Giving What We Can's blog, featuring the latest news from our community.

Stay up to date with Giving What We Can's blog. Featuring the latest news about our community, how to donate effectively, charity evaluation, community events and more!

Blog

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our values

Our members

Our events

Transparency

Our mistakes

Our impact

Donate to Giving What We Can

Careers

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Sitemap

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

topNavigation

Recommended charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Comparing charities

Choosing a cause

Inclusion criteria

Trusted evaluators

Our approach

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Myths and misconceptions

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

Team

The Pledge

Trial Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why pledge

Pledges

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Sharing our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Fundraisers

Community

Donate now

Best charities

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Donate

My pledge

My donations

My income

My impact

Pledge

My giving

Top Navigation

James Snowden

Giving What We Can focuses on finding the charities which result in the most benefit to the greatest number of individuals. But should we give more weight to benefitting the worst off? Should we care more about equality and distributive justice?

Giving What We Can aggregates the benefits to different people 

 rather than giving extra weight to worse off individuals. While our top charities tend to help some of the worst off people in the world, we do not explicitly factor considerations of fairness and equity into our cost-effectiveness calculations. There are good reasons for this:

. It can be very complex to add together different benefits and also weight them differently for different people. This is why academic literature on cost-effectiveness tends to aggregate benefits additively.

. Aggregating these benefits additively relies on the ethical intuitions everyone actually has. While egalitarians care about the distribution of benefits, they also care about total benefits. Different people may have very different ideas about how much weight to place on considerations of equity. It is easier to add your own weighting than to adjust ones that we have assumed.

. Those who are worst off are usually the easiest to help as there are more “low hanging fruit” so to speak.

 is the only plausible ethical theory (as has sometimes been suggested

). But we do think that aggregating benefits additively provides a good starting point, which can then be supplemented by considerations of equity and fairness if required

. We are aware that many of our members (and staff) think that prioritising helping the worst off may be of 

 reasons (for the purposes of this post we will refer to both as egalitarian

). Recently, we’ve been thinking more about how our recommended charities fare on these ethical dimensions.

If aggregating benefits in an additive or egalitarian manner always came to the same answer (as it often does), that would be the end of the matter. Occasionally however, we may have to make a tradeoff between helping people who are worse off or helping a larger number of people. This post is intended to give the reader some additional considerations, which may help them think about how to weigh egalitarian concerns in choosing the most effective charities.

Additive benefits are the most important consideration when choosing an effective charity

. However, when the cost-effectiveness of charities is sufficiently close, it may be reasonable to factor in considerations of fairness and equity.

All our top charities fare well on considerations of fairness and equity

. This is unsurprising given that they are all charities which help children with preventable diseases in poorer countries.

Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) fares particularly well

 on fairness and equity grounds as it prevents a disease with a high individual disease burden which affects the economically disadvantaged.

It is possible that there are other comparably cost-effective charities which do better than some of our charities on fairness and equity. However, AMF sets a high bar, as it is estimated to save a life for about 

, and children who die under the age of five are certainly among the very worst off globally.

In 2014, the World Health Organisation published 

Making Fair Choices on the path to Universal Health Coverage

, which attempts to provide a framework for incorporating considerations of fairness and equity into healthcare prioritisation

. The report was authored by a diverse group of 18 health economists, ethicists and practitioners in order to represent broad ethical consensus. Several members of Giving What We Can contributed to the report

 suggests three different considerations when deciding which interventions to prioritise:

: How many people can be helped and how much they can be helped for a given level of resources?

: Are the people helped particularly disadvantaged?

: How much does the intervention reduce the risk of impoverishment due to catastrophic health expenditure?

Figure 1: Framework for integrating cost-effectiveness with other criteria when selecting services (Source: 

Not all these considerations should be given equal weight. The suggested decision procedure is to separate interventions into priority categories by setting overlapping thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Where an intervention lies in the overlapping segment between different categories, considerations of priority for the worse off and financial risk protection are applied to determine which category it falls into. So while priority for the worse off is explicitly recognised as a relevant criteria for assessing which interventions to prioritise, it is only taken into account when the cost-effectiveness of two interventions is sufficiently close.

Under the example thresholds laid out in the report, all the interventions recommended by Giving What We Can fall firmly in the high priority category. That is, even if there were substantial reasons of fairness and equity to prioritise other interventions, this would only be relevant if those interventions were also within the high priority category.

However, there is still likely to be a substantial range of interventions which fall into the highly effective category and so, when the cost-effectiveness of interventions is sufficiently close, considerations of fairness and equity may come into play

One difficulty with factoring in priority for the worst off is that people can be worse off across a number of different dimensions. One solution would be to use a covering value of wellbeing which would incorporate all these considerations (such as subjective reported well being). Unfortunately, such a covering value would be very difficult to base on reliable data and highly controversial as different people value the various aspects of welfare in different ways. This mirrors the difficulties in evaluating charities on direct hedonistic grounds. In practice, consideration of who is worse off should be based on a number of different dimensions which contribute to welfare. The case studies accompanying the report (not yet released) make some suggestions

 In the absence of the intervention, would the beneficiary bear a large individual burden of disease? The individual burden of disease can be proxied by measures such as average years of life lost (AYLL).

 How badly off is the individual in terms of income, education or occupation?

So how do our top charities fare on these grounds?

Do our top recommended charities help the worst off?

all of Giving What We Can’s top charities help people who could be considered to be among the worst off in the world

. This is unsurprising given that they are all charities which help people with preventable diseases in relatively poor countries. We encourage donors who value equity and fairness highly to take these considerations into account to supplement our recommendations. In practice, however, it appears that substantial tradeoffs between total benefits and considerations of fairness are rarely required. We therefore plan to continue evaluating charities on the basis of their additive benefits.

Against Malaria Foundation helps people who could plausibly be described as the very worst off in the world (children who die under the age of five). 

For donors who place a very high weight on justice and equality, you could do a lot worse than 

Is Charity About Helping the Poorest?

Hauke Hillebrandt

Check out our newer article from 2021 that goes into more detail on this topic.

A recent study asked people in the US what they thought the global median income was: participants thought it was $20,000 per year - 10 times more than it actually is.

 Respondents who were then told that the true global income distribution is much more unequal, i.e. that the global median income is much lower, supported higher spending on foreign aid and cuts in agricultural trade protections at larger rates. They also made donations to charities abroad that were 55% larger relative to people in the control group.

Whenever I read about a country that I don’t know that much about, GDP per capita statistics are usually the first thing I look up on Wikipedia. Of course, income only gives a limited picture of a country, but I want to get a general sense of the economic well-being of its people. But the 

 GDP per capita that one typically sees on Wikipedia can be quite misleading in that respect, because it doesn’t take into account wealth inequality (for a detailed explanation see the Appendix at the end of this post). And, until recently, 

 GDP per capita were hard to come by. But a few months ago, the Centre for Global Development released median income/consumption estimates of countries around the world.

This data was very useful for development economists who are interested in how many people live in extreme poverty with under $1,90 a day, but for lay people the problem with the presentation of the data was that it showed 

 income/consumption and most people are probably more used to think about 

 income/consumption. This is why I multiplied the values by 365 to get at the median income/consumption per capita per year around the world (I call this median GDP per capita for sake of comparison).

You can see that there’s considerable inequality within countries - in the United States $17,593 is the median income, whereas the mean GDP per capita is $54,629, which is what everyone would earn if you perfectly redistributed all income.

 inequality in terms of median GDP per capita per year: it ranges from $383 in Madagascar to $21,717 in Norway, with most values at the low end.

 The global median of these medians is $2,630 and the population weighted average of these median values is $4,114 - these two values might be good approximations of global median per capita

, and in line with older empirical estimates of $2,920 by Gallup

 - which is what everyone would earn if you perfectly redistributed all income worldwide.

You might notice that that these estimates are already Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) adjusted: this means that this already takes into account, for example, that housing is cheaper in Madagascar than in the United States, and that the government provides more services in the US. It also already includes goods people produce for themselves in the Madagascar (such as growing food or making baskets).

 In other words, when you read that Madagascar has a median GDP per capita (PPP) of $383 per year, then it is comparable to living on $383 per year in the United States. To get a sense of what this would be like you could go on Amazon.com and see 

How your money can buy somebody else more happiness

This immense global inequality makes the idea of 

 so powerful. GiveDirectly is a charity that sends unconditional cash-transfers through mobile phone banking to some of the poorest people on the planet. You get the same increase in wellbeing from having your $20,000 developed world salary doubled as someone in extreme poverty living on $383 in Madagascar would get from receiving a cash transfer that would double their income (see figure below).

A recent study calculated that because of this, 

giving a one dollar to a truly poor individual is worth the same as giving about $66 to a typical American.

 In other words, if you’d earn $60,000 after tax salary and donated $30,000 and thus forgo the doubling of your wellbeing, you could effectively double the well-being of over 300 people in Madagascar ($30,000/$383 * 4 (adjusting for PPP))! And cash-transfers are considered to be baseline for how much good you can do: Givewell estimates that our recommended charities the Against Malaria Foundation, the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and the Deworm the World Initiative, are about 10 times more effective than cash transfers, because there is evidence that healthier children earn more later in life

. This means we have an incredible opportunity to do good in the world.

Two-thirds of the variation of how much you earn globally is determined by where in world you were born

**[10]****.** When you add how much your parents earn to this, 80 percent of the variance of how much money you earn is explained by things that are clearly beyond your control.

 Such injustice violates our moral intuitions that there ought to be 

You can check out how lucky you are in global terms with our 

Appendix: What’s the difference between median and mean GDP per capita?

The average or mean GDP per capita statistics can still be quite misleading,

 as it doesn’t take into account wealth inequality. Here are two countries fictitious countries to make the point:

Notice that wealthy people, like Bill Gates, skew the mean value, so that mean GDP per capita is not very representative of the typical person in a country. It’s better to look at 

 GDP per capita. To calculate the median or middle value, you just make a list of all citizens in a country by income/consumption and pick the one who is in the middle (in this case Bob). 50% of all people will be richer and 50% will be poorer than the person on the median income/consumption. This usually gives a better sense of what the economic well being of an average person is like. In both our countries, median income is $20,000.

Median GDP per capita: how much does the typical person earn in different countries? A look at Global Inequality

Alison Woodman

Have you ever wondered whether the Giving What We Can pledge is right for you? Do you have unanswered questions which make you hesitate about signing up?

Recently Giving What We Can staff have been devoting some of our time to reaching out to people who are familiar with our work, to see how well we’re communicating our ideas, and to encourage more people to get involved. This has helped us identify a few recurring questions about the Giving What We Can pledge, so I thought I’d use this post to answer four of the most common ones.

1. I’m not earning an income right now/I’m a student, so I can’t afford 10%

For many people who are studying or unemployed, it may be much harder to give 10%. However, the Pledge commits members to giving 10% of their 

For any period where members are not earning an income, we suggest that they instead donate at least 1% of their spending money.

 This is a good way to create or maintain a habit of giving to effective charities, which we believe sets members up well to donate more once they start earning a salary.

Still, it’s understandable that some people remain unsure about committing to donate income that they don’t yet have. However, about 46% of our members joined as students, and we’re starting to see some of the effects of their donations as they graduate and move into work

, suggesting that pre-committing is a promising strategy for ensuring you act on your intentions to donate in future.

10% is no magic number, but it is one that we think 

. The average percentages donated in the UK and US, for most income brackets, seems to be about 1% - 5%

, so the Pledge represents a significant increase on this. However, for most people in affluent countries, it can be achieved without huge sacrifice. For instance, if you and a partner live on the median household income

 in the UK and have one child, we estimate that you’re in the richest 10.7% of the the world’s population. If you were to give 10% of your income, you’d still be in the richest 11.9%, earning 10 times the global average income. To see whereabouts you stand in the global income distribution, take a look at our 

Another reason to think that 10% is a good number to aim for is that there’s a 

 of donating 10% of one’s wealth, as shown by the inclusion of 

 in various religious traditions. Giving What We Can is not affiliated with any religion (we welcome members who are religious and non-religious alike), but the fact that many communities have succeeded in normalising giving 10% is an encouraging sign that this level of giving could become a norm more widely.

3. I’m already giving 10% or more - what’s the point in taking the Pledge?

It’s always exciting to meet people who had the idea to donate a substantial portion of their income before they heard about us. Some of these individuals are enthusiastic about Giving What We Can’s work but are skeptical about the benefits of joining the community.

The best indications of why it’s still a good idea to pledge come from listening to members who were already giving or intending to give 10% or more when they joined. Roughly 18% of our members are in this group - having spoken to many of them, we’ve found that a key reason they joined was to 

help Giving What We Can grow and inspire more people to give

Studies have shown that increasing visibility of donations, especially among peers, helps to create more charitable giving

. More anecdotally, I often hear that members value being part of a wider community of givers, and that part of the reason is that being able to reference a wider group who are also committed to giving 10% makes it easier to talk to others about their giving. This is important for the growth of the movement, since we’ve found that the most common way that new members hear about us is through their friends.

What’s more, it’s easy to lose track of our commitments, so even if you are giving 10% now it’s hard to be certain that you’ll continue to do this in future. The Pledge can act as another layer of accountability, both because members are making a public commitment, and because we follow up with our members to keep them motivated and give timely reminders of their pledge to give.

4. I donate to charities which aren’t on your list of recommended ones - can I still take the Pledge?

A distribution of insecticide-treated bednets by the Against Malaria Foundation, one of Giving What We Can's recommended charities.

While Giving What We Can conducts research and offers 

 about where and how to donate effectively, the Pledge does not require you to give to our recommended charities. The only requirement is that you give to the organisations which 

 will most effectively improve the lives of others. So while we think that the decision about where you donate to fulfil your Pledge is just as vital as the commitment to give more, it is definitely within the spirit of the pledge to give to organisations not specified by Giving What We Can.

Some members donate to non-poverty interventions, for instance improving animal welfare by following 

 recommendations, or mitigating existential risks by funding research through organisations like the 

. What’s more, wherever you decide to donate you will still be able to keep track of these donations using our 

So, to sum it all up: As a member of Giving What We Can you only give when earning, you will still be in the global rich, you will help make giving 10% more normal, and you can use your own head in deciding where to give. If you’d like to chat about the pledge, feel free to get in touch with me here (

). If you’re ready to take the pledge now you can do so 

, or if not, why not sign up to try giving 

For answers to other common questions about Giving What We Can, take a look at our

__. If you can’t find your questions there, or would like more information, please email us (

Everything you always wanted to know about the pledge (but were afraid to ask)

Sam Deere

We’re really excited to announce our largest quarterly payout to our top charities ever. In the first quarter of 2016 Giving What We Can members, supporters, and our broader community donated more than 

77 malaria deaths prevented, food for thousands fortified, 100 people’s incomes doubled, and a quarter of a million children dewormed

 and other highly effective organisations , including:

 (≈US$220,942.00) to the Against Malaria Foundation, which is enough to distribute 41,608 

. Even though there is substantial uncertainty around these estimates, 

 that this might prevent 77 deaths of under 5 year olds in expectation.

 (≈US$142,168.15) to the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and £82,382.68 (≈$119,430.17) to Deworm the World Initiative, which together will help to deworm around 262,100 children from parasitic worm infections.

 (≈US$113,343.36) to Project Healthy Children, which will support developing countries to incorporate micronutrient fortification into their food supply chains. Project Healthy Children is one of our ‘promising charities’ which means that it’s hard to quantify their impact with certainty, but we think it’s likely to have a very high impact, as potentially hundreds of thousands of people will consume staple foods like flour and oil that are fortified with vitamins and minerals.

 (≈$US 122,018.13) to GiveDirectly, of which 84.5%, or $103,105, will be transferred directly to the very poor, with the rest going to support their continuing monitoring and evaluation projects. This means that around 100 of the poorest people in Kenya and Uganda – people who live on less $1.90 a day now, will now be much more food secure and will have greater opportunity to invest in their futures by buying assets such as animals and iron roofs.

 to other highly effective charities, including Innovations for Poverty Action, Development Media International, and Iodine Global Network.

Our largest trust payout yet — 77 malaria deaths prevented, food for thousands fortified, 100 people’s incomes doubled, and a quarter of a million children dewormed!

Blog

Is Charity About Helping the Poorest?

Median GDP per capita: how much does the typical person earn in different countries? A look at Global Inequality

Everything you always wanted to know about the pledge (but were afraid to ask)

More than half a million pounds moved to top charities in Q1 2016

Why should I give if the rich don't?

The Life Equation

Is there a more effective way of getting a (better) malaria vaccine?

How to improve women's health in poor countries

Can cancer interventions ever be cost-effective?

Four Ideas You Already Agree With (That Mean You're Probably on Board with Effective Altruism)