I’m curating this post. Karthik Tadepalli makes the point that EAs have often accepted the argument, given here, that the most cost effective global health interventions are likely to be aimed at increasing growth in LMICs rather than directly targeted at health outcomes. However, there hasn’t yet been a focus on producing growth interventions within EA global health work that is proportional to this interest. In a careful, well evidenced manner, this post outlines some factors which affect economic growth in LMICs, and which may be amenable to interventions.

You can read more about the discussion of boosting economic growth as a potentially tractable cause in Global Health and Wellbeing on this topics tag, and in this recent 80k podcast episode with GiveWell’s co-founder Elie Hassenfeld. 

I hope, with Karthik, that this post and the series to follow is read with “an entrepreneurial eye”, and reignites debate in this pressing question. 

I think around 5-10 mins? I tried to compare everything I cared at all about, so I only used multipliers between 0 and 2 (otherwise I would have lost track and ended up with intransitive preferences). The comparison stage took the most time. I edited things in the end a little bit, downgrading some charities to 0.

Thanks for letting me know Kirsten! Good way to start the day :)

Looks okay to me now. How is it for you? 

There is still plenty of time to vote in the Donation Election. The group donation pot currently stands at around $30,000. You can nudge that towards the projects you think are most worthwhile (plus, the voting system is fun and might teach you something about your preferences). 

Also- you should donate to the Donation Election fund if: 
a) You want to encourage thinking about effective donations on the Forum.
b) You want to commit to donating in line with the Forum's preferences. 
c) You'd like me to draw you one of these bad animals (or earn one of our other rewards): 

NB: I can also draw these animals holding objects of your choice. Or wearing clothes. Anything is possible. 

I’ve decided to curate this post. An evaluation of the evaluators, written up by an independent organisation, is a valuable resource for donors and the evaluators themselves. Even though EA charity evaluators are often pretty good at marking their own homework, I’d be happy to see it no longer being a necessity. This project gets up a step closer.

Additionally, I think the response from the evaluated organisations is wonderful. I’d like to highlight ACE’s response which exemplifies truth seeking and collaboration, while pushing back on some of the substance of the report, and making their reasoning clear in doing so.

Thanks Akhil!

I'd add that this page of Giving What We Can's website as a good place to look. They act as a hub for the evaluations of several charity evaluators (as well as recently doing their own research on the quality of those evaluators). Giving to one of their funds is one of the best ways to give money to the top charities in a given cause area. 

Hi Akhil. This seems like a great idea! 
To clarify- is this a new fund, or are new charities being added to an existing fund? I couldn't tell from this line: 

I am very excited to announce the addition of several highly impactful charities focused on preventing violence against women and girls to The Life You Can Save’s help women and girls fund, and their all charities fund. 

Thanks!

Bumping this slightly- Match Funding ends today!