However – ironically, your best bet so that the poorest (living on <$2.15/day) have forever meals, seems to be giving them cash. What? Didn’t we just conclude that we don’t really help the beggar on the street if we give them a bit of money or a meal?

Cash transfers (e.g. 1x $1000 for a household) are one of the most thoroughly researched interventions for helping poor people. Over 300 studies show promising results. There is even a systematic review from Cochrane:

Unconditional cash transfers probably or may improve some health outcomes: the likelihood of having had any illness, the likelihood of having been food secure and the likelihood of attending school.

For many people, it’s the closest we have to an evidence-based intervention that creates systems to have “forever” meals. So it is for Mr Vitalik, who recommends GiveDirectly to support cash transfers.

https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1608838375922102279?s=20&t=HN7Xq0o3dO-tvuidA3-6pA

What’s the difference? Why do beggars don’t start businesses, even if they get $10,000? Maybe because they don’t get such a big chunk of money at once? Pure speculations here, but maybe also because they don’t live in an environment where 2 basic structures are set that motivate people to start businesses:

• In contrast to western beggars, more people who receive cash transfers may have a roof above their heads (not always waterproof though)
• In contrast to western beggars, more people who receive cash transfers may live with their family

But instead of my wild speculations – didn’t we have someone who analyses what’s rationally most impactful all day, every day? Yes, these people at GiveWell!

Why does GiveWell (the analysers) not include GiveDirectly (the doers) in their top 4 charities? GiveDirectly was listed by GiveWell as a top charity for quite a while. But then GiveWell started some beef with GiveDirectly in August 2022. They announced they will from now on only list top charities that are “10x as cost-effective as unconditional cash transfers”. GiveWell now evaluates against GiveDirectly 😀

Beeeeef incoming

GiveWell thinks GiveDirectly is not a top charity, because there are other charities where you get more impact per $1. They say that they may recommend GiveDirectly again in the future if they feel like considering the multiplier effect of cash (”your neighbour is happier too”).

Yes, ok, all this impact per $1 thought of train is somewhat valid. But we can’t establish functional systems with mosquito nets, malaria drugs, vitamin A supplements and childhood vaccines. We only prevent the worst: Don’t be sick and die.

It’s the best evidence we have for now if we want to make people have “forever” meals. So let’s promote it among people who feel financially pretty secure. Then more people become involved. Then we can gain more insights. And adapt our actions.