The short sellers of philanthropy?

By Razib Khan | December 3, 2009 1:04 am

For the past few months I’ve been following The Givewell Blog. Here’s a recent post, Why are we always criticizing charities?:

Recently, we’ve criticized (in one way or another) many well-known, presumably well-intentioned charities (Smile Train, Acumen Fund, UNICEF, Kiva), which might lead to some to ask: should GiveWell focus on the bad (which may discourage donors from giving) as opposed to the good (which would encourage them to give more)? Why so much negativity and not more optimism?
The fact is, we are very optimistic about what a donor can accomplish with their charity. Donor’s can have huge impact — save a life, improve equality of opportunity, or improve education. Our research process, and our main website, are (and always have been) built around identifying outstanding charities.
GiveWell hasn’t set a bar that no charity can meet. Six international charities have met and passed the bar. Where most charities fall short, they succeed.
The problem is: because the nonprofit sector is saturated with unsubstantiated claims of impact and cost-effectiveness, it’s easy to ignore me when I tell you (for example), “Give $1,000 to the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership, and you’ll likely save someone’s life (perhaps 2 or 3 lives).” It’s easy to respond, “You’re just a cheerleader” or “Why give there when Charity X makes an [illusory] promise of even better impact?”
We don’t report on Smile Train, Kiva, Acumen Fund, UNICEF, or any others for the sake of the criticism; we write about them to show you how much more you can accomplish with your gift if you’re willing to reconsider where you’re giving this year.
Unless you have strong reason to believe otherwise, I’d recommend you choose a great charity as opposed to one that’s merely better-than average. If you only have a fixed amount to give, why not support the very best?

My general stance is this: giving to charity has two ultimate outcomes. First, it often makes the donor feel good that they’ve done good. Second, it often does good. There’s a third issue which is frictional: it does good for employees in the non-profit sector. In the market economy there is a principal-agent problem, but there’s also the same issue among non-profits. Here’s a recent post on Smile Train which I found disheartening, because I’d thought “Smile Train” was one of the “good guys,” but it turns out that there’re not perfect. But if true it is good to know these things.
Here’s an article on the founders of GiveWell:

As hedge-fund analysts, Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld made six-figure incomes deciding which companies to invest in. Now they are doing the same thing with charities, for a lot less pay.
Mr. Karnofsky and Mr. Hassenfeld, both 26, are the founders and sole employees of GiveWell, which studies charities in particular fields and ranks them on their effectiveness. GiveWell is supported by a charity they created, the Clear Fund, which makes grants to charities they recommend in their research.

Short sellers have a bad reputation. But they’re probably necessary to keep the market honest.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Anthroplogy, Culture

Comments (2)

  1. dave

    The GiveWell dudes have a history of not being very honest.

  2. magetoo

    For the past few hours I’ve been following that Metafilter thread, and I’m still only about a third of the way through.
    There is also an article on their wiki about the debacle that might be useful.
    There is certainly material here for an interesting discussion on ethics…


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at


See More


RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar