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).
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).