I have been reading on EA and GWWC etc for some months now.
I find it strange that again and again, many of the discussions assume that the givers are in rich countries and that “giving local” is essentially synonymous with “giving within the rich country that the donor resides in”.
If GWWC/ EA is aimed only at donors residing/ earning in rich countries/ the developed world, I think the assumption should be recognized and clearly stated.
If this is not an assumption, the write-ups and discussions need to recognize the possibility that donors donating locally may be the same as donors donating to (within) developing countries. After all, there are persons living in developing countries who are earning well and/ or are committed to altruism...and what’s more, they may even be in a position to evaluate “local” (within their developing country) causes better.
I have been reading on EA and GWWC etc for some months now.
I find it strange that again and again, many of the discussions assume that the givers are in rich countries and that “giving local” is essentially synonymous with “giving within the rich country that the donor resides in”.
If GWWC/ EA is aimed only at donors residing/ earning in rich countries/ the developed world, I think the assumption should be recognized and clearly stated.
If this is not an assumption, the write-ups and discussions need to recognize the possibility that donors donating locally may be the same as donors donating to (within) developing countries. After all, there are persons living in developing countries who are earning well and/ or are committed to altruism...and what’s more, they may even be in a position to evaluate “local” (within their developing country) causes better.