Why is GiveDirectly (seemingly) the only organization focussing on unconditional cash transfers?

By Amber Dawn @ 2024-09-24T12:41 (+22)

 Most EAs agree that unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) are a good intervention against poverty. GiveWell and other organizations use them as a benchmark against which to measure other interventions. But GiveDirectly is the only organization I ever hear about that focusses on UCTs.  From a quick google, it seems like some large charities (e.g. Unicef) have cash transfer programs (but also do other things). Wikipedia suggests that GiveDirectly really does dominate the space (on the 'unconditional cash transfers' page, it’s one of only three headings, alongside Sopreon and the CALP network, neither of which I’ve ever heard of).

Why is this? Some hypotheses that spring to mind:

(1) Most charity entrepreneurs instead found organizations that (they believe) are more impactful.

Cash transfers are a benchmark for impact, but according to the estimates of GiveWell and others, many interventions far exceed that benchmark. If you trust GiveWell’s estimates and are agnostic about what intervention you’re doing, it makes sense to found (or incubate) organizations that do the benchmark-exceeding thing.

(2) GiveDirectly is a respected organization and has room for more funding, so people who want to support UCTs just donate to them.

Both of these arguments/hypotheses make sense to me, but I can think of some reasons why it might be good if more UCT organizations existed: 

(1) Local biases
Some donors might be enthusiastic about cash transfers, but also want to donate within their country/region. I’m sure that GiveDirectly chose their areas based on where it was most cost-effective to work, but like, it’s not as if there isn’t poverty in other countries! Even in rich countries, many people don’t have their needs met. While rich-country cash transfers are probably not competitive with poor-country cash transfers (or other highly effective interventions in global health and development), they might be better than the counterfactual (e.g. the rich-country donor donates to the local opera or whatever).

(2) Robustness
What if GiveDirectly has to shut down some day, or their transfers cease to be (as) effective for some reason? Seems good to have other organizations doing this widely-agreed-to-be-good thing.

Thoughts?