DOCSLIB.ORG

About Giving What We

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
About Giving What We GIVING what we can Fundraising Prospectus 2015 Contents Our Recommended Charities 5 How effective are we? 6 Our achievements so far 7 About Giving What We Can 10 Our Team 11 Our Plans for 2015 12 Our Impact 14 Budget 16 Appendix 1: Lower Bound Impact Calculation 18 Appendix 2: Realistic Impact Calculation 22 Appendix 3: Optimistic Marginal Impact Calculation 28 Previous Donors 30 Giving What We Can 16-17 St Ebbes Street givingwhatwecan.org Oxford OX1 1PT, UK Part of the Centre for Effective Altruism, a registered charity in England and Wales, Registered Charity Number 1149828. © 2015 Our Recommended Charities Giving What We Can helps people Giving What We Can recommends the following charities on the basis of extensive research showing them to be among the most effective in the world. donate as effectively as possible Our members pledge to donate at least 10% of their incomes to the world’s most effective charities Malaria kills over half Schistosomiasis is a Treating intestinal Malnutrition can stunt a a million people every devastating disease, but worms is one of the most child’s growth and lead year, but the the Schistosomiasis effective ways to improve to learning difficulties, We evaluate charities and Against Malaria Control Initiative can school retention, and but Project Healthy Foundation provide a child with Deworm The World can Children can fortify a recommend the most effective can provide an treatment for deworm children year’s worth of meals insecticide treated less than $2! for just 50 cents. with essential nutrients to our members bednet for under $8! for just 5 cents! So far, we’ve moved over $7 million, and our members have pledged over $400 million to these charities Now we need your support Go to givingwhatwecan.org/fundraising to donate Child from Orissa, India carry- ing a bednet provided by the Against Malaria Foundation How effective are we? Our achievements so far we estimate that for every 1000+ members donating x6 $1 x60 we spend, between $7 million already moved to effective charities $6 & $60 lower bound estimate realistic estimate will be donated to the world’s $400+ million pledged most effective in future donations charities. 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ we believe this represents $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ fantastic return on investment! Want more info? You can review our calculations on page 14 6 7 Our Vision A world without extreme poverty The Pledge Our Mission I recognise that I can use part of my income to do Inspire donations to the world’s most effective charities a significant amount of good. Since I can live well enough on a smaller income, Our Mission Statement I pledge that for the rest of my life or until the We believe that people in the developed world have an day I retire, I shall give at least ten percent of amazing opportunity to substantially improve the lives of countless people at the other end of the global income what I earn to whichever organisations can most scale. Our members pledge to give at least 10% of their effectively use it to improve the lives of others, income to the organisations which can do the most now and in the years to come. good with their donations. We use evidence to identify those organisations and share our findings. By forming a I make this pledge freely, openly, and sincerely. global community and making public our commitment to effective giving, we can inspire others and ensure that we make a real impact on global poverty. To become a Giving What We Can member, you must pledge to donate 10% of your lifetime earnings to effective causes. So far, over 1000 people have taken the pledge, collectively committing to donate more than $400 million over the course of their lifetimes 8 9 Our About Giving What We Can Prof. Toby Ord Dr Michelle Hutchinson Founder and President Executive Director Team Represents Giving What We Can Sets the strategy for Giving What in the media; provides advice to We Can. Manages team members Who we are What we do WHO, World Bank and the Prime and evaluates progress. Has a PhD Minister’s Office. Research Fellow in from Oxford University and was Giving What We Can is an We want to change the way members to stick with their Ethics at the University of Oxford. recently named a Global Shaper international society dedicated people give money to charity. intentions, and we provide re- to eliminating extreme poverty minders and encouragement in the developing world. Many people are happy to to our members to help them give, but do so sporadically meet their giving targets. To achieve this aim, we work and without much awareness to build and maintain a of the impact their donations We undertake and review community of members, all of will have. research to identify the most them committed to giving at effective poverty-relief chari- least 10% of their income to the Instead, we encourage people ties, which we then promote world’s most effective charities. to commit to set aside and to our members, along with donate a fixed percentage anyone else interested in mak- Dr Andreas Morgensen Jonathan Courtney Alison Woodman We believe that extreme pov- of their income in a targeted ing a difference. We also run Deputy Executive Director Director of Outreach Director of Community erty, along with the problems manner. Giving What We Can the Giving What We Can Trust, Provides strategic advice. Professor Responsible for Giving What We First point of contact for new it causes, is probably the worst members pledge to donate at which provides an easy and at Jesus College, Oxford. Has con- Can’s Outreach strategy. Focus- members; keeps established mem- ongoing disaster in the world least 10% on an ongoing basis. tax-efficient way for people ducted research for Giving What es on supporting chapters and bers engaged. Organises events & today. A billion people lack But just as importantly, they to send donations to effective We Can for four years. encouraging new chapters to manages the Trust. Has worked for access to clean drinking water, donate this to the charity or charities overseas. develop. charities in India & Mongolia. and more than 800 million go charities which they believe to bed hungry each night. to be the most effective in the Since we were set up in 2009, world. over $7 million has been However, it doesn’t have to donated to effective organi- be this way. For those of us Donating 10% won’t always sations thanks to our efforts, living in the developed world, be easy, which is why we focus and over $400 million has our comparative wealth gives on building a community of been pledged for the future. us an amazing opportunity givers: a support network We’re ever-growing, and we’re to make a real difference. But in which effective giving is changing the landscape of this will only happen if people normalised and celebrated. charitable giving. give what they can, and give to Our pledge acts as a form of Dr Hauke Hillebrandt Sam Deere Luke Ilott effective charities and causes. pre-commitment which helps Director of Research Director of Communications Director of Growth Researches the effectiveness of our Handles communications and Incoming, commences mid-year. current top charities and looks for helps to bring new members on Will work alongside Sam to help new interventions to recommend. board. Previously a political advis- people along the pathway to mem- Holds a PhD in Neuroscience from er and comms director for several bership. UCL and was a Harvard fellow. high-profile Australian politicians. 10 11 Our plans for 2015 This year is set to be a big one for effective altruism. With four major books on the topic set to be published, Effective altruism books including one by influential moral philosopher Peter set for release this year Singer, we anticipate heightened public awareness of the importance of and arguments for effective giving. The Most Good You Can Do Peter Singer, April 2015 With this in mind, our plan for 2015 and early 2016 is to capitalise on the media attention. We’ll have a particular How To Be Great At focus on targeting people who are intrigued by the Doing Good idea of effective altruism but don’t know where to start, Nick Cooney, April 2015 converting their interest into action. Doing Good Better At the same time, as our community grows it is Will MacAskill, August 2015 increasingly important to maintain personal contact with our members, so that they continue to feel close-knit Strangers Drowning and supported. We’ll also be stepping up our research Larissa MacFarquhar, programme to ensure that we make the best late 2015 possible recommendations. Want to support Giving What We Can? Go to givingwhatwecan.org/fundraising to donate Our priorities for the next year: Making First Contact of mouth1. We now have a Getting New Members plan to have a dedicated staff Ensuring that lines of commu- ing to see whether there are Effective altruism’s profile Director of Outreach dedicated Just as important as making member as the point of contact nication stay open helps mem- any other possibilities we have is growing, and our job is to to overseeing the chapters and first contact is ensuring that we for people on the pathway, bers to learn from each other overlooked. convert that into new member- their progress. maintain contact with people someone who can answer and to continue meeting their ships and more money moved who do express an interest. We questions and concerns and giving targets.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effective Altruism William Macaskill and Theron Pummer
    1 Effective Altruism William MacAskill and Theron Pummer Climate change is on course to cause millions of deaths and cost the world economy trillions of dollars. Nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, millions of them dying each year of easily preventable diseases. Just a small fraction of the thousands of nuclear weapons on hair‐trigger alert could easily bring about global catastrophe. New technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence bring unprece­ dented risks. Meanwhile, year after year billions and billions of factory‐farmed ani­ mals live and die in misery. Given the number of severe problems facing the world today, and the resources required to solve them, we may feel at a loss as to where to even begin. The good news is that we can improve things with the right use of money, time, talent, and effort. These resources can bring about a great deal of improvement, or very little, depending on how they are allocated. The effective altruism movement consists of a growing global community of peo­ ple who use reason and evidence to assess how to do as much good as possible, and who take action on this basis. Launched in 2011, the movement now has thousands of members, as well as influence over billions of dollars. The movement has substan­ tially increased awareness of the fact that some altruistic activities are much more cost‐effective than others, in the sense that they do much more good than others per unit of resource expended. According to the nonprofit organization GiveWell, it costs around $3,500 to prevent someone from dying of malaria by distributing bed­ nets.
    [Show full text]
  • Apocalypse Now? Initial Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic for the Governance of Existential and Global Catastrophic Risks
    journal of international humanitarian legal studies 11 (2020) 295-310 brill.com/ihls Apocalypse Now? Initial Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic for the Governance of Existential and Global Catastrophic Risks Hin-Yan Liu, Kristian Lauta and Matthijs Maas Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract This paper explores the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic through the framework of exis- tential risks – a class of extreme risks that threaten the entire future of humanity. In doing so, we tease out three lessons: (1) possible reasons underlying the limits and shortfalls of international law, international institutions and other actors which Covid-19 has revealed, and what they reveal about the resilience or fragility of institu- tional frameworks in the face of existential risks; (2) using Covid-19 to test and refine our prior ‘Boring Apocalypses’ model for understanding the interplay of hazards, vul- nerabilities and exposures in facilitating a particular disaster, or magnifying its effects; and (3) to extrapolate some possible futures for existential risk scholarship and governance. Keywords Covid-19 – pandemics – existential risks – global catastrophic risks – boring apocalypses 1 Introduction: Our First ‘Brush’ with Existential Risk? All too suddenly, yesterday’s ‘impossibilities’ have turned into today’s ‘condi- tions’. The impossible has already happened, and quickly. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, both directly and as manifested through the far-reaching global societal responses to it, signal a jarring departure away from even the © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/18781527-01102004Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 12:13:00AM via free access <UN> 296 Liu, Lauta and Maas recent past, and suggest that our futures will be profoundly different in its af- termath.
    [Show full text]
  • Existential Risk and Existential Hope: Definitions
    Future of Humanity Institute – Technical Report #2015-1 Existential Risk and Existential Hope: Definitions Owen Cotton-Barratt* & Toby Ord† We look at the strengths and weaknesses of two existing definitions of existential risk, and suggest a new definition based on expected value. This leads to a parallel concept: ‘existential hope’, the chance of something extremely good happening. An existential risk is a chance of a terrible event occurring, such as an asteroid striking the earth and wiping out intelligent life – we could call such events existential catastrophes. In order to understand what should be thought of as an existential risk, it is necessary to understand what should be thought of as an existential catastrophe. This is harder than it first seems to pin down. 1. The simple definition One fairly crisp approach is to draw the line at extinction: Definition (i): An existential catastrophe is an event which causes the end of existence of our descendants. This has the virtue that it is a natural division and is easy to understand. And we certainly want to include all extinction events. But perhaps it doesn’t cast a wide enough net. Example A: A totalitarian regime takes control of earth. It uses mass surveillance to prevent any rebellion, and there is no chance for escape. This regime persists for thousands of years, eventually collapsing when a supervolcano throws up enough ash that agriculture is prevented for decades, and no humans survive. In Example A, clearly the eruption was bad, but the worst of the damage was done earlier. After the totalitarian regime was locked in, it was only a matter of time until something or other finished things off.
    [Show full text]
  • Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository 1 Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs) Theron Pummer University of St Andrews 1. The Ethics of Giving and Effective Altruism The ethics of giving has traditionally focused on whether, and how much, to give to charities helping people in extreme poverty.2 In more recent years, the discussion has increasingly focused on where to give, spurred by an appreciation of the substantial differences in cost- effectiveness between charities. According to a commonly cited example, $40,000 can be used either to help 1 blind person by training a seeing-eye dog in the United States or to help 2,000 blind people by providing surgeries reversing the effects of trachoma in Africa.3 Effective altruists recommend that we give large sums to charity, but by far their more central message is that we give effectively, i.e., to whatever charities would do the most good per dollar donated.4 In this paper, I’ll assume that it’s not wrong not to give bigger, but will explore to what extent it may well nonetheless be wrong not to give better. The main claim I’ll argue for here is that in many cases it would be wrong of you to give a sum of money to charities that do less good than others you could have given to instead, even if 1 I am extremely grateful to Derek Parfit, Roger Crisp, Jeff McMahan, and Peter Singer for extremely helpful feedback and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • By William Macaskill
    Published on June 20, 2016 Brother, can you spare an RCT? ‘Doing Good Better’ by William MacAskill By Terence Wood If you’ve ever thought carefully about international development you will be tormented by shoulds. Should the Australian government really give aid rather Link: https://devpolicy.org/brother-can-spare-util-good-better-william-macaskill-20160620/ Page 1 of 5 Date downloaded: September 30, 2021 Published on June 20, 2016 than focus on domestic poverty? Should I donate more money personally? And if so, what sort of NGO should I give to? The good news is that William MacAskill is here to help. MacAskill is an associate professor in philosophy at the University of Oxford, and in Doing Good Better he wants to teach you to be an Effective Altruist. Effective Altruism is an attempt to take a form ofconsequentialism (a philosophical viewpoint in which an action is deemed right or wrong on the basis of its consequences) and plant it squarely amidst the decisions of our daily lives. MacAskill’s target audience isn’t limited to people involved in international development, but almost everything he says is relevant. Effective Altruists contend we should devote as much time and as many resources as we reasonably can to help those in greater need. They also want us to avoid actions that cause, or will cause, suffering. Taken together, this means promoting vegetarianism, (probably) taking action on climate change, and–of most interest to readers of this blog–giving a lot of aid. That’s the altruism. As for effectiveness, MacAskill argues that when we give we need to focus on addressing the most acute needs, while carefully choosing what works best.
    [Show full text]
  • Against 'Effective Altruism'
    Against ‘Effective Altruism’ Alice Crary Effective Altruism (EA) is a programme for rationalising for the most part adopt the attitude that they have no charitable giving, positioning individuals to do the ‘most serious critics and that sceptics ought to be content with good’ per expenditure of money or time. It was first for- their ongoing attempts to fine-tune their practice. mulated – by two Oxford philosophers just over a decade It is a posture belied by the existence of formidable ago–as an application of the moral theory consequential- critical resources both inside and outside the philosoph- ism, and from the outset one of its distinctions within ical tradition in which EA originates. In light of the undis- the philanthropic world was expansion of the class of puted impact of EA, and its success in attracting idealistic charity-recipients to include non-human animals. EA young people, it is important to forcefully make the case has been the target of a fair bit of grumbling, and even that it owes its success primarily not to the – question- some mockery, from activists and critics on the left, who able – value of its moral theory but to its compatibility associate consequentialism with depoliticising tenden- with political and economic institutions responsible for cies of welfarism. But EA has mostly gotten a pass, with some of the very harms it addresses. The sincere ded- many detractors concluding that, however misguided, its ication of many individual adherents notwithstanding, efforts to get bankers, tech entrepreneurs and the like to reflection on EA reveals a straightforward example of give away their money cost-effectively does no serious moral corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • 194 William Macaskill. Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Help Others, Do Work That Matters, and Make Smarte
    Philosophy in Review XXXIX (November 2019), no. 4 William MacAskill. Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Help Others, Do Work that Matters, and Make Smarter Choices About Giving Back. Avery 2016. 272 pp. $17.00 USD (Paperback ISBN 9781592409662). Will MacAskill’s Doing Good Better provides an introduction to the Effective Altruism movement, and, in the process, it makes a strong case for its importance. The book is aimed at a general audience. It is fairly short and written for the most part in a light, conversational tone. Doing Good Better’s only real rival as a treatment of Effective Altruism is Peter Singer’s The Most Good You Can Do, though MacAskill’s and Singer’s books are better seen as companion pieces than rivals. Like The Most Good You Can Do, Doing Good Better offers the reader much of philosophical interest, and it delivers novel perspectives and even some counterintuitive but well-reasoned conclusions that will likely provoke both critics and defenders of Effective Altruism for some time to come. Before diving into Doing Good Better we want to take a moment to characterize Effective Altruism. Crudely put, Effective Altruists are committed to three claims. First, they maintain that we have strong reason to help others. Second, they claim that these reasons are impartial in nature. And, third, they hold that we are required to act on these reasons in the most effective manner possible. Hence, according to Effective Altruists, those of us who are fortunate enough to have the leisure to write (or read) scholarly book reviews (1) should help those who are most in need, (2) should do so even if we lack any personal connection to them, and (3) should do so as efficiently as we can.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Maximize Expected Choice-Worthiness?1 WILLIAM MACASKILL and TOBY ORD University of Oxford
    NOUSˆ 00:00 (2018) 1–27 doi: 10.1111/nous.12264 Why Maximize Expected Choice-Worthiness?1 WILLIAM MACASKILL AND TOBY ORD University of Oxford This paper argues in favor of a particular account of decision-making under nor- mative uncertainty: that, when it is possible to do so, one should maximize expected choice-worthiness. Though this position has been often suggested in the literature and is often taken to be the ‘default’ view, it has so far received little in the way of positive argument in its favor. After dealing with some preliminaries and giving the basic motivation for taking normative uncertainty into account in our decision- making, we consider and provide new arguments against two rival accounts that have been offered—the accounts that we call ‘My Favorite Theory’ and ‘My Fa- vorite Option’. We then give a novel argument for comparativism—the view that, under normative uncertainty, one should take into account both probabilities of different theories and magnitudes of choice-worthiness. Finally, we further argue in favor of maximizing expected choice-worthiness and consider and respond to five objections. Introduction Normative uncertainty is a fact of life. Suppose that Michael has £20 to spend. With that money, he could eat out at a nice restaurant. Alternatively, he could eat at home and pay for four long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets that would protect eight children against malaria. Let’s suppose that Michael knows all the morally relevant empirical facts about what that £20 could do. Even so, it might be that he still doesn’t know whether he’s obligated to donate that money or whether it’s permissible for him to pay for the meal out, because he just doesn’t know how strong his moral obligations to distant strangers are.
    [Show full text]
  • The Definition of Effective Altruism
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/08/19, SPi 1 The Definition of Effective Altruism William MacAskill There are many problems in the world today. Over 750 million people live on less than $1.90 per day (at purchasing power parity).1 Around 6 million children die each year of easily preventable causes such as malaria, diarrhea, or pneumonia.2 Climate change is set to wreak environmental havoc and cost the economy tril- lions of dollars.3 A third of women worldwide have suffered from sexual or other physical violence in their lives.4 More than 3,000 nuclear warheads are in high-alert ready-to-launch status around the globe.5 Bacteria are becoming antibiotic- resistant.6 Partisanship is increasing, and democracy may be in decline.7 Given that the world has so many problems, and that these problems are so severe, surely we have a responsibility to do something about them. But what? There are countless problems that we could be addressing, and many different ways of addressing each of those problems. Moreover, our resources are scarce, so as individuals and even as a globe we can’t solve all these problems at once. So we must make decisions about how to allocate the resources we have. But on what basis should we make such decisions? The effective altruism movement has pioneered one approach. Those in this movement try to figure out, of all the different uses of our resources, which uses will do the most good, impartially considered. This movement is gathering con- siderable steam. There are now thousands of people around the world who have chosen
    [Show full text]
  • Generous U Grant Application
    Generous U Grant Application Ajeya Cotra Jake Straus Kimberly Huynh Madeleine Nemchek Matthew Borchardt Rohin Shah March 11, 2016 EFFECTIVE ALTRUISTS OF BERKELEY GENEROUS UAPPLICATION Background Information Effective Altruists of Berkeley (EAB) is a registered student organization at the University of California, Berkeley, whose mission is to empower students to give more and give smarter. We represent a diverse worldwide community of thousands of effective altruists who strive to combine rationality and empiricism with a broad and deep sense of compassion. Details about our club can be found below: EA Berkeley Contact Matthew Borchardt: Group Advisor Deepak Sharma: Website http://eab.berkeley.edu Student Org Listing https://callink.berkeley.edu/organization/EAB Through outreach, discussions, and a student-led course, we educate UC Berkeley students on the principles of high-impact giving. Our teaching guides students on a path of increasing commit- ment, culminating in a lifetime giving pledge. Our present budget of approximately per semester, or per year, drives our multi-level outreach, education, and pledge drive efforts. We would leverage the Generous U grant both to continue our present activities for another year and to try new methods to increase our reach and boost pledge-taking rates. Who We Serve Research so far indicates our donations can make a much bigger difference abroad, often giving beneficiaries huge health and income benefits that we take for granted in the developed world.1 For example, one of our supported charities is the DeWorm the World Initiative, which advocates and provides technical assistance to school-based deworming programs in Kenya and India.
    [Show full text]
  • Rationality Spring 2020, Tues & Thurs 1:30-2:45 Harvard University
    General Education 1066: Rationality Spring 2020, Tues & Thurs 1:30-2:45 Harvard University Description: The nature, psychology, and applications of rationality. Rationality is, or ought to be, the basis of everything we think and do. Yet in an era with unprecedented scientific sophistication, we are buffeted by fake news, quack cures, conspiracy theories, and “post-truth” rhetoric. How should we reason about reason? Rationality has long been a foundational topic in the academy, including philosophy, psychology, AI, economics, mathematics, and government. Recently, discoveries on how people reason have earned three Nobel Prizes, and many applied fields are being revolutionized by rational, evidence-based, and effective approaches. Part I: The nature of rationality. Tools of reason, including logic, statistical decision theory, Bayesian inference, rational choice, game theory, critical thinking, and common fallacies. Part II: The cognitive science of rationality, including classic research by psychologists and behavioral economists. Is Homo sapiens a “rational animal”? Could our irrational heuristics and biases be evolutionary adaptations to a natural information environment? Could beliefs that are factually irrational be socially rational in a drive for individual status or tribal solidarity? Can people be cured of their irrationality? Part III: Rationality in the world. How can our opinions, policies, and practices be made more rational? Can rational analyses offer more effective means of improving the world? Examples will include journalism, climate change, sports, crime, government, medicine, political protest, social change, philanthropy, and other forms of effective altruism. These topics will be presented by guest lecturers, many of them well-known authors and public figures. For the capstone project, students will select a major national or global problem, justify the choice, and lay out the most rational means to mitigate or solve it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Imperative Toward Cost-Effectiveness in Global Health Toby Ord March 2013
    center for global development essay The Moral Imperative toward Cost-Effectiveness in Global Health Toby Ord March 2013 www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1427016 abstract Getting good value for the money with scarce resources is a substantial moral issue for global health. This claim may be surprising to some, since conversations on the ethics of global health often focus on moral concerns about justice, fairness, and freedom. But outcomes and consequences are also of central moral importance in setting priorities. In this essay, Toby Ord explores the moral relevance of cost-effectiveness, a major tool for capturing the relationship between resources and outcomes, by illustrating what is lost in moral terms for global health when cost-effectiveness is ignored. For example, the least effective HIV/AIDS intervention produces less than 0.1 percent of the value of the most effective. In practical terms, this can mean hundreds, thousands, or millions of additional deaths due to a failure to prioritize. Ultimately, the author suggests that creating an active process of reviewing and analyzing global health interventions to deliver the bulk of global health funds to the very best. Toby Ord is the founder of Giving What We Can and a James Martin Fellow in the Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, Oxford University. The Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policy research organization that is dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality and to making globalization work for the poor. CGD is grateful for contributions from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in support of this work.
    [Show full text]