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.

Donate

Pledge

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

Leave feedback or make a complaint

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

DONATE

topNavigation

Best charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Our research & approach

Comparing charities

Evaluating evaluators

Our approach

Giving guides

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Hesitations about charitable giving

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

About Us

Our governance structure

Team

Newsletter

Videos

Take the Pledge

Connect with our community

Share our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Fundraisers

Social Shareable Images

Community

What is the Pledge?

Why pledge instead of just donating?

Share the Pledge (inspire others!)

Pledge signers

My Pledge

🔹Trial Pledge

Company Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Have a 1-on-1 call about pledging

Donate now

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Top Navigation

Rob Wiblin

Kristian Rönn

The Copenhagen Consensus: making a bet on catching a big fish

We are currently looking into a promising opportunity to influence how large sums of development aid are allocated. The 

 (CCC), known for research forums organised to prioritise which global problems are most important to address, is aiming to influence the next round of Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) through further research and public advocacy. Here we will discuss this opportunity in further detail. We will start by giving you some background. Then we will give you some information about what we like about the CCC, why we think their undertaking might be effective, and what doubts we have. Finally, we will give you some insight into our current research approaches.

Over the fifteen years this second round of MDGs will be in place, the world is projected to spend some $2.3 trillion on development assistance of various kinds. While the MDGs are not a binding treaty regarding how organisations should spend their money they do draw a lot of attention to particular issues, and are therefore likely to have some influence over how that money is spent. Unfortunately, a significant share of that money will currently go to project that are either unproven or likely to result in far smaller benefits than could otherwise be achieved.

To coincide with this, the CCC will coordinate a new round of research from subject experts. This will build on their previous work in order to determine which of the goals the UN is choosing from would do the greatest good with limited aid budgets. They will then take the conclusions and promote them in person to decision-makers in the post-MDG process, including UN ambassadors, missions, agencies and NGOs, as well as the public through a user-friendly website and interviews and op-eds featured in major newspapers. The aim will be to replace strategies that do not deliver value for money with those that will. At the same time, the campaign will raise support for cost-effectiveness as a key guiding principle for the allocation of development assistance more broadly.

This research is expected to cost around $0.8m, and is already largely funded .The associated promotional activities will cost up to a further $1.2m, and will ensure this research is read and taken seriously by the people who most need to hear about it.

The CCC has a decade of experience undertaking research and are generally held in high esteem. We have, as some of you might already know, relied on the Copenhagen Consensus as a source in our own research, and we know from experience that they have produced useful reports highlighting neglected opportunities in the past.

They also seem to have some track record of influencing policy makers. Quoting Bjørn Lomborg’s book “How To Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place”:

Micronutrient delivery programs in Africa and elsewhere received significant attention and greater resources after they topped the Copenhagen Consensus list in 2008. The World Bank quoted Copenhagen Consensus research and findings in 2006 when it created its new strategy on combating malnutrition. In 2006, Copenhagen Consensus United Nations brought together 24 United Nations ambassadors, including the Chinese, Indian and American ambassadors, and set them the task of prioritizing limited resources along Copenhagen Consensus lines to improve efforts to mitigate the negative consequences of global challenges.

Although entirely plausible, we will of course try to independently verify those claims by speaking to policy-makers the CCC has been involved with.

Björn Lomborg’s fame seems to give the Centre the unique position to arrange meetings with highly influential people. Lomborg was selected as one of TIME magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 and was named as one of the 50 people who could save the planet by The Guardian.

Their track record of getting significant media attention for their findings is also quite good. An example is the collaboration with 

 on the importance of priority setting they had last year. Lomborg also publishes regular op-eds in major newspapers.

So far they have been able to provide a clear plan for the project and sensibly answer most of our questions. They are also keen to participate in our evaluation process and take our ideas seriously.

Unfortunately, the people we have spoken to do not know who or what is most influential in the UN decision-making process. A lot of interest groups will have some involvement. Currently the debate is centred on the ‘

’ dominated by Indonesia, Liberia and the UK, which has just released 

 making recommendations about the next set of MDGs - a report which cites the Copenhagen Consensus five times. We do not know whether these recommendations will have a lot of inertia, or whether the final goals will still be up for grabs next year. This will hopefully become apparent over the next few months.

Another worry is that, there will be many groups who will notice this opportunity and try to influence the next round of MDGs. For instance, the 

 was launched by Academics Stand Against Poverty with a similar intention - to promote the inclusion of a target for reducing illicit financial flows. As a result, the Copenhagen Consensus Centre could be ‘lost in the crowd’.

We also worry that the research budget is not sufficient to accurately determine which goals are the best to include. The Centre will be spending under $1m to assess dozens of possible targets over a period of months. The modelling required for this is obviously challenging. Even granting their ability to get leading experts to work for low wages because they regard it as important research, they run the risk of promoting unreliable cost-effectiveness figures. More realistically, the project will consult existing experts on what are generally regarded as the best buys in development. While far from perfect, we expect that advice to be a significant improvement on other competing messages.

Finally, there is little research on how much money the last set of MDGs shifted, and it is a very hard question to answer quantitatively. The impression of most in the development community is that they were very influential - perhaps more influential than they deserve to be. However, it could be that the MDGs were chosen because they were popular, rather than the goals being popular because they were included in the MDGs.

We will continue speaking with the CCC directly to see if their plan makes sense. This has the added bonus of potentially improving the project even if we don’t end up recommending them. We will continue looking into the competing interests in the post-MDG process and whether the CCC can realistically change votes. We are also speaking with researchers who have participated in previous rounds of their research and trying to talk to organisations they claim to have influenced in the past.

Any recommendation of the CCC will necessarily be much more speculative than our recommendation of the Against Malaria Foundation, or anything else we have suggested to date. This can best be illustrated with the following fermi-calculation:

globalAid * mdgInfluence * effect * (effectFactor - 1) * P(marginal effect) * 1/budget

 is the global aid spending of 2,300,000,000,000

 is the money the CCC will need in their lobbying effort.

 is how much of that aid spending the MDGs are likely to influence

 is how cost-effective the MDGs are likely to be on average.

 is how much more effective we think the CCC proposal is then effect.

|¬_lobbyingFunded_) is how much the probability of the CCC successfully changing the MDGs will increase on the margin if we help them fund the lobbying component of their budget (since the rest of their budget is already funded).

We can try and put in some shaky estimates in the equation.

 = 0.01. In other words: the MDGs influence 1% of global aid spending. Unfortunately not much research has been done on the influence of the last round of MDGs, so this number is just a shot in the dark. If anyone knows about any research, please contact us!

 = 0.001DALY/$. This seems fairly reasonable since many interventions in our experience are around the $1000 for a DALY range. AMF in comparison gives you 20 DALYs for your $1000.

 = 2. This also seems like a quite conservative estimate since different interventions can vary by up to a 100x in cost-effectiveness.

) = 0.00125. Let’s say that they are able to change 1 goal of 8 in total and that there is a 1% probability for them to so. This seems quite conservative since the MDG High-Level Panel has already cited the CCC in their report. But remember that we are not talking about the probability of them influencing the MDGs overall, but rather the increase in influence they will have if we fund their lobbying component. In that case 0.00125 is more of a shot in the dark. It is also unclear whether the first dollar in their lobbying budget will have the same marginal benefit as the last dollar. It seems likely that it will, since lobbying is a pretty scalable operation as long as there are more influential policy makers to influence. The CCC also assured us that every dollar in the budget will only be spent on influencing the most influential.

| 2,300,000,000,000* 0.01* 0.001* (2 - 1) * 0.00125 * 1/1,300,000 = 0.022 DALY/$. |

From this it seems like the CCC will get you at least as far as AMF with (what feel like) quite conservative estimates. But there is still a high degree of uncertainty.

Any recommendation of the CCC will necessarily be much more speculative than our recommendation of the Against Malaria Foundation, or anything else we have suggested to date. Unlike the others, it will not come with a suggested ‘dollars per DALY’ figure, because I don’t think picking such a number clarifies what the project offers to donors. However, to have big impacts you sometimes have go for projects with no guarantee of success, and some members embrace that.

Regardless of whether we promote this specific project, we also expect there to be other potential collaborations between Giving What We Can and the CCC in the future, given our shared interest in reducing poverty through better giving and government spending.

Interview with GiveWell: Should we be funding research?

 interviewed GiveWell co-founder Elie Hassenfeld (pictured right) on a range of issues suggested by volunteers and members of Giving What We Can. This is the first instalment, focussed on the issue of meta-charity - or research into which forms of charity are most effective.

An unabridged transcript of the interview is available 

RW: Do you think there’s any chance that giving to organisations that research which interventions and organisations are most cost-effective, such as GiveWell, but also other research outfits like the 

 and so on could have a greater impact with each dollar than the organisations that you actually recommend?

EH: It’s definitely possible, I think it’s an interesting question. 

 (IPA), one of the organisations you’ve listed in the past. Our view is that, the organisations that we rate most highly right now, Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), Give Directly and the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI), are all better bets than IPA. We’ve definitely thought a lot about funding research, we’ve talked about this in the context of this cause of meta-research.

We’ve talked about this part of GiveWell Labs that would be funding a group like the 

. We’ve also thought about funding randomised controlled trials (RCTs) themselves. There’s questions involved there; the research we found in our work is actually more the research done by the global health community. That would be groups that are performing the RCTs on malaria nets, water and nutrition trials. That’s work that we’ve found really helpful.

I do think it’s interesting that people ask us about funding research or meta charity, and they tend to focus on the groups that are more visible, the groups like IPA or Jameel Poverty Action Lab, and less the groups that I think have been most helpful to us, which is just the general global health research. The other group that’s been incredibly valuable to us is the work done by literature reviewers broadly and the Cochrane Collaboration specifically. That’s a group to which we directed what we call a quick grant about a year ago and we are interested in what they do and have been following that.

RW: So did you manage to find any organisations that were doing that basic health research, who you could potentially fund?

EH: My impression is that a lot of that research comes from broader academic departments. There are researchers at universities working in the World Health Organisation. This is the type of thing where the type of groups to which an individual donor can write a check and cause something to happen may be different than the opportunity for a larger funder to fund a specific project. And that distinction is one that is becoming particularly salient to us as we think about the move from our traditional focus on direct aid-providing organisations, to other areas where we almost want to be thinking more like a major philanthropist. And so I think that thinking how to fund RCTs or global health research will likely be done more in the vein of here is an RCT that we find particularly valuable, so we’re going to go and identify the funding to implement this RCT and then provide it all in one go, rather than giving more money to organisations to support RCTs more broadly. Obviously one can do that for IPA and then all of the questions you want to ask are the ones that we discussed in our review of IPA.

RW: Sure, so did you have much success finding out whether these kinds of meta-charities were having influence on [government or charity] spending. Was that something that was possible to identify?

EH: It’s tough. I mean, IPA is the one we’ve looked at the most and we have a whole page up on them, about our best assessment of the impact that their research they’ve done has had on the conversation. The studies that seem most impactful to us are studies on deworming, studies on free bednets, the studies they conducted on microfinance. That does have an influence. Without a doubt, other trials have had an influence. I don’t think this is the type of thing where it was easy to possible to perform a very direct and obvious case of the exact nature of the influence that they had.

RW: Have you found organisations receptive to getting that kind of tied grant to perform a particular RCT or a particular literature review. Is that something that donors like our members should be thinking about trying to pursue?

EH: I think it’s difficult to pursue on their own. So this is just my general impression and I can’t promise you that this is 100% correct, but my impression is that a great deal of individual RCTs are funded by donors who are reasonably restricted with their grants. So it’s possible for them to say ‘I want to fund a study on water in a particular area, with a particular technology’; so that would be very restrictive. I could also imagine a funder providing a great deal of money for many RCTs somewhat related to - let’s say - water. So I think that is incredibly common as a model for false plunders: providing money for research.

I think it’s not a thing that makes a lot of sense for individual donors to be trying to do on their own. Depending on the study, studies can cost half a million dollars. So if you’re a donor with five thousand dollars, you’re not able to make a study happen with just that money and if you really want to give to this, you need to look to someone who can aggregate up the funds. Now this is something we’ve thought about doing. I think, down the line, GiveWell will do this. Essentially provide the mechanism by which individuals who want to provide to a larger pool of money that goes to things that those individuals couldn’t otherwise afford, we’ll provide the vehicle for them to do that - not something that exists right now.

All that said, I just want to take a step back. I think there’s a lot of reasons that research could be among the best things. At this stage in time, you know, I haven’t found any research that is right now obviously competitive with AMF. I think it’s important for anyone who’s thinking about this to not just think about the conceptual case that research could be good, but to try as hard as they can to nail down the specific organisation or the specific research that they want to do, and think about how that would trade off against giving to the top performing organisations.

There are two additional thing to be aware of when it comes to research. One is when we look at studies, often what we find is something goes wrong that diminishes the amount of information that the study can convey. So recently, we’ve been looking at some clean water trials. And this is a page that we’re trying to publish shortly. So these are studies of water purification technology. Basically, giving some people a filter, don’t give some other people the filter, then measure what happens to the water quality, measure what happens to health outcomes. In some of these studies, what happened is that the control group water filter actually causes the water to purify to some extent and this diminishes the power of the study to communicate results. One challenge of conducting studies is that you can conduct them, but there may be some problem in their implementation that reduces the impact.

Another issue to be aware of is that a single RCT is not particularly informative. And the programs that have the strongest evidence have multiple RCTs behind them. For example, malaria has tens of RCTs showing impact of nets on malaria, and so to get to the point where one has this body of knowledge that enables them to have a strong view about the impact of a program requires more than just funding a single trial.

All of that said, this remains an area that we, GiveWell, are very interested in considering, and I think it’s something we’ll be doing in the next few months. If we find the areas where research might have the biggest impact, that’s something we’re definitely considering trying to provide funding for.

Diana Fleischman

Die young and live fast

A guest post on the flow-on effects of better health on individual behaviour and society as a whole, from 

Evolutionary Psychologist Diana Fleischman

 at the University of Portsmouth, who recently joined Giving What We Can.

Curing and preventing disease can alleviate suffering and increase quality of life in the developing world in the short term, but reducing the burden of infectious diseases promises even greater long term benefits to individuals and society than you might think.

 describes psychological and biological changes that prioritize the short term over long term when there are early cues of a harsh and unpredictable environment. Cues of volatility such as parental absence or poor nutrition caused by infectious disease and poverty can change the psychology of a whole society. Removing these cues might have a significant impact on wellbeing.

In evolutionary terms, the goal of every organism is to have as many of its genes in the next generations as possible. Every organism has a limited amount of energy to allocate to activities such as bodily maintenance, growth and mating, each of which can contribute to successful reproduction. There are a number of different strategies that might increase the likelihood of success. You can grow large, or you can get to sexual maturity as quickly as possible. You can put energy into healing injuries, or into finding partners to mate with. You can have few offspring and try to make them as healthy as possible, hoping that they will be more successful as a result, or you can have a large number of offspring and invest little in each one, hoping that at least some will survive. Those strategies that prioritize maturing and producing many offspring quickly, are called "fast life history" strategies.

The success of different strategies is going to depend on a number of factors. One of the most important is how long an organism has left to live, and a good cue of this factor is the mortality of those around you. Researchers have found that environments which are unstable may cue a fast life history. In other words, these cues indicate to the organism that it is best to follow a strategy of reproducing sooner rather than later, because they could die at any moment. A fast life history strategy involves earlier sexual maturation, earlier sexual intercourse, greater number and less investment in offspring. This is because in a volatile environment where people die due to random events, success becomes a matter of luck rather than skill, and so it makes sense to have lots of kids rather than invest heavily in just a few 'highly skilled' ones. Furthermore, the time available to reproduce and rear offspring is limited, so you have to hurry. There are other characteristics associated with a faster life history that I'll discuss in more detail later in this post.

It's important to note that changes in life history occur both over generations and an individual's lifetime. For instance, over time a species that is less often eaten by predators may evolve to reach sexual maturity later, or have larger and fewer offspring. Humans have had a long history of living in diverse environments, as well as having an extended developmental period. Thus we 1) have a long period in which cues about the difficulty of the environment can change our reproductive outcomes and 2) we may have evolved to be especially sensitive to these cues. Cues such as early stress, father absence and nutritional scarcity have been associated with faster sexual maturation, earlier sexual debut, greater number of sexual partners, greater number and less investment in offspring in a variety of species including humans.

Here are a few examples of environmental cues and changes that are relevant to reproduction:

 in early sexual maturation when adults die due to an infectious cancer.

In women, father absence and parental separation predict earlier age of reproduction, earlier onset of sexual activity

, earlier age of first period and shorter duration of marriage (controlling for economic factors and mother's behavior).

Father absence in boys predicts earlier puberty and earlier reproduction. Being breastfed for less than one month predicts earlier marriage and reproduction.

Girls from the developing world adopted into affluent Western families have an earlier age of first period than

Among hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers "

age at first period and age at first birth each occur about 1 year earlier for every 10% decline in child survivorship to age 15"

Some studies in the developed world have shown faster life history in those with 

. However, in the developing world fewer studies have been conducted on life history. One notable exception is a 

 showing that as pathogen stress (defined as presence of 7 different diseases or infections including malaria and leishmaniasis increased, father involvement (defined as father proximity to infant and father involvement in infancy and early childhood) decreased. In other words, fathers may be putting more time into having more offspring rather than investing in existing offspring when there are more pathogens in the environment. The same study found high levels of pathogen stress were associated with lower maternal care (e.g. mother proximity to sleeping infant) and earlier age at weaning.

Faster life history doesn't only influence reproductive characteristics but also influences personality and social characteristics. Monkeys exposed to variable feeding environments from infancy were less social and more timid than those exposed to 

more consistent and resource rich environments

. Fast life history has also been associated with steep discounting (the prioritization of current over future rewards), greater impulsivity and greater risk taking with regard to resources (see 

). Faster life history strategy has been associated with greater 

. These latter links are more tenuous but when faced the likelihood of a small time window it's smarter to take risks for immediate gains rather than playing a safer strategy. It's also smarter not to trust others who are likely adopting a similar strategy of taking greater risks.

Thus, reducing pathogen prevalence and disease burden may change cues of environmental harshness and unpredictability such as father presence, maternal investment, and age at weaning. Those developing in environments in which disease burden is reduced may change psychologically such that they reproduce later* and invest more in their children, engage in less risk taking and prioritize future over present rewards. This more patient and cautious approach to life, which will include fewer and better cared for children, obeying the law, and investing more in long term gains including cultivating skills and assets, could reasonably be expected to have an impact on economic productivity and people's incomes. However, it is hard to quantify how much given existing evidence.

In the next blog I'm going to review the 

 , the idea that parasite prevalence influences population characteristics such as proportion of personality types, religiosity, crime and ethnocentrism.

*One wrinkle in this is that women in the developing world may not be reproducing at rates consistent with a fast life history strategy because of inadequate nutrition. Some women in the developing world have been shown to ovulate less and 

have lower progesterone than women in developed countries

Yuan Yang

How to Present Statistics to Donors (Part I: Framing)

It doesn't only matter what you say, it matters how you say it. This is just as true when trying to persuade others to moral action. In this two-part series Yuan Yang will highlight the importance of conveying information persuasively when discussing moral issues. In her first post, you can read about how framing determines the moral content of your message, and why this matters for the DALYs per Dollar debate. Keep an eye out for Yuan's next post where she'll discuss representing statistics and the international Dollar vs real Dollar question.

To change the world, your words must be read and understood. Unfortunately, attention is a very limited resource - the attention of important decision-makers especially so. To make sure that our research on cost effectiveness is itself effective we need to write for our audience in the following ways:

Write a short executive summary that points out the decision-relevant findings for the target audience;

Include figures that highlight the large differences between different projects, and and which projects are the most important to pursue;

Get a visual designer to make your reports look professional and inviting to read

Potentially write different summaries for different groups: donors, charities, governments, the media, and so on;

Include clear but brief explanations of the key concepts, like DALYs.

A failure to do these things can cause good research to go unread and fail to contribute to a better world. 80% of your impact may come from a glossy executive summary, so it deserves a great deal of attention.

When we attempt to persuade others to moral action, the way we convey information matters - this we all know. However, moral persuasion is not just a matter of making information easy to understand, but also being aware of the 

When we write coherently, we cannot help but present our reader with a narrative, or what the professor of political communication, Jim Kuypers, calls a ‘frame’. "Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner. Frames operate in four key ways: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies. Frames are often found within a narrative account of an issue or event, and are generally the central organizing idea." (from Kuypers’ “Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action”.) Effective and ethically sound writing requires us to consciously choosing our frame and take responsibility for our rhetoric.

Let’s illustrate this with an example. Say you are showcasing three charities (A, B, and C working in the field of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs), and you have DALY cost-effectiveness data on each of them. You are trying to convey two messages at the same time: firstly, that charity A and B are incredibly cost-effective compared to C, so you should prioritise A and B over C (the “effectiveness” message); secondly, that A and B are so cost-effective for achieving moral ends, that you ought to consider giving money to them (the “ethical impact” message). How do you prioritise these messages, and how do you convey them using your data?

When you present cost-effectiveness data, your choice of how to frame your data reflects your prioritisation of these messages, which in turn reflects moral values that will be implicitly understood by the reader. Consider the following:

“Charity A’s intervention costs $200 per DALY. You can find a brief explanation of DALYs 

. However, Charity B costs $250, and Charity C costs $20,000.”

This dollar-per-DALY framing of the information concentrates the reader’s attention on the dollar cost of DALYs saved. The problem with doing so is that it works for the reader who is straightforwardly minimising their expenditure per DALY, and just needs to see the smallest figure to decide where to give money. Most readers outside of the Giving What We Can community are not doing this.

“For $1,000, Charity A can save 5 DALYs. In comparison, Charity B can save 4 DALYs - but Charity C only saves 0.05 of a DALY.”

This DALY-per-dollar framing concentrates the reader’s attention on what it is the charities are doing - saving lives. This framing appeals to a reader who, like all of us, have money they could use in a variety of ways, but did not consider or realise the impact they could have by spending money on this particular charity.

Your aim should be to leave the reader feeling more optimistic about their ability to affect the world around them, and empowered to make decisions with better information; not harangued or guilty. Thus framing the information in terms of maximising a positive thing - the effect one can have - rather than minimising a negative thing - the cost of doing good in the world - emphasises the power of action. The problem with emphasising the “effectiveness” message is that it is implicitly appealing to only one moral intuition - some form of consequentialism. One does not have to be a consequentialist to think critically about where one’s money goes and what it does. No effective campaign for charitable giving should turn away non-consequentialists.

The DALY-per-dollar framing also avoids another illusion. Imagine you are comparing between three different projects, one that achieves $1/DALY, a second that achieves $3/DALY and a third that achieves $7/DALY. When comparing projects in $/DALY it is natural to think that the difference in value between the second and third (apparently $4/DALY) is more important than the difference in value between the first and second (just $2/DALY). In fact the opposite is the case, as revealed by their respective values in DALY averted per $1000 spent: 1000, 333 and 143. The difference in the good done between the first two options is 3.5 times larger than the difference between the second and third! A DALY/$ measure understates the real-world importance of apparently ‘small’ differences in cost effectiveness among the best options.

Keep an eye out for Yuan's next post where she'll discuss representing statistics in graphs and whether it is better to use international dollars or real dollars as your metric. (Ed.)

Krisztina Csortea

What do you get when 30,000 people rally in London's Hyde Park?

If you're in London this weekend, don't miss the Big IF, the Enough Food If campaign's rally in Hyde Park on 8 June.

On the same day as the PM holds the International Hunger Summit, you can take part in the rally and demand action on hunger from the G8.

According to the organisers, the line-up will include effectiveness pin-up and 

 Bill Gates, the outspoken former head of the Church of England, Rowan Williams, and other celebrities from sport and TV.

) on the effectiveness of campaigning for increased aid - we're pretty uncertain of its value - but the Enough Food If campaign is also about governance issues: land, tax and transparency. It's an interesting example of hundreds of NGOs coming together on one campaign platform - last seen on this scale in the 

Blog

The Copenhagen Consensus: making a bet on catching a big fish

Interview with GiveWell: Should we be funding research?

Die young and live fast

How to Present Statistics to Donors (Part I: Framing)

What do you get when 30,000 people rally in London's Hyde Park?

How Giving Games can spread the word about smarter charity choices

Every. Last. Child.

Is it good to campaign for increased government aid to cost-effective interventions? Part 2

Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism

Living on $1.25 a day - what does that mean?