Im not totally convinced by Will MacAskills criticism of the ice-bucket challenge. sbs.au/news/article/2014/08/18/comment-cold-hard-truth-about-ice-bucket-challenge He claims that the challenge is a net negative because: The key problem is funding cannibalism. That $3 [now closer to $40] million in donations doesn’t appear out of a vacuum. Because people on average are limited in how much they’re willing to donate to good causes, if someone donates $100 to the ALS Association, he or she will likely donate less to other charities. He bases this conclusion on Giving What We Can research that suggests that: for every $1 we [some charity drive] raise, 50¢ would have been donated anyway AND If 50% of that $3 million would have been donated anyway, and if the ALS association is less than half as effective at turning donations into positive impact on people’s wellbeing than other charities are on average, then the fundraiser would actively be doing harm I get all the stuff in the article about moral-licensing (you do one good deed and feel entitled to do less later) and the trend towards charity being about good marketing instead of good outcomes being bad, but I dont think the funding-cannibalism claims stand. Heres why: 1/ Id like to see the research about funding cannibalism. MacAskill provides a link that just takes me to the Giving What We Can homepage, not the research. I couldnt find anything one the ALSA, ice-bucket challenge or funding cannibalism on the site. Transparency please! I think EA organizations in particular need to do better than say here are our conclusions, shape your life around them. 2/ Even if 50% of ALSA funding would have gone to other charities anyway, the suggestion that funding cannibalism makes the ice-bucket challenge a net-negative is contingent on it being less than half as effective at turning donations into positive impact on people’s wellbeing than other charities are on average. I dont see any evidence for this and I dont think its likely. ALSA is probably far less effective than good developing world heath charities, but people who are donating to the best charities are probably people who have done some research and are less likely to change their donor habits every time a fad drive comes along. So the moneys coming from ordinary (so lets assume average) charities. I doubt ALSA is sub 1/2 as good as that. Its been given a good review by charity navigator (see link: charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3296#.U_gse0i1_ZR although they seem to base their reviews solely on transparency and how much money goes to the program rather than impact itself). Furthermore, its targeting an actual terrible disease, which in itself is probably more important than your average cause. Thoughts? Buck Shlegeris, Lauren Block, Ben Jin, Emily Scharff
Posted on: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 06:08:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015