What implications does game theory have for global charities? If a charity such as the Malaria Consortium broadcasted the following announcement on live television, what do you think the effect would be?
"The Charity Game"
If you could donate $50 and with that money save thousands of people, would you do it? We think that the answer is yes. Now consider a different question. If your decision to donate $50 inspired hundreds of thousands of others to donate, and your decision led to a chain effect that saved thousands of lives, would you donate? We think that you would.
We estimate that it will take $10,000,000 to eradicate malaria in Nigeria, saving 2,500 lives. But all it will take for you personally to eradicate malaria in this region is $50. In this game, every individual will have the opportunity to donate exactly $50 to a neutral arbiter. If we don't reach the 200,000 donations necessary to achieve the goal by 6pm tonight, all of the money is returned. If we do reach the number of donations necessary, all the money is delegated to eradicating malaria in South Africa. We estimate that after this announcement is made, the threshold will either barely be reached or barely be missed. Given expected donations and standard deviation in human behavior, it is predicted that if anyone listening convinces three people to donate while donating themselves, that action will have a 10% chance of causing the threshold to be met. Consider the following possibilities: (1) The threshold is met, in which case your decision to donate has a significant probability of saving 2,500 lives and definitely has some impact regardless, or (2) The threshold is not met, in which case your money is returned, and you've lost nothing anyway.
If exactly 200,000 people decide to donate, then each of those people has, with their donation, saved 2,500 lives. If 199,999 other people decide to donate, and you are not one of them, then your decision not to donate resulted in 2,500 preventable deaths. If that is the case by tonight, then will you regret your decision not to donate? If we do reach the number of donations necessary, and you are one of the donors, will you be happy that your donation caused 2,500 people to live? We think that the answer to each of these questions is yes.
Perhaps this is manipulative. Perhaps you think that by returning donations if they do not meet a certain threshold, we have become responsible for the deaths of these people. But even if that is true, it does not change the inescapable fact that your decision to donate has a significant chance of saving 2,500 people.
