Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey

Living in New Zealand can sometimes feel like an obstacle to doing good effectively. We’re far from the EA hubs in the UK/US, and from opportunities for direct work on global health & development.

But are there any areas where we might have an advantage? Here are some possibilities that the community has been discussing recently:

It’s interesting to see that some of the challenges of living in NZ— like our geographic isolation— also create some of the potential opportunities. 

Of course, this is just a preliminary list. If you have other thoughts or ideas, we’d love to hear from you! What do you think NZ should be focusing on? Or if you’re from elsewhere, what do you think your country’s comparative advantage is?

Comments17


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

So New Zealand actually has a quite unique situation that I'm not sure really exists elsewhere, and I've sent messages to people at EA NZ a few times advocating for research into this:

New Zealand has a Global Impact Visa:

  • Where selection is solely based on individuals' focus on positively impacting the world
  • That isn't tied to employment or other traditional immigration categories
  • And where a non-governmental non-profit organization selects the recipients

This is kind of remarkable anywhere, but especially given it's NZ. I'd be pretty excited for EA NZ (or a nonprofit made for this purpose) to try to gain access as the second-nominating organization for this visa.

This could unlock a rare, valuable immigration pathway for: 

• Early-stage talent from less-developed, or otherwise less-suitable countries to gain access to a top job market for skill development, earning to give/earning to gain runway, or just a more stable / useful situation for them to work and live in 

• People working on civilizational robustness or longtermist initiatives that would benefit from NZ’s status as a safe zone for global catastrophic risk

While this could take time, and has significant uncertainty of success, unlocking this sort of immigration possibility, which seems ~only possible in NZ, could be quite valuable.

Yes, and one other reason why I can have higher impact in New Zealand is that universities fund PhD students, unlike the US in general.

I moved away from New Zealand (to Switzerland) because of how poorly PhDs are funded in NZ. I mean, it's significantly less than minimum wage (because it's a scholarship, not a salary).

In Switzerland I earned about 3x as much. Yes, I had to pay tax, health insurance and so on. But I could still live comfortably and save, and it was motivating to think of it as a real job. Switzerland is one of the best places in the world to do a PhD - I think in Norway the pay is similar - but in many European countries you will earn much better than in NZ.

I guess we know what to put on Switzerland's list of advantages then! 🇨🇭
(Along with good chocolate)

:) though I was talking about whether there could be funding for a high impact project at all, rather than the amount.

I still don't think anything beats a good bar of Whittaker's :)

Fascinating! I didn't know that wasn't standard

A lot of PHD students do get funded in the US and Europe, but its not as much of a "standard" part of the process as New Zealand I don't think.

In the US, most funding for PhDs is external to the universities. In my experience, internal funding is more open to projects outside the mainstream.

Being a bit pedantic, sorry, you seem to be using the term “comparative advantage“ to refer to “absolute advantage, in comparison to other countries”. I think it’s important to keep these concepts separate to avoid confusion. Well every country (or every individual) basically must have a compared advantage in some thing not every country will necessarily have an absolute advantage in anything.

Yes, you're right— most of the examples are more in the absolute advantage camp. Would be keen to hear suggestions for NZ's comparative advantage in the technical/economic sense too though 🙂

I think about this question regarding Australia sometimes :) I asked about this at the "Australia's AI crossroads" event recently, i.e. whether / how Australia in particular could contribute on AI. I guess some of these things might also be relevant in NZ to some extent. Here's what the speakers said (there's also a recording):

  • Not hosting one of the major AI labs means we can be a trusted third party in negotiations
    • Relatedly I guess we also have history / relations with the west and with China
  • History working on catastrophic risks with the Canberra Commission (although this was 30 years ago so it's not obvious to me that it really means anything)
  • Apparently Australia is known for rolling out trustworthy regulatory software (I don't know if this is true). The person who said this thinks we have the potential to be world-leading in trustworthy AI if we get a good regulatory framework in place

I'm not sure I find these suggestions very compelling but thought they were interesting nonetheless!

Thanks for sharing! Australia and NZ have a lot of similarities, so there's probably some overlap.

That's an interesting point re: the west/China. Both having a colonial background and being in Asia-Pacific opens up some interesting sets of relationships.

The Mountains, the Sea, and the Rivers.

More from EA NZ
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This is a personal essay about my failed attempt to convince effective altruists to become socialists. I started as a convinced socialist who thought EA ignored the 'root causes' of poverty by focusing on charity instead of structural change. After studying sociology and economics to build a rigorous case for socialism, the project completely backfired as I realized my political beliefs were largely psychological coping mechanisms. Here are the key points: * Understanding the "root cause" of a problem doesn't necessarily lead to better solutions - Even if capitalism causes poverty, understanding "dynamics of capitalism" won't necessarily help you solve it * Abstract sociological theories are mostly obscurantist bullshit - Academic sociology suffers from either unrealistic mathematical models or vague, unfalsifiable claims that don't help you understand or change the world * The world is better understood as misaligned incentives rather than coordinated oppression - Most social problems stem from coordination failures and competing interests, not a capitalist class conspiring against everyone else * Individual variation undermines class-based politics - People within the same "class" have wildly different cognitive traits, interests, and beliefs, making collective action nearly impossible * Political beliefs serve important psychological functions - They help us cope with personal limitations and maintain self-esteem, often at the expense of accuracy * Evolution shaped us for competition, not truth - Our brains prioritize survival, status, and reproduction over understanding reality or being happy * Marx's insights, properly applied, undermine the Marxist political project - His theory of ideological formation aligns with evolutionary psychology, but when applied to individuals rather than classes, it explains why the working class will not overthrow capitalism. In terms of ideas, I don’t think there’s anything too groundbreaking in this essay. A lot of the
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I’m a long-time GiveWell donor and an ethical vegan. In a recent GiveWell podcast on livelihoods programs, providing animals as “productive assets” was mentioned as a possible program type. After reaching out to GiveWell directly to voice my objection, I was informed that because GiveWell’s moral weights currently don’t include nonhuman animals, animal-based aid is not categorically off the table if it surpasses their cost-effectiveness bar. Older posts on the GiveWell website similarly do not rule out animal donations from an ethical lens. In response to some of the rationale GiveWell shared with me, I also want to proactively address a core ethical distinction: * Animal-aid programs involve certain, programmatic harm to animals (breeding, confinement, separation of families, slaughter). * Human-health programs like malaria prevention have, at most, indirect and uncertain effects on animal consumption (by saving human lives), which can change over time (e.g., cultural shifts, plant-based/cultivated options). Constructive ask to GiveWell: Until you have publicly considered how to incorporate animal welfare into your moral weights, please avoid funding programs that use animals as aid. I share this with respect for GiveWell’s impact and to help animal rights-aligned donors make informed choices. If I’ve misunderstood anything, I’m happy to be corrected.