(My method gives an estimate of 0.0022 per dollar to GiveDirectly, so if GiveWell is estimating 0.0049 then my bottom line numbers are roughly 2x too high.)
It seems like you’re assuming that the GiveDirectly money would have gone only to the M-Pesa-access side of the (natural) experiment, but they categorized areas based on whether they had M-Pesa access in 2008-2010, not 2012-2014 when access was much higher.
Ah yes—that kind of invalidates what I was trying to do here.
I didn’t notice that GiveWell had an estimate for this, and checking now I still don’t see it. Where’s this estimate from?
It came from the old GiveWell cost-effectiveness analysis excel sheet (2015). “Medians—cell V14”. Actually looking at the new one the equivalent figures seems to be 0.26% so you’re right! (Although this is the present value of total increases in current and future consumption).
(My method gives an estimate of 0.0022 per dollar to GiveDirectly, so if GiveWell is estimating 0.0049 then my bottom line numbers are roughly 2x too high.)
Ah yes—that kind of invalidates what I was trying to do here.
It came from the old GiveWell cost-effectiveness analysis excel sheet (2015). “Medians—cell V14”. Actually looking at the new one the equivalent figures seems to be 0.26% so you’re right! (Although this is the present value of total increases in current and future consumption).