Elitist Philanthropy

 

 

I love bandwagons! It appears the objective of making a difference in the world is not just, well, making a difference in someone’s life. Now it’s about making the greatest difference.

That’s right. Pah to those one-on-one coaching sessions with a kid trying to learn a sport, or mentoring an impoverished wheelchair user trying to find a job, or sponsoring the school fees of an ethnic minority girl. Fi to all those afternoons you’ve spent helping the sick or lonely in hospital or your monthly debit to that environmental group. You’re not making a difference—not an iota—because it’s not the greatest difference. It’s just a little difference.

​

Likely you haven’t asked what the expected utility gained is, per dollar spent, multiplied by the probability that something will be achieved. You’ve clearly not included human or time resources, let alone weighed factors like tractability, scale and x-risk . Uhm, you’re just not an effective altruist.

 

Making an Impact

 

William MacAskill, a philosophy lecturer at Oxford, and author of Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and a Radical New Way to Make a Difference, says we need empirical research—and lots of it!—in order to know where to plunk down our charitable donation (or time) in order to make a real impact. Otherwise it’s just wasted effort and money.

 

MacAskill is no slouch in the philanthropy sector. He founded two nonprofits—80,000 Hours and Giving What We Can—and has publicly pledged to give away most of his income over his lifetime. Our philosopher has an economist’s heart when he advocates for marginal value, utilitarianism and (er, some) ‘systemic change’ by supporting policy reform for international trade and immigration.

​

This makes MacAskill a rising star in the charity sector because he says (borrowing a 40-year-old argument) we have an ethical obligation to ensure our donations are used in the most effective way possible. Donate to your kid’s drama class or buy malaria nets? Well, MacAskill wants to know where the impact is. How many people did you actually save?

 

But sticking to number-crunching prerequisites in bang-for-your-buck development fails to link things like social relations, the inherently undemocratic nature in 'giving' and political access to the resources being handed out.

 

Without MacAskill’s measured criticism of capitalism and global inequality, what fails to be acknowledged are the structural oppressions of poverty, gender inequality, environmental degradation and corruption, and the institutions that prefer to keep it that way. We are merely maintaining capital’s status quo.

 

Micro vs. Macro

 

I agree you have to do your nonprofit homework beforehand, but I don’t think complex mathematical formulas are always required for helping people and yes, making a difference.

 

This column could be considered a few things, but maudlin it’s not. However, I like a good parable as much as the next person. I’ll paraphrase

​

A girl walks along a beach picking up starfish stranded on the sand and throws the creatures back into the tide. A woman approaches and asks, “What's the point? Do you really think that's going to help?" 

 

The girl picks up another starfish and as she tosses it back into the ocean replies, “Well, it makes a difference to this one!”

 

So my money’s on that same kid growing up and eventually identifying—and possibly preventing—the systemic reasons why the starfish were all washing up on the beach in the first place.

​

​

​

Photo: wallippo.com

​

This article originally appeared in Word Vietnam magazine and has been adapted. To view the magazine’s online version click here.

​