Who decides what's good?

The evidence-based approach has a potential blind spot that isn’t about measurement—it’s about power and knowledge.

GiveWell co-founder Holden Karnofsky called it the “white in shining armor” fallacy: the developed-world donor as the hero who swoops in to fix problems for passive beneficiaries. The trouble is that outsiders often understand local dynamics poorly, and by attempting to solve problems we don’t understand, we can make things worse.

The core insight: progress on most problems must be locally driven. So rather than taking personal responsibility for every challenge people face, we should ask: what can outsiders actually help with?

Three responses:

Focus on comparative advantage. Karnofsky draws an analogy to helping friends: he helps with computer issues (where he’s knowledgeable) rather than picking clothes (where he’s not). The track record suggests health and nutrition are areas where outside funders can help most reliably—not because they’re the only important problems, but because they’re tractable from a distance.

Give cash. GiveDirectly’s model puts decision-making entirely in recipients’ hands. Evidence consistently shows recipients spend cash wisely. For those most concerned about the paternalism trap, unconditional transfers are the most radical response.

Acknowledge the limits. Even asking “what do recipients prefer?” involves outsiders framing questions and interpreting answers. The question “does this work?” should be accompanied by “are we the right people to be doing this?”

Read: Holden Karnofsky, “How not to be a ‘white in shining armor’” (10 mins) https://blog.givewell.org/2012/04/12/how-not-to-be-a-white-in-shining-armor/