Odd question - is there any research on how well cash transfers perform in different social/political contexts? Like, a person in a developing country making cents a day will be able to do a lot with $300, a homeless person in San Francisco can get much less utility.
I just want to say thanks for writing this -- this was a really solid and accessible explanation of effective giving (even if you might not use those words).
Not based on that much, but I have always thought that cash payments to high-risk pregnant families is a very good intervention, in that it is targeted to a high-need group and is relatively affordable for local governments (if ARPA dollars are still around, for example) because it's a limited segment of the population, and a widespread UBI is just not feasible in most settings.
Thanks to everyone who helped us blow past not just our initial goal of $75,000, but our stretch goal of $110,000 in less than one day! The campaign will stay open for a week, and we'd love to raise as much as possible. But GiveDirectly still has significant matching funds on the table for their main Giving Tuesday campaign, so we've updated our page with an option to give there instead before midnight tonight: https://www.givedirectly.org/slowboring/
I think it's a big mistake to say "studies have failed to find benefits to education, employment, and health." A meta-analysis isn't just a thumbs up / thumbs down based on counting up positive vs. negative results. From a Bayesian perspective, if you expect most things to be ineffective but 50% of your evidence shows that cash transfers are effective, that should increase your confidence in cash transfers. More importantly, every study is a little bit different and -- assuming the result isn't a fluke -- a careful review of the evidence should enable you to keep doing the things that worked and stop doing the ones that didn't. I haven't reviewed the meta-analysis myself but if the quality of the positive studies was reasonably good, I'd be willing to bet that direct cash transfers do help with health and education _under some circumstances_ and we can probably find out what those circumstances are.
I was a little disheartened to see the meta analysis results. Seems cash transfer might not do much other than alleviate “monetary poverty” - but what does that even mean long term if there are no investments or employment benefits? Does that simply reflect people getting the cash (a tautology) or should we take it to mean something more? Donating to invest in things (eg infrastructure) might be more challenging to organize and monitor, and certainly means a greater overhead but has the potential to do more for more people for longer. I thus think the whole efficiency goal is something of a red herring.
Reform initiatives almost always discover why things were organized the way they were.
The post claims we did charity the way we did because, before mobil payments, we had no way to do direct cash transfers, and otherwise does not address the issue.
That's a nice point for the story being told, but it's just not so - at home or abroad.
Nor sure if it's the case here, but it reminds me of a common "techno straw man". The one I particularly loathe is "since we have the internet now we don't need rote learning. Kids need tool not knowledge". Such fundamental misunderstanding of how education works and why kids were required to memorize in the past...
I asked very genuinely and still ask - whaat does that even mean? Defintionately in a palce liek the village described anyone with 1000$ isn't poor by the country's standards. Hence by one defintion you alleviated "monetary poverty". What happens next? Will thye also not be poor a year later? Will their life expetancy improve? Happinees? kids future? All unclear. The meta-analysis however adds doubts wrt all the tangible benefits examined i.e. health, employment, education, investment. So what's left?
It's chapter 6 in the report. Expenditures, including food, seem to be what's measured here. I don't know if it specifically addresses the tangible benefits. My guess: Alleviation of monetary poverty is a prerequisite of improving other outcomes but not a guarantee of them. Hence the mixed results (but not outright negative ones).
"The specific indicators for which estimates are reported are: total expenditure, household food expenditure and the Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty indicators, which include the poverty headcount, poverty gap and squared poverty gap."
"Total expenditure – also called consumption – measures all expenditure by a household within a specified unit of time, including expenditure on food, household essentials, clothes, services and investment."
Also, wow; given a chance to do something good for the less fortunate, some choose to quibble about state capacity, government subsidies, foreign policy. As I from time to time say, I often enjoy many of the people here, but this is NOT the best comment section on the internet.
"this is NOT the best comment section on the internet"
Oh yeah? Well *I* say that Slow Boring doesn't just have the best comment *section* on the internet, it has the best *commenters* on the internet, and the commenters on *this* post are the best *individual* commenters of all Slow Boring commenters! [/Mr. Cheap Applause]
"this is NOT the best comment section on the internet."
If there was a substack devoted solely to finding comment sections that are NOT the best comment section on the internet I would sign up in heartbeat. I'm subscribed to a dozen other substacks and I often comment with similar reminders on all of them (except 1, and that isn't this one). So we're both doing good work.
But congrats on your donation. And even more so on your frequent reminders that this is NOT the best comment section on the internet. I think that's something we all need to always remember.
Heck, if signaling to other people that you donate gets _you_ to donate.
In the (fiction) book "And the Mountains Echoed" two cousins return from the U.S. to Afghanistan. One loudly and publicly donates money to beggars etc, one thinks that's shameful and privately promises to help a needy girl out with an operation after he returns to the U.S.
Once there, he does go to a bit of effort to help her but when he encounters obstacles he gives up. Later the virtue signaling cousin actually _does_ help her.
Virtue signaling _for the purpose_ of virtue signaling isn't great, but if it helps you encourage other people to donate, or feels like a reward for your own donation and therefore gets you to donate, that can be useful.
Some of you may work at companies that match donations to charities. Give Directly is 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization, so it should be eligible for most employers' matching programs. The full legal name, which you may need, is GiveDirectly, Inc.
A lot of employees don't take advantage of these matching programs, and that's bad. Don't leave money on the table!
"Give Directly is now running poverty alleviation programs in Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, and Uganda, plus other cash transfer programs in DR Congo, Nigeria, Morocco, Mozambique, and Togo." So it seems like they have figured out how to scale it outside of Rwanda?
Also - does Give Directly ignore government transfers in calculating the equivalent of $2.15/day? Honestly don't know - they seem to care enough about efficacy that they'd include this, but I can also see a world in which it's complicated enough to calculate (due to things like actual usage, demographics, etc) that they just ignore it.
I'm sure there are people out there who have the capability and time to scrutinize the relative benefit of superficially equally beneficial charities but I for one am happy to delegate all that hard work and hard thinking to an outside organization and simply accept their recommendations without worrying about it too much.
If it turns out that my trust was unearned, then I'll regret it and simply move on.
I normally do GiveWell instead of GiveDirectly, but I suppose I can split it between them this year instead.
"Since 2015, GiveWell has underscored this move towards greater efficiency and impact by only recommending interventions that they estimate are at least as good as cash transfers. This week, GiveWell announced that they’re updating their “top charities” cutoff: going forward, an organization must have unfunded programs they’ve “estimated at 10 times as cost-effective as unconditional cash transfers” to be included as a top charity. As a result, they’ve now reduced their list of top charities to 4, of which GiveDirectly is not included. To be clear:"
10x is a heckuva(theoretical) multiplier, so I don't feel comfortable giving it _all_ to GiveDirectly, even though I think cash transfers are good too.
Odd question - is there any research on how well cash transfers perform in different social/political contexts? Like, a person in a developing country making cents a day will be able to do a lot with $300, a homeless person in San Francisco can get much less utility.
I just want to say thanks for writing this -- this was a really solid and accessible explanation of effective giving (even if you might not use those words).
Love this, thank you for sharing these great orgs and encouraging donations.
Not based on that much, but I have always thought that cash payments to high-risk pregnant families is a very good intervention, in that it is targeted to a high-need group and is relatively affordable for local governments (if ARPA dollars are still around, for example) because it's a limited segment of the population, and a widespread UBI is just not feasible in most settings.
Thanks to everyone who helped us blow past not just our initial goal of $75,000, but our stretch goal of $110,000 in less than one day! The campaign will stay open for a week, and we'd love to raise as much as possible. But GiveDirectly still has significant matching funds on the table for their main Giving Tuesday campaign, so we've updated our page with an option to give there instead before midnight tonight: https://www.givedirectly.org/slowboring/
Not the kind of woke moralizing I like to see on MY slow boring!
Just kidding, I threw in a couple bucks.
I think it's a big mistake to say "studies have failed to find benefits to education, employment, and health." A meta-analysis isn't just a thumbs up / thumbs down based on counting up positive vs. negative results. From a Bayesian perspective, if you expect most things to be ineffective but 50% of your evidence shows that cash transfers are effective, that should increase your confidence in cash transfers. More importantly, every study is a little bit different and -- assuming the result isn't a fluke -- a careful review of the evidence should enable you to keep doing the things that worked and stop doing the ones that didn't. I haven't reviewed the meta-analysis myself but if the quality of the positive studies was reasonably good, I'd be willing to bet that direct cash transfers do help with health and education _under some circumstances_ and we can probably find out what those circumstances are.
I was a little disheartened to see the meta analysis results. Seems cash transfer might not do much other than alleviate “monetary poverty” - but what does that even mean long term if there are no investments or employment benefits? Does that simply reflect people getting the cash (a tautology) or should we take it to mean something more? Donating to invest in things (eg infrastructure) might be more challenging to organize and monitor, and certainly means a greater overhead but has the potential to do more for more people for longer. I thus think the whole efficiency goal is something of a red herring.
Reform initiatives almost always discover why things were organized the way they were.
The post claims we did charity the way we did because, before mobil payments, we had no way to do direct cash transfers, and otherwise does not address the issue.
That's a nice point for the story being told, but it's just not so - at home or abroad.
Nor sure if it's the case here, but it reminds me of a common "techno straw man". The one I particularly loathe is "since we have the internet now we don't need rote learning. Kids need tool not knowledge". Such fundamental misunderstanding of how education works and why kids were required to memorize in the past...
I think alleviating “monetary poverty” is a pretty worthwhile goal, and the most logical purpose for cash donations.
I asked very genuinely and still ask - whaat does that even mean? Defintionately in a palce liek the village described anyone with 1000$ isn't poor by the country's standards. Hence by one defintion you alleviated "monetary poverty". What happens next? Will thye also not be poor a year later? Will their life expetancy improve? Happinees? kids future? All unclear. The meta-analysis however adds doubts wrt all the tangible benefits examined i.e. health, employment, education, investment. So what's left?
It's chapter 6 in the report. Expenditures, including food, seem to be what's measured here. I don't know if it specifically addresses the tangible benefits. My guess: Alleviation of monetary poverty is a prerequisite of improving other outcomes but not a guarantee of them. Hence the mixed results (but not outright negative ones).
"The specific indicators for which estimates are reported are: total expenditure, household food expenditure and the Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty indicators, which include the poverty headcount, poverty gap and squared poverty gap."
"Total expenditure – also called consumption – measures all expenditure by a household within a specified unit of time, including expenditure on food, household essentials, clothes, services and investment."
Done.
Just made a donation.
Also, wow; given a chance to do something good for the less fortunate, some choose to quibble about state capacity, government subsidies, foreign policy. As I from time to time say, I often enjoy many of the people here, but this is NOT the best comment section on the internet.
It seems like all of those things are pertinent to discuss if you care about actually helping people vs just feeling good about yourself.
"this is NOT the best comment section on the internet"
Oh yeah? Well *I* say that Slow Boring doesn't just have the best comment *section* on the internet, it has the best *commenters* on the internet, and the commenters on *this* post are the best *individual* commenters of all Slow Boring commenters! [/Mr. Cheap Applause]
(Deep cut for Jay Leno-era "Tonight Show" fans)
"this is NOT the best comment section on the internet."
If there was a substack devoted solely to finding comment sections that are NOT the best comment section on the internet I would sign up in heartbeat. I'm subscribed to a dozen other substacks and I often comment with similar reminders on all of them (except 1, and that isn't this one). So we're both doing good work.
But congrats on your donation. And even more so on your frequent reminders that this is NOT the best comment section on the internet. I think that's something we all need to always remember.
I thought maybe I was?
We’re here to have discussions and arguments not to virtue signal our generosity.
In the spirit of discussion I’ll say that virtue signaling is good! Provided it’s constructive.
How can it be constructive in this comments section?
If it gets someone else to donate?
Heck, if signaling to other people that you donate gets _you_ to donate.
In the (fiction) book "And the Mountains Echoed" two cousins return from the U.S. to Afghanistan. One loudly and publicly donates money to beggars etc, one thinks that's shameful and privately promises to help a needy girl out with an operation after he returns to the U.S.
Once there, he does go to a bit of effort to help her but when he encounters obstacles he gives up. Later the virtue signaling cousin actually _does_ help her.
Virtue signaling _for the purpose_ of virtue signaling isn't great, but if it helps you encourage other people to donate, or feels like a reward for your own donation and therefore gets you to donate, that can be useful.
fair enough. II still think it's a bit strange to do so in an anonymous discussiion section but i take your point.
It’s a comment section, it’s where discussion happens! It’s not like commenting has to be in lieu of donating.
It is strongly encouraged donate, and then comment. In that order!
Some of you may work at companies that match donations to charities. Give Directly is 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization, so it should be eligible for most employers' matching programs. The full legal name, which you may need, is GiveDirectly, Inc.
A lot of employees don't take advantage of these matching programs, and that's bad. Don't leave money on the table!
"Give Directly is now running poverty alleviation programs in Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, and Uganda, plus other cash transfer programs in DR Congo, Nigeria, Morocco, Mozambique, and Togo." So it seems like they have figured out how to scale it outside of Rwanda?
Also - does Give Directly ignore government transfers in calculating the equivalent of $2.15/day? Honestly don't know - they seem to care enough about efficacy that they'd include this, but I can also see a world in which it's complicated enough to calculate (due to things like actual usage, demographics, etc) that they just ignore it.
I'm sure there are people out there who have the capability and time to scrutinize the relative benefit of superficially equally beneficial charities but I for one am happy to delegate all that hard work and hard thinking to an outside organization and simply accept their recommendations without worrying about it too much.
If it turns out that my trust was unearned, then I'll regret it and simply move on.
I normally do GiveWell instead of GiveDirectly, but I suppose I can split it between them this year instead.
"Since 2015, GiveWell has underscored this move towards greater efficiency and impact by only recommending interventions that they estimate are at least as good as cash transfers. This week, GiveWell announced that they’re updating their “top charities” cutoff: going forward, an organization must have unfunded programs they’ve “estimated at 10 times as cost-effective as unconditional cash transfers” to be included as a top charity. As a result, they’ve now reduced their list of top charities to 4, of which GiveDirectly is not included. To be clear:"
10x is a heckuva(theoretical) multiplier, so I don't feel comfortable giving it _all_ to GiveDirectly, even though I think cash transfers are good too.
reaching levels of based never before seen
This kind of optimistic content is why I'm a subscriber. Love it when a post ends with a call to action.
“showing up for an issue” you care about isn’t a good idea if your actions backfire
That is the story of my professional career https://www.losingmyreligions.net/