As if their bad stats are bad enough, I've never seen a SINGLE Oxfam report that discussed or took into account the benefits that arise from owning bunnies. Not one! Despite them being super cute.
If I've learned one thing from my time in corporate, if numbers are too spectacular you either don't publish them to avoid waking up sleeping giants or you do and risk losing all credibility.
Mostly because they are usually not statistically representative and/or pulled out of context anyway.
Love this article. I wish I thought that it would help discredit Oxfam as a source but unfortunately, in the UK at least, they are regarded as an unimpeachable example of goodness. Thus they raise huge amounts of money to "help combat hunger and poverty" using emotional advertising. In reality much of their money is spent "campaigning" on issues using the kind of stats you describe.
As someone who lived in Africa for 3 years, I find the total failure of these huge charities to address the basic issues - Governance, war, corruption etc appalling. Hope your aritcle makes at least a small dent in the armour.
If income = consumption and per capita emissions can be distributed by income percentile, they aren't making dodgy assumptions so much as just assuming the conclusion.
This is precisely it: "Perhaps the people who work at Oxfam think it’s fine to do this, because we all know that global inequality and global poverty are large, so exaggerating these ills in order to spur greater action is no great crime."
It's basically the same reason medieval monks made up stories about the miracles worked by saints. In their minds they weren't misleading people, they were correctly guiding people to save their eternal souls.
Hi Noah, Max from Oxfam here. Thanks for the scrutiny as always. It would have been really nice if you had approached us first before publishing this blog, as you did when we discussed the wealth numbers a couple of years ago and when we connected you up with the researchers at Credit Suisse to discuss it further. It would seem reasonable with a blog as well read and influential as yours to have reached out first. Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can.
They also count recent Harvard graduates' debt as "negative wealth" to make the case that "the world's richest 10 people own more than half the world" or something like this. But by that measure, having a single dollar makes you wealthier than the bottom 45%.
"The only thing that will come from willfully (or carelessly) putting out unreliable statistics will be to make observers eventually discount you as a credible source."
I think Oxfam does good work, and the reports I've read about the organization's financial management indicate a high percentage of funds raised does go into programs, as opposed to administration and further fundraising. So I do not want to see Oxfam undermine its long-term credibility (and simultaneously prompt progressive politicians to make errors that will provide ammunition for right-wing attack). To the degree Noah's findings and conclusions are correct, I hope they will help prompt Oxfam to guard its credibility, even at some marginal short-term cost to fundraising. (I agree that the actual data is likely to motivate the same donors.)
Max Lawson of Oxfam writes in his comment above, "Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can." I'll be following to see that response, and stay open to the possibility that the Oxfam figures are reasonably grounded.
It really is a crime that we use that $1.90/day number. Think how many could be saved from poverty if we just revised that number down. #95centsperdaytohelpthepoor
Oxfam is a big, expensive organisation to run. It does PR to maintain profile. PR has to be interesting enough to inspire customer engagement. When your job is to upset people about Bad Things so that they will become your customer and buy Good Things (ie your work) it’s in your best interest to make things look as bad as possible.
As ever, fair play to the activists. This is their raison d’être. The fault lies with credulous media.
As if their bad stats are bad enough, I've never seen a SINGLE Oxfam report that discussed or took into account the benefits that arise from owning bunnies. Not one! Despite them being super cute.
As usual, ideological fanaticism results in big lies. Works that way whether one is left or right.
I just assume when I see a stat like that it’s NOT net.
If 400m raise out of poverty, 200m fall in, that’s -200m net change to poverty, but also true that “200m fell into poverty”.
Oxfam, like most activist organizations, focuses more on ensuring a steady flow of money and attention accruing to itself than its ostensible mission.
Using their methodology, a slum dweller who has paid off their house would be richer than me. It's ludicrous.
If I've learned one thing from my time in corporate, if numbers are too spectacular you either don't publish them to avoid waking up sleeping giants or you do and risk losing all credibility.
Mostly because they are usually not statistically representative and/or pulled out of context anyway.
Love this article. I wish I thought that it would help discredit Oxfam as a source but unfortunately, in the UK at least, they are regarded as an unimpeachable example of goodness. Thus they raise huge amounts of money to "help combat hunger and poverty" using emotional advertising. In reality much of their money is spent "campaigning" on issues using the kind of stats you describe.
Oxfem even survived considerable negative PR and a cut in UK Government funding over serious sexual abuse claims https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/08/uk-halts-funding-for-oxfam-over-sexual-misconduct-claims
As someone who lived in Africa for 3 years, I find the total failure of these huge charities to address the basic issues - Governance, war, corruption etc appalling. Hope your aritcle makes at least a small dent in the armour.
Leave you with this from the Spectator recently https://app.spectator.co.uk/2020/04/22/mal-dafrique/content.html
If income = consumption and per capita emissions can be distributed by income percentile, they aren't making dodgy assumptions so much as just assuming the conclusion.
This is precisely it: "Perhaps the people who work at Oxfam think it’s fine to do this, because we all know that global inequality and global poverty are large, so exaggerating these ills in order to spur greater action is no great crime."
It's basically the same reason medieval monks made up stories about the miracles worked by saints. In their minds they weren't misleading people, they were correctly guiding people to save their eternal souls.
thanks for once again being a truth teller
Hi Noah, Max from Oxfam here. Thanks for the scrutiny as always. It would have been really nice if you had approached us first before publishing this blog, as you did when we discussed the wealth numbers a couple of years ago and when we connected you up with the researchers at Credit Suisse to discuss it further. It would seem reasonable with a blog as well read and influential as yours to have reached out first. Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can.
They also count recent Harvard graduates' debt as "negative wealth" to make the case that "the world's richest 10 people own more than half the world" or something like this. But by that measure, having a single dollar makes you wealthier than the bottom 45%.
"The only thing that will come from willfully (or carelessly) putting out unreliable statistics will be to make observers eventually discount you as a credible source."
I think Oxfam does good work, and the reports I've read about the organization's financial management indicate a high percentage of funds raised does go into programs, as opposed to administration and further fundraising. So I do not want to see Oxfam undermine its long-term credibility (and simultaneously prompt progressive politicians to make errors that will provide ammunition for right-wing attack). To the degree Noah's findings and conclusions are correct, I hope they will help prompt Oxfam to guard its credibility, even at some marginal short-term cost to fundraising. (I agree that the actual data is likely to motivate the same donors.)
Max Lawson of Oxfam writes in his comment above, "Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can." I'll be following to see that response, and stay open to the possibility that the Oxfam figures are reasonably grounded.
I support all posts which reference or use imagery from the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
Glad you concluded that this is nothing new but that Oxfam is a serial repeat offender at publishing dodgy data.
It really is a crime that we use that $1.90/day number. Think how many could be saved from poverty if we just revised that number down. #95centsperdaytohelpthepoor
Honestly, I think it works like this.
Oxfam is a big, expensive organisation to run. It does PR to maintain profile. PR has to be interesting enough to inspire customer engagement. When your job is to upset people about Bad Things so that they will become your customer and buy Good Things (ie your work) it’s in your best interest to make things look as bad as possible.
As ever, fair play to the activists. This is their raison d’être. The fault lies with credulous media.
Ace piece - and thanks.