We are excited to announce the launch of the Abundance and Growth Fund, which will spend at least $120 million over the next three years to accelerate economic growth and boost scientific and technological progress while lowering the cost of living.
We’re grateful for support from Good Ventures, which has committed $60M, and from the other private individuals who matched them. We’re also grateful for a contribution from Patrick Collison, who helped launch the Progress Studies movement.
We launched the fund because:
- Economic growth has transformed global living standards, and further growth could deliver vast improvements to health and well-being.
- Innovation is a key input to growth; economists and our own researchers estimate that R&D and scientific research have very high social returns.
- We have strong evidence that it’s possible to boost growth and innovation by removing existing constraints; there are many positive examples to point to where alternative systems have enabled faster progress.
- We thought the timing was right. (See below.)
We’ve long been one of the most active philanthropic funders in the pro-abundance and pro-growth movements, particularly in land use reform and innovation policy. We chose this moment to double down because:
- We feel encouraged by the recent rise of the Abundance and Progress Studies movements, which advocate for economic growth and material progress.
- We’ve seen cross-partisan interest in areas like zoning reform, energy permitting, and science policy.
- We learned a lot from launching the Lead Exposure Action Fund, which helped us quickly establish a similar pooled fund for abundance and growth.
See our blog post for more detail on all of these points.
With the launch of the Fund, we’re also launching a search for a program leader to manage it on a permanent basis. They will have significant autonomy in shaping the Fund’s direction and strategy. The application deadline is 3/31. We encourage you to check out the job description and apply yourself, or recommend someone who you think would be a strong candidate.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask this, but I'm curious if people at OP think that this is cost-effective with other areas they are working on. Or more broadly, I'm curious if there's any public argument of effectiveness on this.
The public communications seems to emphasize reasons why this field is promising, not reasons why it's a good trade-off vs. other top fields. This seems similar to the sort of logic that all philanthropic donors use - it's possible to find reasons why basically all philanthropic areas are promising.
I don't believe there's been cost-effectiveness estimation posted publicly, for instance.
Overall this seems very much going in the direction of more traditional center-leftist/tech[1] philanthropy. I think that this sort of philanthropy is often net-good, but obviously there's a gap between it and the things we generally regard as effective altruism.
[1] Here I mean something like "center-left in the US"
My quick guess is that people at OP won't want to argue that this area is cost-effective with other top areas.
It's their money, I won't complain.
But at the same time, I want to avoid the trap of people on this forum assuming that their work is justified as being cost-effective with other top areas.
I think it's easy for both:
1. OP doesn't argue that its work represents Effective Altruism
2. Many people around Effective Altruism defer greatly to OP, and assume its actions are cost-effective in EA ways
So to be clear, I think that typically, only one of those two points will be true. I assume it's (1). And correspondingly, I imagine that many Effective Altruists should understand not to make many assumptions using public OP announcements like this about which topics are cost-effective.
There's obviously one semi-interesting question, which is, "Okay, but then why should this announcement from OP be shown on the EA Forum, but not similar announcements from the Gates Foundation or similar?" This seems like a tricky question to answer. I think it's good that this was posted here, but hope that readers don't assume the wrong things about what it means. I assume that this was posted here roughly because OP is an org important for EA, not because OP is trying to argue that this is necessarily an EA cause.
Thanks this is super helpful. I was trying to get my head around this announcement and that really helps.
Also to state the maybe obvious, you are allowed to ask whatever you want, and they are allowed to answer it or not! I for one appreciated the question in and of itself regardless of whether it gets answered
Speculation only:
It seems plausible to me that the value of funding "Abundance and Growth" in the USA is not measured in QALYs, but in supporting a political alternative to Trump and MAGA. The "center-left" vibes might not be a bug, but a feature.
If you think USAID cuts are important, and AI is important, and that Trump is net-negative on both of these, maybe the most impactful thing you can do is support alternative narratives to Trumpism and help ensure he doesn't get re-elected and that you swing the house as far as possible. Of course, it needs sound bi-partisan and not in-your-face, but "Abundance and Growth" is pretty clearly at contrast to the current administrations policies.
This both explains why OP won't publicly their reasoning for this, and why it might be as cost-effective in EV as other options.
I'd flag that Dustin Moskovitz is a top Democratic donor. He certainly doesn't seem to have a problem directly donating to support Democrats. So I don't see a need to donate to Abundance as a way to counter Trump while being bi-partisan.
That said, I know that Abundance-proponents do consider it as an area that has wide-ranging positive effects. So while "reducing political extremism" might not be the only purpose, I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of the pie.
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Dustin+Moskovitz
One perspective one could have is that this is a positive-sum approach to influence-/power-seeking: supporting neglected policies that would benefit large amounts of the US public buys goodwill, helps develop connections with other funders, and might put people in positions of power that are highly sympathetic to EA ideas. With the current state of the EA brand, this might not be such a bad idea.
There are other ways of seeking influence but they tend to have fewer positive effects (donating to politicians, trying to run one's own candidates for office) and solely relying on the strategy "become experts and try to convince those in power of the necessary policies" isn't really bearing fruit. And it seems increasingly untenable to ignore politics, with US & UK (and Netherlands) already drastically slashing international aid and the AGI trajectory depending heavily on those in power.
It is of course different from the default EA strategy of "do the actual thing you believe is directly most cost-effective and communicate very explicitly about your theory of change". But I don't think that explicitly communicating this would be well-received by third parties. Even explicitly thinking of it this way internally is risky PR-wise.
It does seem important to clearly delineate within EA when and whose communication is meant to be representative of one's thinking, and which communication isn't. Muddying this could be quite detrimental to EA in the long-term. I'm not sure how OpenPhil should've acted here. Perhaps better if they had not posted it to the EA Forum so that they don't signal "we believe this is good on EA grounds".
All in all, I'm positively inclined towards this fund though.
What makes it leftist? If anything my immediate reaction is that abundance is in some sense right-coded in that it's about unleashing markets. Maybe more British right and pre-Trump American right than current right.
(Mostly a nitpick, as I don't want Open Phil doing centrist or libertarian or centre-right coded things rather than what's most effective either, and I think strongly upvoted your comment.)
Sorry, that was confusing on my end.
When I said "left" I was thinking "center-left in the US, of the type close to Bay Area tech." Agreed that the right of other countries are much more open to this sort of thing.
I think the current US MAGA focus seems pretty clearly not what this is targeted to, at least. They seem pretty distant from many of our epistemics.
There's certainly been discussion of the potential efficacy of growth-focused interventions from an EA perspective, as in this Forum Post, "Growth and the case against randomista development" (a winner of the EA Forum First Decade Review!)
To give you a taste, some arguments of theirs I found quite thought-provoking were:
All of this said... it's hard to imagine this logic would hold (as) true for interventions in the US where Open Philanthropy is saying they're focused within this fund at the moment. So on that front I'll admit I'm more confused!
Yep when I first saw it I assumed they meant
Innovation around technology that would help people in low income countries (medical innovation, fintech, drone deliveries etc.
Then I saw it was all US based.
Again I don't mind at all if open Phil has a non EA d based, US based philanthropy arm, that might be what the donors want to do and might even be a good strategic move for PR reasons. But might be good to be more explicit about that.
I think that one thing that makes this a bit more confusing, to me, is the focus on Abundance / scientific progress / Progress Studies. These areas often focus on things other than strict economic growth.
It's just an incredibly broad area that they are discussing, if they want to cover things in both "Economic Growth" and "Abundance / Progress Studies".
Especially if they also want to cover things outside the US as well as inside the US.(Sorry, I see it's mainly US now)Maybe you don't mean this literally, but I find this kind of horrifying. Who do you think wouldn't allow you to ask this question, and why?
Sorry, I was unsure how to express that.
I think there are a lot of implicit social agreements at work here. I know that a lot of people in positions in power often don't want to spend much time being questioned or addressing points they find disagreeable.
My impression is that a lot of public statements from major organizations come with expectations like this. But these expectations aren't typically explicit, which I find makes them difficult to reason about.
Historically, I know that many people with power around OP don't seem to engage much with comments on the EA Forum. For example, when I look through Holden's posts, I don't see many comments/responses from him. (with a good exception being this recent post!)
Or see this comment by Dustin Moskovitz:
> I'm not detailing specific decisions for the same reason I want to invest in fewer focus areas: additional information is used as additional attack surface area. The attitude in EA communities is "give an inch, fight a mile". So I'll choose to be less legible instead.
(quote emphasized by me)
It seems like Dustin thinks that EA's fight too much with OP, more than is fair, and therefore Dustin actively chooses to be less legible.
So, what is "fighting"? Is my questioning of the cost-effectiveness me "fighting a mile"? I have no idea.
Perhaps a better way to say, "I'm not sure if I can question this" might be something like, "I'm not sure if me raising this point would significantly frustrate people like Dustin." I'm not expecting him or others at OP to consider potentially-critical information as the kind that should be, say, legally attacked, but I do expect them to dislike a lot of this sort of conversation, and I don't feel like I understand where the lines are.
I don't particularly blame OP / EA leaders for this challenge. More that i think it's the kind of thing that comes out of most extreme power imbalances, and it takes a good deal of work to get around it.
I just wrote a longer comment clarifying my views on some of the potential awkwardness of the OP-EA partnership.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mopsmd3JELJRyTTty/ozzie-gooen-s-shortform?commentId=o9rEBRmKoTvjNMHF7
What is the justification for this focus on the United States? (Which is, obviously, among the wealthiest countries in the world already).
Maybe they are predicting not for long... ;)
J/k
It's quite unclear that attempts to "boost scientific and technological progress" are net-positive at this point in time. I'd much rather see an effort to shift science towards differential technological development.
Nice timing with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's Abundance coming out soon