Visualizzazione post con etichetta filantropia razionale. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta filantropia razionale. Mostra tutti i post

giovedì 20 settembre 2018

CHI E’ JASON TRIGG?

CHI E’ JASON TRIGG?
Lavora in borsa.
Lavora in borsa e gestisce un hedge fund.
Lavora in borsa, gestisce un hedge fund e guadagna bene. Molto bene.
Fin qui la sua è una storia banale: di nuovi ricchi che hanno fatto soldi in borsa è pieno il mondo, e soprattutto ne è piena l’ America.
Ma la sua storia non finisce qui: Jason Trigg ha deciso di mantenere lo stile di vita che aveva da studente (vive in una stanzetta presa in affitto, consuma pasti al fast food o nei baretti, possiede solo un motorino, viaggia con i mezzi, fa vacanze brevi e vicine…) per donare tutto il sovrappiù del suo pingue compenso ad associazioni attive nel terzo mondo di cui si fida e acui chiede resoconti dettagliati.
Il suo pensiero è all’incirca questo: se avessi realizzato la mia vocazione in modo tradizionale forse a quest’ora sarei in Africa a spazzare i corridoi di qualche scuola periferica e malconcia destinata a chiudere. Scegliendo questa via alternativa, invece, ho già aperto 10 scuole con un corpo docente di eccellenza e metodi all’avanguardia.
Personalmente, ho qualche riserva su quel movimento che va sotto il nome di “effective altruism” ma dopo aver ascoltato la storia di Jason Trigg per lo meno vi potete fare una vaga idea di cosa si parla.
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
Some people join the Peace Corps to do good. But a few have concluded that joining hedge funds is a better way to save the world.

lunedì 10 luglio 2017

Come scegliersi la ONLUS

Come scegliersi la ONLUS

OVERHEAD COSTS, CEO PAY AND OTHER CONFUSIONS Which charities make the most difference? – Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and a Radical New Way to Make a Difference by William MacAskill
***
Problema: hai 100 euro da donare. A chi dai? Come fai la differenza?  Come scegli la tua ONLUS??
***
Books for Africa (BFA). BFA’s mission is to improve education by shipping donated books from the USA to the African continent where they are distributed by non-profit partners. Founded in 1988, it has shipped over 28 million books to forty-nine different countries. On its website, the problem and its solution are vividly described: Most African children who attend school have never owned a book of their own. In many classrooms, 10–20 students share one textbook… Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan has personally endorsed BFA, saying, ‘Books for Africa is a simple idea, but its impact is transformative. For us, literacy is quite simply the bridge from misery to hope.’
Note:PRIMA ONLUS CANDIDATA: EDUCATION. LIBRI.
Development Media International (DMI). Its focus is on preventing deaths of African children under five. It aims to do this by designing and broadcasting radio and TV programmes that provide health education… In the charity’s words: 6.3 million children worldwide die under the age of five every year. In 2013 one in 11 children in sub-Saharan Africa died before their fifth birthday … Many people cannot recognise when their child has a potentially dangerous illness,… DMI currently operates in Burkina Faso, and has plans to run similar programmes in DR Congo, Mozambique and Cameroon….
Note:SECONDA ONLUS: EDUCAZIONE SANITARIA
GiveDirectly. Its programme is simple: it transfers money from donors directly to some of the poorest people in Kenya and Uganda who are then free to use that money however they wish… In their words: Recipients use transfers for whatever is most important to them; we never tell them what to do. An independent evaluation of our work in Kenya by Innovations for Poverty Action found that recipients use transfers for a wide variety of purposes that on average generate large income gains….
Note:TERZA ONLUS: CASH TRANSFER
According to Charity Navigator, ‘Savvy donors know that the financial health of a charity is a strong indicator of the charity’s programmatic performance. They know that in most cause areas, the most efficient charities spend 75% or more of their budget on their programmes and services and less than 25% on fundraising and administrative fees.’
Note:COSTI AMMINISTRATIVI
Books for Africa’s overhead costs are a tiny 0.8% of their total expenditure (which was $24 million in 2013), and their CEO is paid $116,204, which is only 0.47% of that total expenditure. For these reasons, and for their general financial transparency, Charity Navigator has given BFA its highest four-star rating for seven years running.
Note:BOOK FOR AFRICA
GiveDirectly isn’t rated by Charity Navigator, but would also do well by these metrics. So far, of every $1 that’s been donated to GiveDirectly, between 87¢ (in Uganda) and 90¢ (in Kenya) has been transferred to the poor, with the rest spent on enrolment, follow-up and transfer costs.
Note:GIVEDIRECTLY
In contrast, Development Media International’s overheads amount to 44% of its total budget, and there is little financial information on its website. Charity Navigator only evaluates US-based charities, so it does not evaluate DMI, which is based in the UK. However, DMI clearly performs much worse than the two other charities according to Charity Navigator’s metrics.
Note:DMI
think about the logic behind this reasoning if you apply it to personal spending. Suppose you’re deciding whether to buy a Mac or a PC. What factors would you consider? You’d probably think about the design and usability of the two computers, the hardware, the software, and the price. You certainly wouldn’t think about how much Apple and Microsoft each spend on administration.. If we don’t care about financial information when we buy products for ourselves, why should we care about financial information when we buy products for other people?
Note:LACUNE DELL’APPROCCIO
The first thing to explore is whether there’s high-quality evidence regarding the impact of the programme that the charity implements.
Note:LA PRIMA COSA DA FARE
Given the dearth of instructional materials in schools in Sub-Saharan Africa, it might seem obvious that distributing textbooks will be beneficial to the students that receive them. But, surprisingly, there’s little good evidence in favour of this idea, and some evidence against. Development economists have tested the effect of increasing the number of textbooks in schools in Africa (remember Kremer and Glennerster?) and have found that, in the absence of teacher training, providing textbooks has either no discernible effect
IL BENEFICIO DI UN LIBRO. SCARSA EVIDENZA
What does this charity do?… How cost-effective is each programme area?… How robust is the evidence behind each programme?… How well is each programme implemented?… Does the charity need additional funds?… Does the charity need additional funds?
Note:5 CRITERI PER GIUDICARE
1. What does this charity do?
This might seem like an obvious question, but often what most people think a charity does is quite different from what it actually does. For example I was surprised to find out that many developed-world medical charities spend only a small fraction of their money on research, with the rest spent on other programmes, even though research is what they emphasise in their marketing and websites.
Note:NON COSÌ OVVIO
2. How cost-effective is each programme area?
We want to estimate what a charity achieves with a given amount of money, so our focus should always be on cost-effectiveness rather than just effectiveness.
Note:COSA FANNO CON UN EURO?
The estimated cost-effectiveness of GiveDirectly’s programmes is very impressive, but the estimated cost-effectiveness of DMI’s programme is even more so. There’s a lot of health knowledge that we have without even realising it. For example we all know that we should wash our hands regularly: it’s a lesson that’s drilled into us from childhood. Moreover, we know to use soap and that just because our hands look clean that doesn’t mean they are clean. In many poor countries, however, people have never been told this, or they regard soap as a precious commodity and are therefore reluctant to use it for hand washing. This can have severe consequences. Diarrhoea is a major problem in the developing world, killing 760,000 children every year, primarily through dehydration. (For comparison, that’s a death toll equivalent to five jumbo jets crashing to the ground every day, killing everyone on board.)
Note:GD VS DIM
3. How robust is the evidence behind each programme?
Often we should prefer a charity that has very good evidence of being fairly cost-effective to a charity that has only weak evidence of being very cost-effective: if the evidence behind an estimate is weak, it’s likely that the estimate is optimistic, and the true cost-effectiveness is much lower. For example, the evidence behind claims made on charities’ websites or marketing materials is often very shaky, and sometimes potentially misleading.
Note:EVIDENZA CROBUSTA DI UN BENE MINIMO E EVIDENZA SUPERFICIALE DI UN GRANDE BENE
Claims of a programme’s effectiveness are more reliable when grounded in academic studies. If there’s been a ‘meta-analysis’ – a study of the studies – that’s even better… it’s even better if the charity has done its own independently audited or peer-reviewed randomised controlled evaluation of its programmes….
Note:METASTUDI E RT
One of the most damning examples of low-quality evidence concerns microcredit (that is, lending small amounts of money to the very poor, a form of microfinance). Intuitively, microcredit seems like it would be very cost-effective, and there were many anecdotes of people who’d received microloans and used them to start businesses that, in turn, helped them escape poverty. But when high-quality studies were conducted, microcredit programmes were shown to have little or no effect on income, consumption, health, or education.
Note:MICROCREDITO
With these warnings at the top of our minds, how should we compare GiveDirectly and DMI? Here, GiveDirectly clearly has the edge. Cash transfers are one of the most well-studied development programmes, having been shown to improve lives in many different countries around the world… Finally, the independent development think-tank Innovations for Poverty Action has run a randomised controlled trial on GiveDirectly, so we can be confident not just about the efficacy of cash transfers in general, but also about cash transfers as implemented by GiveDirectly….
Note:GD VS DIM
Because transferring cash is such a simple idea, and because the evidence in favour of cash transfers is so robust, we could think of them as the ‘index fund’ of giving. Money invested in an index fund grows (or shrinks) at the same rate as the stock market; investing in an index fund is the lowest-fee way to invest in stocks and shares.
Note:INDEX FUND
In the case of mass-media education, we do have a plausible explanation for why it could be more effective than cash transfers: mass-media health education isn’t something individuals can buy, and even if they could, they probably wouldn’t know just how valuable it is. Markets alone cannot provide mass-media health education, so it needs to be funded and implemented by governments or non-profits. However, the mere fact we have a plausible explanation for how mass-media education could be more cost-effective than cash transfers doesn’t show that it is more cost-effective. When we look at the evidence for supporting mass-media education, we find it’s weaker than the evidence for cash transfers.
Note:PROBLEMI DI DIM
The fact that the evidence for the $10/QALY figure is weaker than the evidence for GiveDirectly’s cost-effectiveness estimates provides a reason for preferring GiveDirectly to DMI.
Note:VERDETTO
4. How well is each programme implemented?
Even if a charity has chosen an extremely cost-effective programme with very robust evidence supporting it, it still might implement that programme badly. For example distribution of antimalarial bed nets is an extremely cost-effective programme if implemented correctly, but if recipients of the bed nets don’t believe they’re necessary or don’t believe they’re effective, they may use them for other purposes.
Note:PERICOLO
Both GiveDirectly and DMI seem excellent in terms of the quality of their implementation.
Note:AGD VS DIM
5. Does the charity need additional funds?
Even after finding a charity that works on an extremely cost-effective programme with robust evidence behind it, we still need to ask whether our contribution will make a difference. Many effective programmes are fully funded precisely because they are so effective.
Note:FULLY FUNDED
For example developing-world governments usually fund the costs of vaccination programmes for the cheapest vaccines such as those for tuberculosis, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and measles, providing these vaccines through existing health systems.
Note:ESEMPIO VACCINI
If a charity has recently received a windfall, it might not be able to use additional donations effectively. This may have been true of the Against Malaria Foundation in 2013: GiveWell had named it its top-recommended organisation in 2012, and it received a surge in donations totalling $10 million.
Note:ALLUVIONE DEI FONDI
Both GiveDirectly and DMI are in a good position to use more funding, but GiveDirectly could do more with additional funds than DMI could. GiveDirectly could productively use an additional $25–$30 million of donations in 2015 and expects to receive about $10 million, whereas DMI could productively use $10 million in 2015 and expects to receive $2–4 million.
Note:GD VS DIM
As you may have guessed, I deliberately chose these two charities because the answer is unclear. Of the considerations we’ve canvassed, the most important issues are estimated cost-effectiveness versus robustness of evidence. The estimated cost-effectiveness of DMI is higher than that of GiveDirectly, but the evidence behind that estimate is weaker than the evidence behind the estimate of GiveDirectly’s cost-effectiveness. Which charity one chooses depends crucially on how sceptical one should be of explicit cost-effectiveness estimates, and that depends on your level of optimism or pessimism about this programme.
Note:CONCLUSIONI GD VS DIM
you’ll notice that most of the charities I discuss implement health-based programmes in poor countries… But what about education, or water provision, or economic empowerment? These are all promising areas, but global health stands out for a couple of reasons. First, it has a proven track record: smallpox eradication is the clearest example… In contrast, the link between aid and economic growth is less clear. Second, by its nature the evidence behind health interventions is more robust….
Note:MEGLIO LA SANITÀ

mercoledì 12 agosto 2015

I più buoni

http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=258&Itemid=27

martedì 28 gennaio 2014

Metacharities

New website contents | Meteuphoric: "Rob and Federico of GWWC have made a nice summary of metacharities, which might be useful to those of you interested in cause prioritization as a cause. For future reference, I’ve put in my online collection of useful things (just for useful things which need help with their web presence)."



'via Blog this'

venerdì 7 giugno 2013

Generosi con la testa o generosi con Bergoglio?

… mangia tutto… pulisci bene il piatto… che altrimenti i bambini poveri che non hanno nemmeno quello piangono…
Potrebbe dirlo mia nonna come Papa Francesco, anacoluto compreso. E compresa anche l’ assenza di alate metafore.
La semplicità del nostro nuovo “Papa-bungiorno/buonasera” è disarmante e non sembra affatto uno stratagemma per parlare alle masse.
Se dice “povero” intende povero, non lo si puo’ equivocare.
from the series: Urban Cave
Ieri al “gruppetto” ciellino dovevamo leggere e commentare il discorso tenuto dal Santo Padre in occasione della veglia pentecostale con i movimenti, le comunità, le associazioni e le aggregazioni laicali.
Si partiva da una domanda precisa rivolta a Bergoglio:
… vorrei chiederle, Padre Santo, come io e tutti noi possiamo vivere una Chiesa povera e per i poveri. In che modo l’uomo sofferente è una domanda per la nostra fede? Noi tutti, come movimenti, associazioni quale contributo concreto ed efficace possiamo dare…
Nella sua risposta il Papa lanciava un monito:
… in questo siate furbi, perché il diavolo ci inganna, perché nell’ aiutare i poveri c’è il pericolo dell’efficientismo.Una cosa è predicare Gesù, un’altra cosa è l’efficacia, essere efficienti… non pensate d un’ efficacia soltanto mondana…
Ma rinunciare all’ efficienza non è poi così facile visto che ci viene chiesto in questo modo di sacrificare materialmente delle vite umane.
E scusate la franchezza, scusate cioè se evito ogni forma di ipocrisia, ma è proprio Papa Francesco, nella sua recente predica a Santa Marta, ad esortarci verso questo linguaggio schietto.
Il Papa, proprio come mia nonna, non sembra molto sensibile alla “vita statistica” dei poveri, per lui conta soprattutto il povero in carne ed ossa che puoi guardare negli occhi.
Eppure la vita statistica del povero che sacrifichiamo vale quanto la vita del povero che ci sta di fronte, è solo un po’ più lontana.
In altri termini, la vita di un uomo lontano (nel tempo e/o nello spazio) vale quanto quella di un uomo vicino.
O no?
from the series: Urban Cave
Ma vediamo in cosa consiste cio’ che siamo invitati ad evitare, ovvero l’ “aiuto efficiente”.
Come essere generosi usando la testa?
La ricetta è lunga e sorprendente, ecco i primi tre punti da mandare a memoria:
1. Affidarsi a professionisti.
Il motivo è semplice: un professionista fa meglio di un dilettante.
Chi lavora in banca faccia allora gli straordinari nel lavoro in cui è un professionista e doni l’ equivalente a professionisti che interverranno poi sul campo.
Vi sembra che Papa Francesco possa rinunciare al volontariato? No, non puo’ farlo e pur di non rinunciarvi è disposto a sacrificare delle vite umane, purché siano vite lontane e di cui non sappiamo nulla.
Ora ha più senso il suo: “guardatevi dall’ efficienza”.
2. Rimandare l’ aiuto.
Hai un dono da fare? Non farlo ora, rimanda. Rimanda il più possibile. Rimanda alla tua morte o, se la contrattualistica vigente lo permette e lo rende sicuro, anche dopo. Ora monetizza il tuo dono e investilo in un fondo a interesse composto da liquidarsi il più tardi possibile in favore dei beneficiari da te designati.
Se doni 100 euro oggi, salverai una famiglia povera. Magari il tuo dono genererà altra ricchezza per cui, a conti fatti, il tuo dono effettivo sarà di 100 più la ricchezza generata successivamente grazie all’ impiego di quella somma. Esiste un modo abbastanza sicuro per calcolare la ricchezza generata dal tuo dono: guardare agli incrementi di PIL del paese in cui hai donato. Nel nostro caso se si sbaglia si sbaglia per eccesso.
In alternativa, puoi depositare 100 euro in un fondo vincolato a interesse composto. In questo caso donerai più tardi i tuoi 100 euro ma ad essi si assommeranno gli interessi maturati.
E la differenza qual è?
Bè, ammesso che le famiglie bisognose non manchino neanche in futuro, i 100 euro donati oggi valgono i 100 euro donati domani: una famiglia bisognosa oggi non vale più di una famiglia bisognosa che vivrà in un futuro indeterminato. Per scegliere razionalmente dobbiamo concentrarci allora sulla differenza tra tasso di crescita del PIL e tasso d’ interesse.
Ebbene, da 3.000 anni il tasso reale d’ interesse a medio/lungo termine è sempre stato più elevato del tasso di crescita del PIL. Una tendenza stabile che non sembra proprio attenuarsi.
Benjamin Franklin ha fatto sue queste elementari osservazioni ma Papa Francesco puo’ accettare forse di sacrificare una famiglia oggi in favore di dieci famiglie che vivranno in un futuro indeterminato? Certamente no, sacrificherà le seconde.
Ora ha ancora più senso il suo: “guardatevi dall’ efficientismo”.
3) Concentrati su una sola causa.
Il motivo? se ritieni che una “causa” sia più importante delle altre, perché dedicarsi a quelle che tu stesso hai battezzato come meno urgenti sottraendo così energie laddove sono più preziose? Non c’ è ragione di farlo, a meno che il tuo intervento nella causa principale si riveli risolutivo, del che è lecito dubitare.
Se n’ era già discusso: link.
Ma come potrebbe Papa Francesco disinteressarsi,per esempio, del povero che incontra per strada o che gli bussa alla porta al solo fine di concentrarsi su un’ unica causa?
Ora mi sembra proprio che il suo “guardatevi dall’ efficientismo” puo’ essere compreso e abbracciato davvero da tutti, anche dall’ ateo più corazzato.
from the series: Urban Cave
Ma perché la rinuncia all’ efficientismo non puo' certo dirsi una prerogativa del Papa?
Forse nessuno usa la testa in questi affari. Non solo, troviamo riprovevole farlo.
Potrebbe essere un sintomo che non siamo veramente interessati alla causa.
Forse qualcuno pensa che le “buone intenzioni” siano sufficienti, sul resto non vale la pena di perderci troppo tempo.
Forse agiamo sotto la pressione sociale, cosicché ci interessa rendere visibile il nostro gesto più che renderlo efficace: è uno dei motivi per cui durante la messa si passa con i cestini a raccogliere le offerte quando la Chiesa è già disseminata di cassette per le offerte.
Oppure il nostro obiettivo recondito non è “aiutare gli altri” ma fare qualcosa per noi stessi o per la madre Chiesa. Lo abbiamo già visto sondando il mistero del volontariato.

L’ ateo scelga per sé la ragione che crede, noi cristiani scegliamo senz’ altro l’ ultima: l’ annuncio della parola ai poveri viene prima dell’ aiuto che ad essi è dovuto e vale la vita statistica di molti di loro:
… Noi non siamo una ONG, e quando la Chiesa diventa una ONG perde il sale…
Ricordiamoci però delle vite sacrificate in nome dell’ evangelizzazione, che è poi la premessa alla “vita vera”. Ricordiamoci di quelle anime (statistiche) nelle nostre preghiere e consideriamole alla stregua delle anime dei martiri cistiani.
from the series: Urban Cave
P.S. le foto ritraggono scene di vita dei barboni americani.