In 2015, it seems to be ~2% (£200m/£12bn). This was general support for cash transfer schemes which included other features though, like nutritional support. Seems very high though still! Can’t see anything more recent—my naive guess would be its less than this now.
Link on UK spend 2011-15 on cash transfers.
Thanks v much for posting this transcript! I agree this is on net good and think I took a more positive impression from Rory Stewart’s points :)
Someone who has worked in international development for 30 years and headed DfID(!) is only just now finding out about cash transfers, and thinks it’s the most effective intervention you can do. (Although perhaps with his caveat about “for a single poor family” makes it true?
I didn’t get the impression from this transcript that Rory Stewart has just heard of cash transfers—is there any part which implied that? It felt to me more like bringing-the-listener-with-him kind of speak to convey a weird but exciting idea.
That the head of DfID thinks that it would have been better off spending the money on cash transfers. I had gotten the impression (mostly from posts on the EA Forum) that DfID was fairly well regarded in the space of effective giving so would have at least been aware of cash transfers.
I would argue his point that ‘giving people cash is probably the most effective single intervention that you can do for a very poor family’ is pretty accurate and I think it implies he understands it maybe isn’t as effective as larger scale interventions (larger than ‘a single intervention for one family’). But agree with you that the joke at the end “We should have kept DfID, but we should have spent the money on cash transfers” is wrong!
Anecdotally, from my experience in DfID in 2019-20, people working on cross-cutting development prioritisation often mentioned cash transfers in a way implying familiarity. The main question wasn’t whether this weird idea works, but how it compares to bigger interventions like conflict-prevention or aid-for-trade.
So I come out even more cheerful about this interview!
I loved this article! and have used it to explain my interests to family who aren’t familiar/emotionally connected with longtermism. I also frequently used OWiD pieces (e.g. health + climate) when working in the FCDO—it became IMO the most credible and impartial source for providing new ideas & information to us, and I think OWiD can achieve this for longtermism-related data.
I wondered if it is possible to add a visualisation of a short animation: first, of the hourglass representing past and present (10 millions of) people, then zooming out to have a third section of the hourglass at the top, representing the future-people dripping in to the present-people section. For me, this would be a more emotive visualisation of (a) the scale and (b) how connected we are to future people, than the existing two visualisations.
Thank you all for comments! Filming has been delayed until April/May 2022, so have a good five months to consider and also practice my quizzing.
My feeling at the moment is to keep it simple and positive (e.g. ‘I have recently become really interested in effective altruism—which is about trying to have as positive an impact as possible with your time and money—I joined a community of others thinking and working on the same thing ~4 years ago and love it’) - allowing people to look up effective altruism if they are interested but not going in to much detail about methodology.
I think the positives of this: some people looking up / getting involved with EA, outweigh the negatives: reinforcing negative impressions or spreading a low-fidelity message which prevents proper understanding later on. But would be really interested if anyone disagrees with this/has examples of this kind of messaging not working well(or also examples of it yes working well).
I wondered this as well. I think the context here makes me think otherwise:
It’s a positive-spirited show where contestants are treated well, so wouldn’t be like a debate or a news article.
It’s this or not this (rather than choosing to allocate resource in high-fidelity rather than mass media).
Do you think something broad, like Aaron’s suggested ‘I like thinking about effective altruism, which is the art of doing as much good as you can with your money and your time’ has possible negatives, like being misinterpreted badly or putting people off EA?
Helpful points, thanks! I think that will be the challenge: sounding like a nice relatable person and not an ad, while also fitting in a plug. I think the formula is to have one topic only in your intro- so would prefer not to but probably will have to sacrifice the hobbies to talk EA… and rely on innate charm and humility to get myself across!
This seems very sane advice—thank you!
Out of interest, did you ever hear from anyone who looked in to GiveWell after your plug?
Thanks for the questions- and sorry for the delay answering. I’ll go through 1 and 2 in turn but think 3 is too political for me to answer—sorry!
1)I was instrumental in setting up and playing secretariat to a group of development ministers that convened during the beginning of the covid pandemic. This allowed like-minded ministers to share best practice and coordinate in what was a rapidly changing crisis for many developing countries. Some new principles spun from this group for how to support certain countries and I think it probably made a very slight improvement to how government’s development agencies prioritized. The aim was focused on global health and development, but it also demonstrated agility in crisis, and showed UK and Canada’s (the co-chairs) ability to convene in these situations. I mainly managed the logistics and advised the policy teams preparing for these meetings—I’d guess my involvement improved the outcomes of the group by a few percent. However, if I hadn’t being doing it, someone else would have, probably to a fairly similar standard (though I like to think not quite as well!).
For another example: My colleague set up an annual survey of the FCDO (foreign, commonwealth and development office) to forecast what future years will hold for foreign policy. In 2019, the top answer of what could be an unexpected ‘black swan’ event in the coming year was a global pandemic. I’m not sure how much impact this had on our policy- probably a little. He was in charge of the survey and it seems very plausible that had he (or possibly one of his colleagues or seniors) not been there to come up with this forecast-y question, it would not have been included. My point being that the counterfactual here, unlike my first example, is most of the impact would not have been there without him.
I’m relatively new/junior in the FCDO ranks—those working higher up would have examples of higher impact. I believe the counterfactual impact increases somewhat exponentially—as you get higher up and more experienced, you’re doing things that the civil service wouldn’t be able to find others to do.
2) Staff in overseas embassies influence the policy of UK government a lot. The FCDO is ~2/3 overseas, and a typical ratio would be e.g. 1-3 France policy officers based in the UK to 30-50 France policy officers in Paris. If a Minister is making a decision about country X, then the UK ambassador to X will be one of the key advisors- possibly the most influential civil servant in that situation. However, if you standardize for seniority, you usually have more influence on UK government policy when based in London- those 1-3 France policy officers are fairly entry-level positions and will be key to coordinating policy positions on France. Someone equivalent in the embassy will be more focused on communicating UK policy (and, more importantly, influencing French policy). If you’re looking at eg great power conflict then you might want to be working in the embassies in US or China, to influence their policy as much as possible, or working on the relevant policy area in the UK base.
That’s helpful context, thanks! There are definitely chances to be imaginative and creative in my role—but I think significantly less than in smaller, more agile organisations. New ideas are very much encouraged, but it can take more work to see them in to practice, as more steps of approval are needed, and they need to fit in to a large, well-established institution.
Great question- I think this is particularly important because a lot of the value from government jobs comes later in your career, so if you are unsure it is a good fit, you particularly want to be gaining transferrable skills. I haven’t worked in other EA career paths, which limits my insight a bit, but here’s my best bet:
Yes, I think it has given me a good (not excellent) skillset.
Working on policy questions gives good research skills- I’ve become skilled at digesting complex information from a range of sources, figuring which elements are relevant to the question I’m answering, and condensing them in to a clearly communicated recommendation. Frustratingly though, my work is usually too confidential to showcase this.
You get good experience of communicating why something matters. There are a million important issues a department deals with- being able to explain to others the importance of your area, and why it should be funded/worked on/discussed in meetings is a useful skill in the civil service and for e.g. spreading EA ideas or attracting fundraising.
I’ve practiced a lot of operations skills- setting up meetings or workshops, booking venues, managing competing deadlines and staying organised. I’ve gained management skills. I’ve gained recruiting experience (which is a bit civil-service-y but probably fairly transferrable). All these skills would be widely applicable, particularly if working at a non-profit.
I’ve been involved for a while in the UK government’s forecasting efforts- great for picking up forecasting skills!
However, you also spend a fair amount of time/energy learning how to work with the system- like how different government departments work together (including international governments), how information is shared in the civil service, how ministers like to have information prepared. I think these skills are less transferrable, so take up time you could be learning something else. I guess there are parallels here with most careers that aren’t directly relevant to other EA career paths. But I’d guess doing research on something non-EA related would be more transferrable to in-depth EA research than policy on something EA related.
I’d be interested if others have thoughts to add- this is a plug for fellow civil servants to chip in!
Yeah I definitely have colleagues on both ends- some get frustrated when there aren’t enough opportunities for spontaneity or risks, others like working in a well-established institution with set norms. I would add that people are very much encouraged to bring their own style and ideas to work and it’s safe to challenge things- but it inevitably is harder to shift culture given the size of the organisation.
I personally don’t mind the peaks and troughs/inconsistency of work- keeps things exciting!
Does that sound consistent to you? I’m conscious terms like hierarchy or openness have different meanings to different people.
Thanks! Yes this was just my impression from reading, not listening. I’ll hopefully get round to listening later and see if that updates my impression.