To what extent does GW base its recommendations of cost-effectiveness estimates?
Some parts of the GW website seem to argue (or caution) against using them.* However, if you’re not using cost-effectiveness estimates, what criterion is being used instead?
For what it’s worth, I think GW (and many others) should be trying to use cost-effectiveness estimates. One can distinguish implicit vs explicit estimates, ‘naive’ vs ‘sophisticated’ estimates, estimates of ‘direct’ effects vs total effects, so maybe GW objects to some of these but not others, and it would be helpful to know which ones.
To what extent does GW base its recommendations of cost-effectiveness estimates?
Some parts of the GW website seem to argue (or caution) against using them.* However, if you’re not using cost-effectiveness estimates, what criterion is being used instead?
For what it’s worth, I think GW (and many others) should be trying to use cost-effectiveness estimates. One can distinguish implicit vs explicit estimates, ‘naive’ vs ‘sophisticated’ estimates, estimates of ‘direct’ effects vs total effects, so maybe GW objects to some of these but not others, and it would be helpful to know which ones.
*In an old (2011) blog post, Holden wrote
“we are arguing that focusing on directly estimating cost-effectiveness is not the best way to maximize cost-effectiveness”
and the cost-effectiveness part of GW website says
“We do not make charity recommendations solely on the basis of cost-effectiveness calculations ”