The GiveWell Blog

Debating philanthropy

Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen something that we see too rarely: a debate over philanthropy. Bill Schambra, at the invitation of the Hewlett Foundation (a funder of GiveWell), attacked the idea of “strategic philanthropy” presented in Money Well Spent (a book co-authored by Paul Brest, former Hewlett President). He characterized Money Well Spent…

Read More

We can’t (simply) buy capacity

Over the years, we’ve had many exchanges along these lines: Q: Why can’t you [research more charities / research more causes / put more effort into marketing and outreach?] A: We don’t have enough people; we’re already stretched thin with our current priorities. Q: What if you had enough money to hire more people? A:…

Read More

Passive vs. rational vs. quantified

We’re excited about the project of making giving more analytical, more intellectual, and overall more rational. At the same time, we have mixed feelings about the project of quantifying good accomplished: of converting the impacts of all gifts into “cost per life saved” or “cost per DALY” type figures that can then be directly compared…

Read More

Our take on “earning to give”

GiveWell exists to help people do as much good as possible with their financial giving. We’re interested in the related question of how to do as much good as possible with one’s talents and career choice, and so we’ve been interested in the debate that has sprung up around last month’s article by Dylan Matthews…

Read More

The moral case for giving doesn’t rely on questionable quantitative estimates

In light of Peter Singer’s TED talk and Dylan Matthews’s piece on “earning to give,” there’s been a fair amount of discussion recently of what one might call “Peter Singer’s challenge,” which I’d roughly summarize as follows: By giving $X to the right charity, you can save a human life. This fact has multiple surprising…

Read More