評論
打印
Finance & economics
財經(jīng)版塊
Philanthropy
慈善
Doing good well
好好做好事
The search for the world’s most efficient charities.
尋找世界上最高效的慈善機構(gòu)。
Giving is big business.
捐贈是一門大生意。
In 2023 Americans alone handed $557bn to charities, according to the Giving USA annual report.
根據(jù)《美國捐贈》年度報告，2023年僅美國人就向慈善機構(gòu)捐贈了5570億美元。
So identifying which charities are the most efficient in terms of good done per dollar given is important.
因此在每捐贈一美元所產(chǎn)生的慈善效益方面，確定哪些慈善機構(gòu)最高效是很重要的。
GiveWell, a charity evaluator, tries to do just this, and currently recommends giving to four worthy organisations.
慈善評估機構(gòu)“高效贈予”就試圖做到這一點，目前推薦人們向四個值得的組織捐款。
How is this recommendation put together, and how good is it?
這個推薦是如何得出的？這個推薦可靠嗎？
Determining which charities get more bang for their buck comes with challenges.
確定哪些慈善機構(gòu)能讓他們的錢發(fā)揮更大的作用是有挑戰(zhàn)的。
One is data.
一個是數(shù)據(jù)。
Any rigorous assessment of efficiency requires someone to catalogue both money spent and outputs achieved.
任何對效率的嚴(yán)格評估都需要有人對花費的資金和取得的成果進行登記。
It also requires data on how outputs (such as teacher training) translate into outcomes (such as learning).
還需要產(chǎn)出（如教師培訓(xùn)）如何轉(zhuǎn)化為成果（如學(xué)習(xí)）的數(shù)據(jù)。
Any effort to assess how different charities fare relative to each other must also grapple with the fact that they seek to do different good things: some to cure blindness, others to preserve natural parks.
任何對不同慈善機構(gòu)之間的相對表現(xiàn)的評估，也必須應(yīng)對這樣一個事實，即它們試圖做不同的好事：一些是為了治愈失明，另一些是為了保護自然公園。
To compare them means these goods must be compared, too—a moral judgment with no correct answer.
要比較這些機構(gòu)就意味著要比較這些不同的善事——這是一個沒有正確答案的道德判斷。
Despite these difficulties, outfits like GiveWell argue that with sufficiently good data, and reasonable assumptions about moral considerations, it is possible to try to identify the most efficient ways to give.
盡管存在這些困難，像“高效贈予”這樣的機構(gòu)認(rèn)為，只要有足夠好的數(shù)據(jù)以及合理的道德設(shè)想，就有可能嘗試找出最有效的捐贈方式。
GiveWell uses a mix of academic scholarship, impact evaluations, site visits, reviews of financial documents, interviews with experts and other data to identify its top charities.
“高效贈予”使用獎學(xué)金、影響評估、實地考察、財務(wù)文件審查、專家訪談等數(shù)據(jù)來確定最佳慈善機構(gòu)。
To compare charities doing different things, it uses a system of moral weights.
為了比較做不同事情的慈善機構(gòu)，“高效贈予”使用了一個道德權(quán)重體系。
For instance, doubling the consumption of 100 people is valued roughly the same as averting the death of one person in their 30s.
例如，使100個人的消費翻倍所帶來的價值，大致相當(dāng)于避免一個30多歲的人死亡所帶來的價值。
Averting the deaths of young children is valued most highly.
避免幼兒死亡的價值被認(rèn)為是最高的。
No surprise, then, that GiveWell’s four top charities all focus entirely or largely on saving children’s lives.
因此“高效贈予”的四個最佳慈善機構(gòu)都完全或主要致力于拯救兒童的生命，這一點就不奇怪了。
Two focus on preventing malaria, which kills 600,000 people, mostly children under five, every year: the Malaria Consortium delivers preventative medicine, at a cost of $7 per prevented infection; the Against Malaria Foundation delivers bednets, at about $5 per net.
其中兩個組織專注于預(yù)防瘧疾，這種疾病每年導(dǎo)致60萬人死亡，其中大多數(shù)是五歲以下的兒童：瘧疾聯(lián)盟提供預(yù)防性藥物，每預(yù)防一次感染的成本為7美元，抗瘧疾基金會提供蚊帳，每個蚊帳的成本約為5美元。
The other two give vitamins and vaccines: Helen Keller Intl delivers vitamin A supplements (about $2 per child per year); New Incentives gives cash handouts for child vaccinations ($155 for a full course).
另外兩個組織提供維生素和疫苗：海倫·凱勒國際組織提供維生素A補充劑（每個兒童每年的成本約2美元），新激勵組織為兒童疫苗接種提供現(xiàn)金補助（每個全程疫苗花費155美元）。
How efficient are they?
這些組織的效率如何？
According to GiveWell’s calculations, the number of children’s lives saved by its four favoured charities ranges from 1.6 to 3.1 per $10,000 donated—a solid return on investment.
根據(jù)“高效贈予”的計算，評價最高的這四個慈善機構(gòu)用每1萬美元捐贈款拯救了1.6至3.1個兒童的生命——這個投資回報很不錯。
But how does this stack up against other approaches to giving?
但是這與其他捐贈方式相比如何呢？
A natural comparison would be with the practice of simply handing over money to the very poor.
一個很自然的比較對象是直接把錢交給非常貧窮的人。
This is also the comparison favoured by GiveWell.
這也是“高效贈予”選取的比較對象。
GiveDirectly, a charity that despite the name is not related to GiveWell, does just that: for every dollar donated to it, 80 cents ends up in a poor person’s pocket.
“直接贈予”（一家慈善機構(gòu)，盡管名字相似，但與“高效贈予”無關(guān)）做的正是這件事：每捐贈給它一美元，就有80美分最終進入窮人的口袋。
Recipients then use it as they see fit, with studies showing rising incomes, better health and lives saved as a result.
受助人可以自行使用這筆錢，研究表明，捐款帶來了收入增加、健康狀況改善、生命得到拯救等結(jié)果。
GiveWell argues that its top picks win out.
“高效贈予”認(rèn)為其評選出的四個最佳機構(gòu)更勝一籌。
According to its own calculations, and using its moral weights, its four favoured charities provide between 3.7 and 5.8 times the benefit of GiveDirectly’s unconditional cash transfers, per dollar given.
根據(jù)“高效贈予”自己的計算并使用其道德權(quán)重，每捐贈一美元，四個最佳慈善機構(gòu)提供的效益是“直接贈予”無條件現(xiàn)金轉(zhuǎn)移所提供效益的3.7至5.8倍。
Several past external reviews have found such GiveWell estimates to be reasonable.
過去的幾次外部審查發(fā)現(xiàn)，“高效贈予”的此類估算是合理的。
GiveWell’s analysis might make sense, but those who contest its rankings prefer to focus on its priorities.
“高效贈予”的分析可能有道理，但那些對其排名提出異議的人更愿意關(guān)注“高效贈予”的優(yōu)先事項。
GiveWell’s moral weights heavily prioritise saving lives over other outcomes.
“高效贈予”的道德權(quán)重高度優(yōu)先考慮拯救生命，而不是其他成果。
In addition to averting deaths, the top charities do also help many more people avoid terrible, non-lethal disease.
除了避免死亡，四個最佳慈善機構(gòu)還幫助更多人避免可怕的非致命疾病。
But if you care about literacy or political rights as a good in itself, then you would apply a different set of moral weights to charities.
但如果你將識字能力或政治權(quán)利本身視為一種善，那么你會對慈善機構(gòu)應(yīng)用一套不同的道德權(quán)重。
GiveWell also does not give any weight to the preferences of those in need; some might rather have more cash in their pockets than better health.
“高效贈予”也沒有考慮到那些需要幫助的人的偏好，有些人可能更愿意口袋里有更多現(xiàn)金，而不是有更健康的身體。
Those preferences may be better assessed by smaller local organisations, and better met by simply handing over cash.
較小的地方組織或許能更好地評估這些偏好，直接給現(xiàn)金或許也能更好地滿足這些偏好。
The debate about which approach is best will go on.
關(guān)于哪種方法最好的爭論將會持續(xù)下去。
Data alone, as GiveWell admits, cannot provide the answer.
正如“高效贈予”承認(rèn)的那樣，數(shù)據(jù)本身并不能提供答案。
But it is a good start.
但這是一個好的開始。
