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

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

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

Hesitations about charitable giving

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

Coralie Oddy

Living on less than £1.50 a day

This week I started Charity Science's latest fundraising challenge, a worldwide challenge designed to raise money for and awareness about extreme poverty. Specifically, the challenge asks you to feed yourself on £1.50 a day, the average amount a poor person in a developing nation has to spend on food.

In fact, and rather shockingly, half of the world's population spends less than £1.50 a day.

 I am doing it for a week, and am excited and apprehensive.

My excitement is mainly due to the overwhelmingly positive reaction I have received on my fundraising page. Friends have sponsored me. Acquaintances have sponsored me. Strangers have sponsored me. This only goes to show how generous and willing to help others people really are, when given a little push in the right direction.

I am apprehensive because I have a lot going on in my fundraising week. I have three job interviews and have recently taken up weightlifting. I have already been told by several people that I must take it easy and make sure I get enough calories, and they’re right. And okay, while this is more down to poor planning by me than deliberate design, it does throw an interesting additional factor into what was already shaping up to be a challenging week.

Many people in the developing world live on extremely low incomes, and spend their time doing manual work, farming and travelling on foot for long distances. They can’t choose to ‘take it easy’ – they must do physical work on the limited calories they have, otherwise no food comes in at all.

Indeed, there are reports that during bad times, 

children are often fed significantly less than they need so adults can eat more

; this ensures that the bodily capable parents have enough food in them to physically keep working, and their children have just enough to survive in a severely weakened state [1].

the idea of having to deliberately starve my children in order for myself to keep working to maybe – and it’s a big maybe – get enough for them later on is horrific to even contemplate. By comparison, spending seven days on low calories is nothing.

Left: What a typical American family eats in a week. Right: What a typical family in Chad eats in a week.

Actually, I was feeling quite smug about my chances of doing well in the challenge in the run-up - £1.50 over seven days is £10.50, about what I used to try and spend at the supermarket as a student.

When I bought it, however, I started to feel uneasy. Yes, that was what I approximately spent at the supermarket as a student, but I also ate out more. Got a coffee between lectures. Had a snack at a friend’s house. Got a kebab after a night out. Went home for dinner. Whereas I won’t be able to accept so much as a cup of tea while I am doing the challenge.

In fact, as part of my challenge, I decided to donate the difference in what I would usually spend on food in a week and what I was spending during the challenge myself, confident it wouldn’t be hugely different. The difference was £38, and a genuine shock.

I’ve been spending a lot more on food than I thought – and most of it is just stuff I want (like a nice coffee or a chocolate bar), not stuff I actually need. 

After the challenge, I could spend more carefully and actively think about my food consumption. I could save money, and therefore maybe have more to give away to effective causes

, where all the sponsorship money is headed.

 and raise awareness of Effective Altruism by taking part in the challenge, donating, and sharing this challenge on social media.

1. Dasgupta, Partha, Economics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press (2007), pp.101-103

Giving What We Can

Global Priorities Project is looking for a summer intern

 is an Oxford-based think tank that brings the best research to bear on policy areas which are selected for their importance, tractability, and neglectedness. They aim to grow quickly over the next year, making it a particularly exciting time to work with them. The work done now will have a big effect on shaping the direction of their future efforts.

The Global Priorities Project is looking for an intern to support work in either a research or a policy capacity, depending on the skills of the successful candidate. The two roles being considered are:

The successful candidate will work alongside Owen Cotton-Barratt to develop an aspect of our programme of cause prioritisation – helping to answer the question “What are the most promising areas for directed policy work?” The work may include blue-sky theoretical modelling as well as more grounded research based on cost-benefit analysis literature. A successful candidate will show an aptitude for independent research, good written communication skills, relevant knowledge, and an understanding of our work.

The successful candidate will work alongside Sebastian Farquhar to develop policy aligned with one of the Global Priorities Projects policy priorities – global catastrophic risk or effective governance. Depending on the skills offered by the candidate, work could include fleshing out and designing a policy proposal, or drawing together collaborators to launch an initiative to improve governance through better evidence. A successful candidate would ideally have good communication skills, an entrepreneurial mindset, an understanding of the UK policy process, and relevant knowledge.

In both cases, the work will be fairly independent, with a distinct workstream involving stand-alone outputs. However, the relevant lead will be deeply engaged with the work on a day-to-day basis and we see coaching and personal development as a key part of the internship.

We support interns by covering accommodation and expenses, but do not offer a salary. Start date and duration are flexible, though we anticipate most candidates would prefer the internship to happen over the summer.

We are able to provide appropriate visas for non-EU nationals, so candidates from other areas should feel free to apply.

recruitment@centreforeffectivealtruism.org

 alongside a cover letter outlining their reasons for applying in no more than 300 words. Applications are due by midnight on the 10th of May. Shortlisted candidates will be contacted for a Skype interview in the following week, and the successful candidate will be selected after all interviews are completed.

Questions about the application process should be sent to 

. Questions about the roles should be sent to 

Oli Davies

Why You Should Make It to Chapters' Day

, for me, do two things really well: first of all, they are a brilliant and very personal form of outreach. Secondly, they're a community. Whereas there are good general Effective Altruism Facebook groups, contact online is very different to making like-minded friends in person, and chapters have always been a brilliant way to meet other members in my city and university.

Thanks to the efforts of Jonathan Courtney, we manage to do even better than this on chapter days, such as that held last month. Members of any chapter who could make it to Giving What We Can's offices in Oxford joined to meet, swap ideas, and work together on improving our efforts.

 has come out with an intimidatingly large list of action points. Secondly, it was hugely encouraging. I met some great people and, hopefully, made some good friends. Chapter days cannot be recommended enough.

, and spent our time swapping ideas and comparing notes on what has and hasn't worked for us. We structured this around four main discussions, on diversity, the New Year's pledge event, and events done at Warwick and Manchester, and through these presentations came up with both specific and general improvements chapters can seek to make.

For me, two overriding conclusions came out of the discussion. Firstly, 

I was impressed by the sheer range of successes chapters have achieved

, in which people were encouraged to take the Giving What We Can pledge as their New Year's resolution. He focused this on a 

 promoting the campaign, and snippets of the huge range of media that reported on the campaign, including national broadsheets. It attracted about 

150 pledges total – an astounding achievement

. Needless to say, there is much to learn from a campaign this successful, both for future repetitions of it and in general lessons that apply to all chapters projects.

This isn't to do down the unbelievable breadth of events other chapter have managed: 

 (including, to my nerdy excitement, Adam Swift, 

 and then reported back on what it was like, which functions both as a chance to get them more involved, and to gather testimony on what giving 10% away is like.

the effectiveness of their smallest events

 to a small, keen audience then taking questions, which astoundingly led to almost everyone there getting involved in Giving What We Can further.

The message was clear: as events VP at Oxford, I've got to step up my game to match this lot.

Secondly, I was repeatedly struck by the 

huge benefits of collaboration and communication

. Obviously, within chapters constant discussion and updates between committee are essential to smooth operation. But the value of communication around the country and the world between our members kept on boomeranging back to us throughout the day.

For instance, in the gender balance and diversity discussion, we discussed some of the reasons why Effective Altruist societies should aim to attract more diverse people, and discussed ways of doing this. Furthermore, chapters broadly showed a need to gather more detailed data on their effects, and so we proposed a joint database of data relevant to gender balance to enable us to identify problems more accurately from a big data set and to, on that basis, exchange our solutions.

Similarly, we are already sharing loads more content on the 

 which we can all share on our pages, sharing event plans and presentations through google drive, and supporting each other's social media campaigns.

Between all the chapters in the room, we had scored huge successes in all areas and, most importantly, had all got loads of new members involved in Giving What We Can. But all chapters also had much to improve and work on, and I know that the advice swapped has given Oxford lots of ways to approach the improvements we need to make.

More importantly, though, for those involved in Giving What We Can, 

discovering that there are so many brilliant people working towards similar goals and getting to meet them is by any standard a fantastic day

Larissa Hesketh-Rowe

How Effective is Fair Trade?

When many of us think about improving conditions in the developing world, Fair Trade may be one of the first things to come to mind.

Is paying a premium to slightly increase some farmers' income the best way to tackle poverty? Could our income be spent elsewhere more effectively? What does all of this mean for the sort of society we live in?

 the buyer of a particular product such as coffee or bananas must pay the farmer enough to cover the cost of growing their crop or the market value for their goods, whichever is higher. () They 

 a premium of around $0.20 for investment in improving production

Buying products with a Fair Trade label gives everyday shoppers influence over the ethics of big corporations. In a globalised world, all of our actions - whether it is the car we drive (or don’t drive), the supermarket we shop at or where we bank - have far reaching consequences.

In a world full of problems that can seem overwhelming, and where issues of poverty can seem hopeless, being able to make a difference every time you shop is a hugely appealing idea.

But what if our contribution could be larger? What if our voice could be louder?

If Fair Trade is not as effective as other interventions in reducing poverty, then maybe we need to switch our allegiances.

So what are some of the problems with Fair Trade?

 far from helping lift farmers out of poverty Fairtrade traps them in dependence on struggling industries and charity from the West ()They argue that low prices are due to overproduction, and that providing an inflated price only encourages even greater overproduction rather than diversification into better products. For example, if more people produce coffee then the price goes down. The Fair Trade coffee producers keep a steady, but still very low, price and the non Fairtrade producers just get poorer.

But Fair Trade is moving to address some of its critics. Plantations can 

 also seek Fairtrade status if they allow workers unions to seek better conditions for themselves meaning more people stand standard chance of being helped.

But can this really be shown to be improving its efficacy?

Only a handful of areas where there are Fair Trade farmers are in the top ten 

This is by no means to say that Fairtrade farmers are not poor, especially by the standards of our own country, nor that they do need help. But how can we provide the most help? Where can we do the most good with our too scarce resources?

If reducing poverty is truly the aim, do we not need to start with the very poorest?

No matter who we help, is improving wages by a few pence 

? () With a small premium being paid on top of an already struggling product very little extra money makes its way to the poor.

 can be produced of any long term improvement in the conditions for Fair Trade farmers let alone their non Fair Trade counterparts.

When the price of Fair Trade items in the shop can be much higher (a bunch of six Tesco Fair Trade bananas were 65p more than their non Fair Trade equivalent when I checked online today) is Fair Trade actually failing to make the most of shoppers’ altruism?

To receive the Fair Trade certification the price is guaranteed by the buyer. It is not, as some people may assume, a percentage of the final sale profits that the farmer receives. This is one criticism levelled at Fair Trade; it does more to increase big company profits than help the farmers.

Big companies cash in on consumer altruism to make bigger profits on Fair Trade goods.

 that Fair Trade is not about giving farmers a percentage of profits but about ensuring that they get paid enough to cover the cost of their labour and allow them to invest in improvements. The Fair Trade Foundation cannot control the efficiency of a company’s production process nor the efficacy of their marketing. Yet these things will influence the companies profits. Would we really want that volatility passed on to farmers?

But this critique and defence misses a wider point.

If Fair Trade products are more expensive than non Fair Trade products what else could we, the consumers, be doing with the money we save from buying the cheaper option?

Say that in a weekly shop you, as I do, buy a bunch of bananas, some coffee and some dark chocolate. Amongst these items alone the difference between the cheapest non Fairtrade and Fairtrade brand collectively is about £2.

 could deliver treatment of neglected tropical diseases of 4 people for a year.

 would pay for a malaria net, one of the most effective ways of preventing the spread of malaria.

Or why not donate that £2 directly to someone through 

? That way you know that the right person received the the majority of your donation and you empower them to transform their own lives.

Despite the failings of Fairtrade let's not forget like so many charities it is trying to do something good in the world. The point of reviewing Fair Trade should not be simply to point out all of it’s flaws but to say we all want to do good, how can we do it better?

If our aims are altruistic then good intentions are just the beginning, we need to push for the best outcomes as well. And there are better outcomes to be achieved through methods other than Fair Trade.

But are even our good intentions wavering? For the first time since its conception Fair Trade consumption is falling.

Recent moves in the retail market away from supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s and The Cooperative (both of which have changed their own brand bananas, coffee, tea and chocolate to Fair Trade versions) to the cheaper chains like Aldi and Lidl have hit Fair Trade’s sales. In 2014 for the first time in their history Fair Trade sales fell by 4%. This compares to what is usually double digit growth for the label.

Having spent this article critiquing Fair Trade, why does this matter?

If savy altruistic shoppers are saving their pennies and donating it to effective charities then the decline in Fair Trade can only be a good thing. However, if a struggling economy is turning people’s focus inward to their own concerns and away from thinking about others in worse circumstances, this is a reason for concern.

If critiquing Fairtrade only leads to apathy is this truly an improvement?

There are two things that effective altruism has to tackle. 

Convincing people to give in the first place and convincing them to give more effectively.

Fair Trade may not be an effective intervention but it does keep poverty in people’s minds. It is an improvement on not caring at all. Many of the articles cited criticise Fair Trade but they do not provide an altruistic alternative.

Let’s promote the effective alternatives not apathy. Only through reviewing these options can we find out what truly works. Yes there are problems with Fair Trade but that doesn’t mean tackling poverty is hopeless. Just look at some of the amazing work done by Giving What We Can’s 

Let's not just criticise, let's continue to act, and 

Owain Johnstone

Go Big or Go Home? Marginal and Systemic Change

At the root of effective altruism is a concern with how best to bring about social change. However, effective altruism discussions rarely distinguish overtly between two different kinds of change: marginal and systemic. It's really important we make this distinction – because it has the potential to profoundly influence some of the choices that we face, and to lead to very different effects.

By 'marginal', I don't mean 'minimal'. I'm using the word in the economic sense to describe 

a change that is incremental relative to some other possible change

. What does that mean exactly? Say you're about to graduate from university and you have two possible career options. One is in publishing and the other is working for a development charity. Your one criterion for job choice is the amount of positive social impact you can have.

You decide that you will likely have more impact as a charity worker than as a publisher and you take that option accordingly. Your social impact is higher than it was when you were a student – that's a marginal increase. And it's higher than it would have been if you'd made a different choice – to go into publishing. The difference in social impact between these positions is a marginal difference.

A lot of effective altruism discussion revolves around examples like this. Most are to do with three different kinds of marginal change, measured against potential social impact. First, change relative to something else you could be doing. Should you change career from A to B or stay where you are? What would the marginal change be in your likely social impact potential?

The second kind is change relative to what someone else might do. I'll borrow an example from 

: should you go to work in your own country or volunteer as a doctor in a developing country? Assuming a high demand for such positions (so someone else will take the position if you don't), the marginal difference you make is equal to how much better you are than whoever else would have taken the job. Maybe you save two more lives a week, for example.

Questions about where you should donate fall into a third category, where you're asking about the difference in the potential social impact of two third parties. Should you give your money to organisation A or B? What you're asking is: what is the marginal difference between the impact A would have (by using your money) and the difference B would have?

The main feature of marginal change is that it is commensurable.

 That is, you can assess the difference between the change represented by two possible choices using some common unit – a unit that in this case represents social impact. You might decide to use a unit like quality adjusted life years (QALYs), for example. So, comparing two possible jobs, or two possible donation recipients, you try to enumerate the possible QALYs you will be able to add to the world with each course of action, and you choose accordingly.

Systemic change doesn't feature in these sorts of examples – and in general is less prominent in effective altruism discussions (it's not absent entirely, but when it is discussed it can often be implicit). So, what is it and why does it matter?

Systemic change is hard to define precisely, but we can start by suggesting that it's 

not just large amounts of marginal change

. To borrow another example from 80,000 hours, let's say you convince several hundred high net-worth individuals to contribute large amounts to specific, highly effective charitable organisations. The amount of change you could bring about is potentially enormous – but I would argue that it's still marginal change.

Why? Because this is basically a quantitative approach. You're not questioning your overall goal of getting as much money to these organisations as you possibly can. Nor are you questioning who those organisations are. In other words, you're not challenging the system parameters. More on that in a moment, but first we need to define what the 'system' is that systemic change transforms.

It's important to remember that although 'system' sounds big, it doesn't have to be. A system can be small or large, just as marginal change can be small or large. Here's one definition of system: a group of actors with related interests who interact with one another in pursuit of certain goals and end up producing a measurable outcome.

That's pretty abstract, so here's an example to illustrate.

Blog

Living on less than £1.50 a day

Global Priorities Project is looking for a summer intern

Why You Should Make It to Chapters' Day

How Effective is Fair Trade?

Go Big or Go Home? Marginal and Systemic Change

Effective Altruism on a Tight Budget

Charity Update II: Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI)

Apply for the September Internship!

Charity Update I: Development Media International

Our Charities Update Is Coming!