I’d rather donate to a charity that both has low overhead and reduces the malaria rate by 20%.
It’s not a good assumption to think that because a charity pays lavish salaries and stays in fancy hotels that it is somehow more effective.
I know our examples are made up but it’s pretty much impossible to tell if a single charity reduces the malaria rate. It’s pretty difficult in general to determine the impact of charities because unless you’re the Carter Foundation working on Guinea Worm there are lots of other factors and organizations contributing to a shared goal.
It’s not a good assumption to think that because a charity pays lavish salaries and stays in fancy hotels that it is somehow more effective.
You're 100% right!
We should assume no such thing. We should measure whether it's more effective and reward that. Measuring and rewarding anything else creates perverse incentives, such as:
I’d rather donate to a charity that both has low overhead and reduces the malaria rate by 20%.
Really? If two charities deliver the same results, where one pays its staff minimally and spends the vast majority of its money on its treatment program, and the other pays and treats its staff well (lavishly, even) and spends less money on a more cost-effective treatment program, yielding the same ultimate results, then I'd say the former enriches more lives and deserves my money more.
When people say "no good deed goes unpunished", that's a joke because that's obviously not how we want the world to work. The world we want is one where bad deeds are punished and good deeds are rewarded.
We should prefer to donate to a charity that is as effective as alternatives but pays and treats its workers better, because the people who make those missions succeed deserve to be rewarded, not punished.
it’s pretty much impossible to tell if a single charity reduces the malaria rate ... there are lots of other factors and organizations contributing to a shared goal
That's why the article I linked to advocates randomized controlled trials, among other ideas.
I’d rather donate to a charity that both has low overhead and reduces the malaria rate by 20%.
It’s not a good assumption to think that because a charity pays lavish salaries and stays in fancy hotels that it is somehow more effective.
I know our examples are made up but it’s pretty much impossible to tell if a single charity reduces the malaria rate. It’s pretty difficult in general to determine the impact of charities because unless you’re the Carter Foundation working on Guinea Worm there are lots of other factors and organizations contributing to a shared goal.