit, notes the following in his biography:
“On Africa, I knew that without real figures it was going to be another ‘poor Africa, we care so much about you’ load of old rubbish in a communiqué that wasn’t going to fool anyone. Bob, Bono and the NGO alliance had mounted an effective campaign, essentially going to each main nation in turn and trying to frighten the pants off the leadership by demonstrating the breadth of public support for action on Africa. It was done cleverly, with them always giving enough praise to the leaders to encourage them. With Bob and Bono at the helm, there would be a sensible debate. If we delivered, they’d say we’d delivered. If not, they would condemn us. Fair enough.”
Of course, this was a huge campaign: a global audience of approximately 3 billion for Live 8, millions of people wearing the campaign’s white band, a quarter of a million people marching on Edinburgh, and a brand recognition that leapt from zero to 90% in just six months. It would be a huge undertaking.[1] And one could argue that, 20 years on, the effects have died out.
But then again, maybe not. I was 13 years old when I attended the march in Edinburgh, but it’s one of my more vivid memories from that time. This early exposure likely contributed to my ongoing support for GHD through my donations and my work today, and I suspect it’s the same for many other people.
I asked Claude to produce a BOTEC for the cost and it arrived at $120 million
I think it’s unfortunate that critiques of EA are sometimes dismissed because they seem superficial or misinformed. While this might be true in many cases, it’s still important for us to observe—and perhaps even engage with—these criticisms.
Why?
It’s beneficial for people to have an accurate understanding of what we’re doing.
We are partly responsible for ensuring this is the case.
When critiques are inaccurate, they reveal how others perceive us, giving us an opportunity to improve our communication.
Therefore, reading and considering these critiques can help us refine our approach and better convey our work.