background preloader

Global Poverty Project

Global Poverty Project
Related:  Effective Altruism

Global Poverty Project Vision[edit] The Global Poverty Project’s vision is a world without extreme poverty, within a generation. To reach this end the Project utilises the power of education, communications, advocacy, campaigning and the media to try and advance the movement to end extreme poverty. They focus on building a global movement for change: mobilising people to make a difference now, and changing the systems and policies that keep people in poverty.[7] They do this in two ways: • Campaigning for government, business and consumer action that will create important systemic change for the world’s extreme poor,[8] and • Building a movement that engages and educates people, and supports them to take simple but effective individual actions for change.[9] History[edit] Since launching in 2008 the Project has: • Developed 1.4 Billion Reasons – a multimedia presentation that explains the issues that contribute to extreme poverty, and what everyday people can do about them,[10] Activities[edit] The End of Polio[edit]

Poverty The threshold at which absolute poverty is defined is considered to be about the same, independent of the person's permanent location or era. On the other hand, relative poverty occurs when a person who lives in a given country does not enjoy a certain minimum level of "living standards" as compared to the rest of the population of that country. Therefore, the threshold at which relative poverty is defined varies from country to another, or from one society to another.[2] Providing basic needs can be restricted by constraints on government's ability to deliver services, such as corruption, tax avoidance, debt and loan conditionalities and by the brain drain of health care and educational professionals. Poverty reduction is still a major issue (or a target) for many international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. Global prevalence[edit] A poor boy sitting in the streets of Mumbai. A woman begging in an unknown location. Etymology[edit] Measuring poverty[edit]

Famine, Affluence, and Morality "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an essay written by Peter Singer in 1971 and published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1972. It argues that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western cultures. The essay was inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh Liberation War refugees, and uses their situation as an example, although Singer's argument is general in scope. The essay is anthologized widely as an example of Western ethical thinking.[1][2][3][4][5] Précis[edit] One of the core arguments of this essay is that, if one can use one's wealth to reduce suffering — for example, by aiding famine-relief efforts — without any significant reduction in the well-being of oneself or others, it is immoral not to do so. It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. [...] Quotations[edit]

The Promise of Effective Altruism The effective altruism movement has the potential to create an aspirational anchor, which may change giving practices over time. SSIR x Bridgespan: Giving That Gets Results Giving That Gets Results is an eight-week series of voices from the vanguard of giving. Philanthropists and foundation executives share how they are adapting their strategies, aiming for results, and measuring their impact to learn and improve. The contemporary effective altruism movement seeks to transform philanthropy in two ways: 1) by directing philanthropy to the most important objectives, and 2) by ensuring that philanthropic dollars are spent as effectively as possible. The father of effective altruism is the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that people should give away everything that they don’t spend on necessities to help the world’s neediest. While few people are likely to radically restructure their entire budgets, many of us have an explicit or tacit budget for charity.

The Rise of the Singerians Dylan Matthews, a dyed-in-the-wool utilitarian, describes a small coterie of young professionals who’ve chosen to take highly remunerative jobs in order to donate large sums of money to charities that aim to alleviate poverty and suffering among the world’s poorest, inspired by Peter Singer’s argument that middle-income and more affluent individuals in developed countries ought to do just that: It’s hard to imagine a 25-year-old Peter Singer envisioning that an article he published in Philosophy and Public Affairs would push people like Jason Trigg into the financial sector. But the 66-year-old Singer of today welcomes the result. The article is excellent, and it has already prompted a number of telling reactions. I’m a fan of some of the organizations, like GiveDirectly and GiveWell, that are loosely part of this movement toward ethical, high-impact giving, with few or no requirements for the individual recipients of aid.

World Giving Index Map of the 2010 World Giving Index. The larger the circle, the higher their rank in the WGI. The World Giving Index (WGI) was compiled by the Charities Aid Foundation, using data gathered by Gallup, and ranks 153 countries in the World according to how charitable their populations are. The Charities Aid Foundation claims that WGI is the largest study ever carried out into charitable behaviour across the globe.[1] The first edition was released in September 2010 with New Zealand, Australia and Ireland emerging as the three most charitable nations. The survey found that across the globe happiness was seen as a greater influence on giving money than wealth. Methodology[edit] The WGI is based on data from Gallup's WorldView World Poll which is an ongoing research project carried out in 153 countries that together represent 95% of the world's population. Respondents were over 15 years old and samples were probability-based. donated money to an organisation? Response to the results (2010)[edit]

Earning to give History[edit] The name "earning to give" appears to have been proposed by Tomasik in a mailing list discussion in response to a blog post by Jeff Kaufman asking for a good name for the idea to replace "professional philanthropy" -- the name originally used by 80,000 Hours.[5][7] Considerations[edit] Earning potential and replacability[edit] A stylized argument in favor of earning to give considers two options:[1][2][3][8] Work at a nonprofit for $30,000 a year to directly have positive social impact, orWork in finance to earn $100,000 a year, keep $40,000 for personal expenses, and donate the remaining $60,000 to the most efficient charity you are aware of.[3] Proponents of earning to give argue that the second option would allow the nonprofit to hire two people instead of just getting the services of one person, or make other effective expenditures. Another consideration is replacability in the non-profit job one is looking at. The perspective of comparative advantage[edit] Discussion[edit]

Does donation matching work? In the effective altruism community, donationmatches are becomingverypopular. Some matchers have gone as far as tripling or even quadrupling each dollar donated, not just doubling. But I started to wonder if the matching multiple—or even matching at all—has any impact on the money you raise. In this post, I’ll take a look at some of the academic literature on donation matching to see whether such matches are justified. Thanks to Anders Huitfeldt and Elizabeth Santorella for looking over this review before publication. Note: this got fairly long. Background and terminology Like most research questions, it’s not totally clear what we actually want to measure. The thing we ultimately care about is probably average revenue, the average amount of money you receive (not counting the match) per person you ask for donations. Average revenue is the most important number for a given campaign, because it’s directly related to the amount of money you raise. Research methodology Literature search Priors

Saving with frugality Frugal living: saving without sacrifice TL;DR version: I’m frugal because I want to give more to charity. Even if you don’t share my goal, I’d like to share advice that can help you achieve more of what you’d like. Download the PDF or read: Frugality is a word that may have several meanings. Benefits of being frugal: More money left over for things you really care aboutLess things to transport when moving (time and money costs)Less things to store when living (maintenance costs)Less things to worry about (psychological costs)Less environmental impactIf you choose to eat less, you’ll stay healthier and live longer (see caloric restriction)What follows is a list of numerous ideas and techniques. Psychological Principles:

World distribution of wealth World distribution of wealth, GDP, and population by region in the year 2000 World distribution of wealth is the statistical data that describes how wealth is distributed around the world. The guideline for categorizing the data is to organize it based on the continent on which the people with wealth reside. Data organization[edit] Sometimes the data is organized by household wealth. World distribution of wealth[edit] Data for the following tables is obtained from The UN-WIDER World Distribution of Household Wealth Report.[1] North America 2006[edit] Central and South America[edit] Distribution of Wealth of Central and South American in the Year 2000 Europe[edit] Distribution of Wealth in Europe in the Year 2000 Africa[edit] Distribution of Wealth of Africa in the Year 2000 Middle East[edit] Distribution of Wealth of the Middle East in the Year 2000 (Includes Israel) Asia[edit] Distribution of Wealth of Asia in the Year 2000 Other[edit] Net worth per capita[edit] References[edit] See also[edit]

Distribution of wealth World Distribution of Wealth and Population in the Year 2000 The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It differs from the distribution of income in that it looks at the distribution of ownership of the assets in a society, rather than the current income of members of that society. Definition of wealth[edit] Wealth is a person's net worth, expressed as: The word "wealth" is often confused with "income". change of wealth = income − expense. A common mistake made by people embarking on a research project to determine the distribution of wealth is to use statistical data of income to describe the distribution of wealth. If an individual has a large income but also large expenses, her or his wealth could be small or even negative. The United Nations definition of inclusive wealth is a monetary measure which includes the sum of natural, human and physical assets.[2][3] Statistical distributions[edit] Charity[edit] Wealth surveys[edit]

Join Wall Street. Save the world. - The Washington Post This is Jason Trigg, a programmer who went to work for a hedge fund because he figures it's where he can earn the most - and thus give the most away. (Photo by Gretchen Ertl/For The Washington Post) Jason Trigg went into finance because he is after money — as much as he can earn. The 25-year-old certainly had other career options. An MIT computer science graduate, he could be writing software for the next tech giant. Instead, he goes to work each morning for a high-frequency trading firm. Why this compulsion? He’s figured out just how to take measure of his contribution. In another generation, giving something back might have more commonly led to a missionary stint digging wells in Kenya. "A lot of people, they want to make a difference and end up in the Peace Corps and in the developing world without running water," Trigg says, "and I can donate some of my time in the office and make more of a difference." In many ways, his life still resembles that of a graduate student.

Home - Aidwatch - We need your help to continue our work as an independent monitor of Australia's aid and trade.