评论
打印
Finance & economics
财经版块
Philanthropy
慈善
Doing good well
好好做好事
The search for the world’s most efficient charities.
寻找世界上最高效的慈善机构。
Giving is big business.
捐赠是一门大生意。
In 2023 Americans alone handed $557bn to charities, according to the Giving USA annual report.
根据《美国捐赠》年度报告，2023年仅美国人就向慈善机构捐赠了5570亿美元。
So identifying which charities are the most efficient in terms of good done per dollar given is important.
因此在每捐赠一美元所产生的慈善效益方面，确定哪些慈善机构最高效是很重要的。
GiveWell, a charity evaluator, tries to do just this, and currently recommends giving to four worthy organisations.
慈善评估机构“高效赠予”就试图做到这一点，目前推荐人们向四个值得的组织捐款。
How is this recommendation put together, and how good is it?
这个推荐是如何得出的？这个推荐可靠吗？
Determining which charities get more bang for their buck comes with challenges.
确定哪些慈善机构能让他们的钱发挥更大的作用是有挑战的。
One is data.
一个是数据。
Any rigorous assessment of efficiency requires someone to catalogue both money spent and outputs achieved.
任何对效率的严格评估都需要有人对花费的资金和取得的成果进行登记。
It also requires data on how outputs (such as teacher training) translate into outcomes (such as learning).
还需要产出（如教师培训）如何转化为成果（如学习）的数据。
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.
任何对不同慈善机构之间的相对表现的评估，也必须应对这样一个事实，即它们试图做不同的好事：一些是为了治愈失明，另一些是为了保护自然公园。
To compare them means these goods must be compared, too—a moral judgment with no correct answer.
要比较这些机构就意味着要比较这些不同的善事——这是一个没有正确答案的道德判断。
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.
尽管存在这些困难，像“高效赠予”这样的机构认为，只要有足够好的数据以及合理的道德设想，就有可能尝试找出最有效的捐赠方式。
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.
“高效赠予”使用奖学金、影响评估、实地考察、财务文件审查、专家访谈等数据来确定最佳慈善机构。
To compare charities doing different things, it uses a system of moral weights.
为了比较做不同事情的慈善机构，“高效赠予”使用了一个道德权重体系。
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个人的消费翻倍所带来的价值，大致相当于避免一个30多岁的人死亡所带来的价值。
Averting the deaths of young children is valued most highly.
避免幼儿死亡的价值被认为是最高的。
No surprise, then, that GiveWell’s four top charities all focus entirely or largely on saving children’s lives.
因此“高效赠予”的四个最佳慈善机构都完全或主要致力于拯救儿童的生命，这一点就不奇怪了。
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.
其中两个组织专注于预防疟疾，这种疾病每年导致60万人死亡，其中大多数是五岁以下的儿童：疟疾联盟提供预防性药物，每预防一次感染的成本为7美元，抗疟疾基金会提供蚊帐，每个蚊帐的成本约为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).
另外两个组织提供维生素和疫苗：海伦·凯勒国际组织提供维生素A补充剂（每个儿童每年的成本约2美元），新激励组织为儿童疫苗接种提供现金补助（每个全程疫苗花费155美元）。
How efficient are they?
这些组织的效率如何？
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.
根据“高效赠予”的计算，评价最高的这四个慈善机构用每1万美元捐赠款拯救了1.6至3.1个儿童的生命——这个投资回报很不错。
But how does this stack up against other approaches to giving?
但是这与其他捐赠方式相比如何呢？
A natural comparison would be with the practice of simply handing over money to the very poor.
一个很自然的比较对象是直接把钱交给非常贫穷的人。
This is also the comparison favoured by GiveWell.
这也是“高效赠予”选取的比较对象。
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.
“直接赠予”（一家慈善机构，尽管名字相似，但与“高效赠予”无关）做的正是这件事：每捐赠给它一美元，就有80美分最终进入穷人的口袋。
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这笔钱，研究表明，捐款带来了收入增加、健康状况改善、生命得到拯救等结果。
GiveWell argues that its top picks win out.
“高效赠予”认为其评选出的四个最佳机构更胜一筹。
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.
根据“高效赠予”自己的计算并使用其道德权重，每捐赠一美元，四个最佳慈善机构提供的效益是“直接赠予”无条件现金转移所提供效益的3.7至5.8倍。
Several past external reviews have found such GiveWell estimates to be reasonable.
过去的几次外部审查发现，“高效赠予”的此类估算是合理的。
GiveWell’s analysis might make sense, but those who contest its rankings prefer to focus on its priorities.
“高效赠予”的分析可能有道理，但那些对其排名提出异议的人更愿意关注“高效赠予”的优先事项。
GiveWell’s moral weights heavily prioritise saving lives over other outcomes.
“高效赠予”的道德权重高度优先考虑拯救生命，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，四个最佳慈善机构还帮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.
但如果你将识字能力或政治权利本身视为一种善，那么你会对慈善机构应用一套不同的道德权重。
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.
“高效赠予”也没有考虑到那些需要帮助的人的偏好，有些人可能更愿意口袋里有更多现金，而不是有更健康的身体。
Those preferences may be better assessed by smaller local organisations, and better met by simply handing over cash.
较小的地方组织或许能更好地评估这些偏好，直接给现金或许也能更好地满足这些偏好。
The debate about which approach is best will go on.
关于哪种方法最好的争论将会持续下去。
Data alone, as GiveWell admits, cannot provide the answer.
正如“高效赠予”承认的那样，数据本身并不能提供答案。
But it is a good start.
但这是一个好的开始。
