I read a post on one of the social media platforms written by a professor who was sharing his experience with giving away ten percent of his income, after he signed the “Ten percent giving pledge” many years ago. In deciding what or whom to give to, those who take the ten-percent-pledge often follow the advice of Effective Altruism and typically end up making donations that aim to prevent malaria, deworm, or increase childhood vaccination rates, as well as give to animal welfare (which is a big topic among effective altruists).
It is truly admirable that someone consistently gives 10% or more of their income, especially given that most people don’t, and also given that this may, in absolute terms, be a sizeable sum (hence with a genuine opportunity cost). It is also good that people who give so generously write about it publicly. It could help shift social norms around giving. It may also help others who give generously but sometimes have doubts to feel that they belong to a broader community of those who give. It may inspire others to give more.
So I have only praise for giving so generously. But when it comes to choosing recipients, I make different choices.
I’ve noted three things in my own giving (which are not set in stone, though). The first is that I increasingly give to political causes – organisations that defend democracy, protect human rights, or counter all forms of political evils. The latter includes, as far as I am concerned, Big Oil that is actively resisting the phasing out of fossil fuels. Hence, I give (or am a member of, or paid subscriber to) Follow This (which engages in shareholder activism targetting Big Oil); Amnesty International; one-off or ad-hoc political campaigns by progressive political parties or NGOs at home and abroad; and then a wide range of investigative journalism, including all Dutch investigative journalism; Meduza (Russian independent journalism operating from Amsterdam); and the International Consortium of Investigate Journalists. (This is from the top of my head and might not be complete; but the point is not to be complete but rather to give an idea of the type of work I try to support). For those of you who also give to protect democracy and human rights, which organisations would you recommend?
It seems to me that the impact of such donations cannot be quantified. How many lives will be saved, or how much suffering avoided, by donations aiming at protecting and strengthening (the institutions of) democracy, including high-quality investigative journalism, or journalism from countries where the independent press is under severe attack? Not surprisingly, they are hardly ever mentioned by effective altruists. But why would they be any less critical than malaria nets or deworming tablets?
Second, when it comes to welfare and wellbeing rather than political causes, I think there is little that beats direct unconditional giving (which is also one of the recommendations of effective altruists). I’ve probably been influenced here by the Basic Income experiment in Otjivero, Namibia, about which I wrote a long time ago here on our blog and reported on what I saw on the ground in my limitarianism book. That project, but also more recent evidence on unconditional cash transfers to the global poor, convinced me that for the most destitute people on Earth, unconditional cash transfers that go together with local discussions on the possibilities such cash provides are hugely empowering and also economically very efficient (as they lead to the emergence of a local economy focussed on meeting basic needs). It is not a substitute for schools or a local health clinic, but it makes it much easier to pay for school fees and advocate for structural improvements such as the building of a health clinic. Citizens who are extremely poor and thus constantly stressed and hungry are much less able to fight for structural changes that require interventions by policy makers and politicians.
Third, those advocating effective giving urge us to give to what creates the most good in objective terms (such as lives saved), rather than to things that make us feel good or where we have a personal relationship with the recipient. I agree about the former – that feeling good shouldn’t play a role in deciding what to give to, although it is a nice side-effect if it does. But I disagree with the latter. Donations are not just about shifting money. It is also about our responses (and thus also praise and support) to what others do (e.g. organizing a fundraiser for the local food bank) and thus to the kind of citizens we want to be and hope others want to be. Moreover, giving to a local initiative might sometimes also make an expressive point to the rulers in one’s community or country. When a streetdoctor in a country where there supposedly are decent (health) care provisions, can raise a sizeable amount of money after she posts online that a homeless person in dire need of medical care isn’t getting that care because he falls through the cracks of the institutions, then those donations are not just the financial means needed to help that homeless person; it is also an expression of the kind of society one wants/doesn’t want to live in, and a statement about a political problem that needs attention.
Last month, I attended a conference for progressive wealth advisors. I learnt a lesson that applies not just to those donating millions, but also to those donating a few hundred or a few thousand dollars/euros. If philanthropic donors and organisations wait until they are entirely sure about the effectiveness of their donations, or until they are sure that they have found the best possible cause, together with guarantees that its goals will be reached, then they are likely to keep sitting on their money and keep searching for the very best cause to donate to. That attitude will lead to a waste of time and to underspending. The most important thing is not to wait till one has found the perfect goal, but aim for a good-enough goal and shift the money to where it is needed – as soon as one reasonably can.
{ 33 comments }
Seekonk 12.29.25 at 8:40 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful take on charitable donations. Here’s something that perhaps falls under “giving to a local initiative”: giving money to panhandlers.
I’m sure that many panhandlers are substance abusers, and some are out-and-out phonies. Nonetheless, I generally give on the street or the subway as a public expression of solidarity, because our society is unjust and dysfunctional, and because unemployment and poverty are widespread.
(So as not to have to dig into my wallet in public, I keep a couple of singles in a handy pocket or rolled up in the fingers of my gloves in the winter. I don’t give if the panhandler is belligerent, obnoxious, or makes me a captive audience to a lengthy speech or a loud musical presentation.)
Moz of Yarramulla 12.30.25 at 1:43 am
I had a formative conversation with a gay Jewish vegetarian at university, to the effect that putting 10% of your income into retirement savings and 10% into charity was worth while. With obvious ‘if you can afford it’ caveat since at the time I was a university student with little income.
I give primarily to environmental groups, but ‘give back’ to indigenous justice groups occasionally. I prefer smaller groups, and give ~20% to ones not registered as tax deductible charities (which our government is still pretty generous about despite occasional threats). My caveat is that I don’t like spammers, so groups that can’t fulfill a “no more than one email per quarter” request go on the naughty step. There’s no shortage of suitable recipients.
I occasionally get reminded that even a few thousand dollars can make a big difference to a charity, once with a phone call asking whether I’d made a mistake :) They were the only group doing that exact thing and I thought it was important.
And every year at tax time the inevitable whining from folk around me serves as a reminder that too many give nothing.
Alan White 12.30.25 at 3:45 am
An apposite post for the times. I give to a lot of causes–Doctors Without Borders, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the DNC and other Dems to resist Agent Orange, local Dem pols all the way to the Senate level, and just yesterday my local animal shelter. The thing with me is that I have no heirs, so a lot of my money should go to make the world better. And man, could it be better.
Dick Veldkamp 12.30.25 at 10:44 am
While I am generally a supporter of the criterion “Most lives saved per euro given”, I also agree that it is good idea to support organisations that work against various societal evils, even if the benefits cannot be calculated.
In the same vein, I would propose that it is reasonable to support Ukraine in some way, for example by donating to “Ambulances for Ukraine” (GIYF). I see this as helping the neighbours when their house is on fire.
engels 12.30.25 at 11:38 am
It is truly admirable that someone consistently gives 10% or more of their income, especially given that most people don’t, and also given that this may, in absolute terms, be a sizeable sum (hence with a genuine opportunity cost).
The more sizeable it is the more sizeable the remaining 90% (which above a likely threshold they had no right to in the first place, along with the opportunities it provided). I’m all for people doing this but I’ll save my admiration for people who are dealing with the benefits system or trying to stop their kids going hungry.
engels 12.30.25 at 12:12 pm
Another quibble (because I’m sympathetic to much of this and to Ingrid’s campaigning generally) setting a fixed percentage target is distributionally similar to a flat tax, which in other contexts is associated with the libertarian Right.
Ingrid Robeyns 12.30.25 at 2:52 pm
Engels @6 – I agree, and have in fact made the same critique on the 10%-rule in my book. It’s not justified to expect from the non-rich middle class to give away 10% when earns 300K or more per year. There are also other problems with the 10% rules – most importantly, in my view, that it is about income, whereas the largest inequalities (and also most scope for impactful redistribution) lies with wealth.
and Engels @5 – the good news is that admiration is in endless supply. Perhaps ‘admiration’ is too strong a word for the sentiment I feel, but I applaud someone earning 150 K who gives away 15K per year — as a quick online search says that most people give between 2-4%. I also think the answer to how much to give away depends on many personal factors, e.g. whether one has dependent relatives that one has to provide for.
D. S. Battistoli 12.30.25 at 3:32 pm
What a fascinating approach! It makes me wonder if there isn’t a social-societal strategy that lies between Effective Altruism’s focus on doing the most good for the most people, and the individualist Kantian approach to executing the categorical imperative with regard to people just in front of us.
The Dutch example that springs to mind for me is naturally Suriname. There’s a little Vastenaktie giving that shows up in the South American country from time to time, but not much secular giving. It’s my sense that a lot of Dutch people might say, “wat een schaande over de laatste dagen van Anton de Kom” or “Hans Valk deed jullie helemaal niks, hé” without necessarily thinking of giving a share of their personal charitable donations to the country. And of course, it’s not like other countries are lining up to perform social good in the Netherlands’ former colonies, or even read much about them.
Portuguese citizens would seem to have a similar potential opportunity for solidarity with members of their country’s former colonies. I think there’s an extent to which the smaller the colonizing nation, the more outsize the opportunity for impact, presuming the giving path isn’t Netherlands>Indonesia or Portugal>Brazil.
steven t johnson 12.30.25 at 3:46 pm
Wasn’t it Oscar Wilde who conjectured a world that didn’t need charity would be better?
My feeling is that, as in so many cases, if it want a job done, you need a government. Private charity is like private education, just doesn’t get it done for everybody.
As to panhandlers? Yes, most likely not going to feed themselves but one can hope you’re not doing more harm ultimately. Are some of them grifters? Maybe but how low do you have to be to beg. Even if they think they are getting away with a few dollars free, they are desperately poor in ways they don’t understand.
I will say that political donations are not charity. Those are efforts to change the world, which may be admirable (or not.) But, not charity.
There is also the issue of what you owe to your children. Do you give away their inheritance, if you should be able to leave anything at all behind? Most of us will not have an estate.
John Q 12.30.25 at 8:25 pm
Thanks for this, Ingrid. Nothing to add, since I agree with everything you’ve written
Ingrid Robeyns 12.31.25 at 8:32 am
Steven J Johnson @9 – you are right that political donations are not charity. At the last moment, I changed the title of the post from “thoughts on financial donations” to “thoughts on charity”. That was my mistake.
I also agree with you that we need a good government – which is precisely the reason for me to give politically – as a “good government” is not something we have in most countries, and even if you have it, it requires continuous work to make sure that government doesn’t slide into something worse.
engels 12.31.25 at 1:28 pm
The way I see it one of minor disadvantages of our social system is it makes it morally imperative for the well-off to give away substantial resources to those in desperate need and psychologically very difficult for them to do so. Therefore it makes it all but impossible for the materially comfortable not to live morally reprehensible lives. Eye of a needle and all that…
The minority who see the scale of the problem and have the independence and willpower to do what is in reality very, very little to ameliorate it while still leaving then the beneficiaries of overwhelming injustice do deserve some kind of acknowledgement for that but I think admiration is stretching it.
Michael Cain 12.31.25 at 5:54 pm
Ingrid, where do you stand on blood donations? By a happy coincidence of blood type and recent changes in emergency response protocol, it’s pretty much a sure thing that my five or six donations per year keep more than one trauma victim from bleeding out before they reach the hospital.
alfredlordbleep 01.01.26 at 12:23 am
Thanks for the push for this refresher.
Charity creates a multitude of sins
—The Soul of Man Under Socialism, Oscar Wilde
alfredlordbleep 01.01.26 at 12:30 am
Again, apology for inept format—hanging ” at the last.
Tim H. 01.01.26 at 11:28 am
alfredlordbleep @15, agree, charity should be the last resort, not an excuse to fund another round of “Old Tax Cut” for the usual suspects. More portrayal in the arts of “Fundamentalist Mammonites” as ridiculous might be helpful, as the reform variety may at least acknowledge that a problem exists.
Laban 01.01.26 at 1:07 pm
Steven J Johnson @9 – Another Johnson had I think the correct idea
What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. “And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths.”
Wasn’t tithing at 10% originally devised/mandated in the days when most people didn’t pay tax? I’ve been a net taxpayer for 40 years now, and HMG assure me they’re spent on doing good.
“they are desperately poor in ways they don’t understand”
That’s a slippery slope. Should the Samaritan have helped the poor guy beaten up and robbed, or was his robber the one with the bigger problem? I prefer the unfashionable “undeserving” tag for people who take advantage of goodness. Professional criminals may be desperately poor in ways they don’t understand, but they may want to be rich in ways they do understand.
“in so many cases, if it want a job done, you need a government”
But, for example, a government can’t replace parents – as witness the generally poor life outcomes of those in the care system aka “looked-after children”.
engels 01.01.26 at 1:37 pm
Btw I think it’s been plausibly claimed that most people in the “top” 10% (c.) of the UK income distribution are “earning” about twice as much as they would for their same jobs in the somewhat less insane, but still far from equitable, social democratic system of half a century ago (leaving aside that in a society with functioning public education, housing, etc many of those jobs would have gone to better candidates in the first place).
How much have the Sacklers given away?
https://www.tatler.com/article/sackler-scandal
steven t johnson 01.01.26 at 3:33 pm
Laban@17 seems to think that Dr. Johnson and I disagree, which we don’t. But I will point out that refusing to give beggars money because they are criminals is disagreeing with Dr. Johnson. (And myself, though maybe I should clarify I’m talking pocket money and not talking about surrendering to menaces either.)
As to the last part, it’s a broadside against government. I think I am the only one to bring up children so it’s relevance to my comment is unclear. But I don’t trust parents in general to do education and I still think history bears me out on this. Universal home schooling or private schools are a prescription for long run decay.
alfredlordbleep@14 Thank you for bringing up Wilde. Jesus enjoined charity and very sensibly decided that meant the poor will always be with us. My preference would be for everyone to have a job and not need charity, but such trivial thoughts are beneath the dignity of the owners, so far as I can tell. Or even, as in the example of MMT+a jobs guarantee, a bad idea that must be refuted.
engels 01.01.26 at 5:02 pm
I’ve been a net taxpayer for 40 years now
That must be really sickening if you never used roads, hospitals, schools, courts or relied on the police or army for protection…
engels 01.01.26 at 6:47 pm
jobs guarantee, a bad idea that must be refuted
I’ll go first: can you lose it? If you can, it isn’t guaranteed. If you can’t, it isn’t a job. (H/t Karl Widerquist.)
Ingrid Robeyns 01.02.26 at 7:03 am
Michael @13, interesting and good for you! (I donated blood when I was younger but it was such a disaster given the nature of my blood vessels, that my GP told me it would be better for me to stop).
I am not sure I have a well-worked out view on blood donations and how they relate to financial donations, but I can give it a try :) In general I guess that my moral intuitions are with “from each according to her ability”, and thus if you are able to donate blood, and there are no countervailing reasons, it is good to give blood. But if one is very rich, donating blood doesn’t get one off the hook for donating money, although it does add to something like “the total effort [sacrifice?] one makes to help make this world a bit of a better place”. I don’t think each of us should calculate/estimate our contributions in terms of ‘how many lives saved”, since many donations that are very much needed (e.g. to human rights organisations, anti-racism organisations etc.) don’t save many lives but do make the world a better place. Does that make sense to you, and what are your views?
Laban 01.02.26 at 11:48 am
@engels 20
The point I was trying to make is that, in a world with taxation (and one where rents are 44% of average wages) maybe many of us are already giving far in excess of 10% of income to “good causes” as defined by HM Government.
And my understanding is that some UK tax money does go to human rights organisations, anti-racism organisations etc. Whether they make the world a better place …
steven t johnson 01.02.26 at 4:27 pm
engels@21 Re jobs guarantee, Widerquist is wrong. It should read, if you can lose it, it’s not guaranteed, if you can’t afford to quit, it’s a job, as non-guaranteed jobs are for most of us. Most of us can’t afford to quit work whenever we want. Also, I wasn’t advocating a mental vaccination campaign against the MMT+jobs guarantee brainworm, just noting the economics profession seemed to think it a priority.
The complaints about government services to people are I think complaints about the idea that charity is normative. It seems the objection is to being compelled to give to other people (the phrase “who do not deserve it” may not be used.) That such programs are in fact the most effective way of meeting needs, despite all their imperfections, is irrelevant. In that regard, I would add that evading taxes is uncharitable. I don’t relish paying taxes, though my principal objection is to military spending, and spending on American prisons, which are pretty openly conducted like torture chambers.
engels 01.02.26 at 5:41 pm
maybe many of us are already giving far in excess of 10% of income to “good causes” as defined by HM Government. And my understanding is that some UK tax money does go to human rights organisations, anti-racism organisations etc
If you’re trying to claim 10% of your income is already spent on altruistic purposes (of the kind discussed in the post) via the tax system you need to show your workings. And good luck!
Being a “net taxpayer” certainly doesn’t imply that because you’re getting a lot of in-kind benefits from the state.
engels 01.02.26 at 8:29 pm
if you can’t afford to quit, it’s a job
No: otherwise claiming pensions or benefits would be a job. For it to be a job there has to be something you have to do and if you don’t, you don’t get the money. So what happens to your “guaranteed” job when you don’t? And if you do get fired, what happens then?
EB 01.03.26 at 1:33 am
@ 9 and 17: I worked for many years in philanthropy. There were often people in my environment who maintained that philanthropy should die out because it’s really the job of government to fill needs that can’t be filled by individuals themselves. I came to doubt that assertion, because I saw so many worthwhile organizations that could never be supported by governments, at least not when they were new and experimental and often not even when they were mature. Either there was disagreement among government officials (elected and otherwise) as to whether the activity in question was even useful, or else there was reluctance to fund it because it was controversial, or valued one group over others, or could not be evaluated according to accepted metrics.
steven t johnson 01.03.26 at 4:09 pm
EB@27 The phrase “worthwhile organizations” is doing too much here for me to follow. Is it something like a fund for supporting young artists or a crisis line for suicidal teens or an advocacy group for home schooling or a group funding legal cases aimed at the wise use of property? I think the priorities are food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.
engels@26 This makes no sense. Yes, the people who have guaranteed jobs show up and get paid. If they don’t show up, they’ve quit and don’t get paid—but that’s like every other job. But yes, you can’t get fired from a guaranteed job (you may do something that puts you in jail but that’s really a different issue.)
It seems to me you are outraged at the idea that without the Scourge of God called poverty, the masses won’t work, at least not enough to actually earn their pay. You’re appalled at the thought without abject failure for some and enormous success for a handful, with the so-called middle composed of those who lower their expectations and hopes to what’s appropriate to their station, then society would collapse. All that is good would be ruined. In other words, a jobs guarantee is too much like socialism and socialism is against human nature. Obviously I disagree.
Even worse, I do say still that most effective altruism, despite all the decidedly non-altruistic things, is done by government and evading taxes is uncharitable.
engels 01.03.26 at 10:16 pm
What if they’re ill (for too long)? What they show up but don’t do the job (intentionally or not)? If it’s “just like any other job” they get fired but then it’s not guaranteed and it isn’t much of a safety net, especially for the people who are most in need of one.
It seems to me you are outraged at the idea that without the Scourge of God called poverty, the masses won’t work… In other words, a jobs guarantee is too much like socialism
If anything I think it’s too much like capitalism but mainly I think it’s economically illiterate and motivated by a kind of 1950s Protestant work ethic that nobody really believes in in 2026.
engels 01.03.26 at 10:27 pm
Btw making the whole thing about whether people “show up” is pretty cute (sounds a bit like David Cameron’s “alarm clock Britain” thing from 15 years ago). It’s 2026! You’ve heard of WFH, right?
steven t johnson 01.04.26 at 4:48 pm
To answer a direct question, the acronym WFH was not familiar. Google says it means “work from home.” A guaranteed job can be WFH and this objection isn’t. Your certainty that guaranteed jobs would inevitably mean hordes of slackers doing absolutely nothing is nicely reactionary, but not serious. You seem to think that a guaranteed job must be compulsory rather than an option for the otherwise unemployed. Also, any assumptions that such a program (which won’t happen, any more than UBI/GAI) must abolish disability and pensions makes no sense either.
“If anything I think it’s too much like capitalism but mainly I think it’s economically illiterate and motivated by a kind of 1950s Protestant work ethic that nobody really believes in in 2026.” The Protestant work ethic doesn’t include unionism, also it didn’t exist in the Fifties and Weber is outdated, as in falsified, in a way Marx isn’t. (Yes, I’m the only one here who believes that.)
The objection that MMT+jobs guarantee is “economically illiterate” first repeats my point about how practically all economists see MMT as a heresy the wise must urgently be stamped out, like a fire. Second, it repeats my point about “socialism is against human nature” (according to you and a legion of others,) except it does so in a naturalized form, that claims a social system that didn’t exist for thousands of years nevertheless is demanded by some laws of nature. I still disagree.
As to the part about how a jobs guarantee sound too capitalist, I’m sure that a really leftist explanation of why even social-democratic type reforms are to be scorned.
Trying to make sense of your responses is very tedious. You can have the last words.
engels 01.04.26 at 10:49 pm
So the MMT government will give me job I can’t be fired from except if I don’t show up, and where the workplace could be my own bed. Are there ponies involved? (Oh and conjecturing that some people (eg. moi) might be less than productive within such an arrangement is cynical and reactionary because, as Marx famously claimed, under capitalism wage labour is intrinsically motivated and doesn’t require compulsion of any kind.)
We all need a laugh right now I suppose.
engels 01.05.26 at 1:14 pm
Alarm clock Britain is back, baby!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15254519/NIGEL-FARAGE-party-alarm-Britain-change-attitudes-success.html
Btw Rachel Reeves has been pushing JG. With friends like these…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80gj2knrx4o
Comments on this entry are closed.