Excellent replies in this thread: thanks.
The OP contends that EA is awesome and we should all genuflect. Support for that contention is mixed. Stanislaus is correct that you can define it in many ways and that approaches include the philosophical, sociological, and institutional. Here’s one perspective on the pro-side.
Say you set aside a share of your income every year for charity and you have at least vaguely utilitarian inclinations. That second assumption is key: there are lots of reasons to give to charity and getting the most bang for the buck is only one consideration. We’ve debated utilitarianism on this board, and the general thinking is that it doesn’t survive strict philosophical scrutiny as a moral system (similar to all known moral systems). More narrowly, if you want to donate to the local ballet, knock yourself out. Nobody is stopping you.
Here comes the trolley
But if you have some utilitarian inclinations then utilitarian reasoning and utilitarian thought experiments will be helpful, though not necessarily decisive. And that leads you to EA. What criteria could you use?
The first screen would involve looking at administrative expenses: a number of institutions were set up during the 1980s and 1990s to do this. A very broad collection of IRS reports are available at Charity Navigator. A smaller set of high profile organizations are profiled by Charity Watch, a venerable Chicago organization known as the pit bull of charity evaluation organizations. Let’s look up St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. They receive an C. Huh: for years they received an F because their assets divided by their spending was about 12. Now it’s down to 3.7. This is progress, though I don’t know the details. Looking strictly at program costs, they receive a B. Their top 3 executives all earn more than $1 million annually. They list 14 cancer organizations that earn an A or A- and 11 organizations of B or higher whose top executives each receive less than $600,000 salary. Hey, it’s your money.
Utilitarians don’t like suffering, the poor suffer, and poverty is worse in the third world. So greater good can be obtained sending funds to a well run developmental organization. The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, Save the Children (ranked A- by Charity Watch), and United States Fund for UNICEF (ranked A, by Charity Watch) all do program evaluation (or so I assume - I haven’t verified). (There are also scammy organizations that receive an F.)
But a utilitarian will to go further and will want to send funds where benefits are maximized, as opposed to crossing some plausible threshold. That will depend upon what the charity is doing, but also on how crowded that part of the donor space is. Because for any project there are economies of scale. They may increase when you’re setting up the project, but eventually diminishing returns set in.
Visit various 501c(3)'s and each will tell you how great they are and how huge the need is. What they typically don’t do is explain why giving to them is superior to giving to anyone else. Charity Watch can help you to some extent with that, but honestly I’m not clear whether the difference between an A and A- is especially important. So I appreciate the analysis of EA organizations who study and uncover causes like malaria nets, vitamin A (now) and iodine (earlier) supplements, cash incentives for child vaccines, and -controversially- handing out cash to the poor. Since I have utilitarian inclinations, I care about what will produce the biggest bang for my donor buck, though that isn’t my only consideration. It doesn’t have to be.
I also like the idea of encouraging innovation and evidence based practice. Accion International was very good at that during the 1970s- 1990s, though again EA has taken it to another level.
I also think that human extinction would be somewhat regrettable, so it would be better to devote a little attention to delineating those risks as opposed to just blowing it off like we did last century. IMO, it was an understudied problem to the extent that it basically wasn’t studied at all. Sure you can do a thought experiment putting extinction and helping the poor on the same humanitarian scale, but honestly once you get initial funding for studying human extinction (now complete) I’m skeptical about whether it’s the sort of slam dunk that it used to be. It’s the addition of another donor buck at the margin that is the relevant consideration.