I would agree that impact calculations are only improved by considering concepts like counterfactual / additional marginal and so on.
I would caveat that when you’re not doing calculations based on data, but rather more informal reasoning, it’s important not to overweight this idea and assume that less competitive positions are probably better—it might easily be that the role with higher impact when your calculation is naïve to margins and counterfactuals, remains the role with higher impact after adding those calculations in, even if it is indeed the more competitive role.
I think for most people when it comes to big cause area differences like CEA vs AMF, what they think about the big picture regarding cause areas will likely dominate their considerations. Your estimate would have to fall within a very specific range before adjustments for counterfactual additionality on the margin would be a consideration that tips the scale, wouldn’t it?
I would agree that impact calculations are only improved by considering concepts like counterfactual / additional marginal and so on.
I would caveat that when you’re not doing calculations based on data, but rather more informal reasoning, it’s important not to overweight this idea and assume that less competitive positions are probably better—it might easily be that the role with higher impact when your calculation is naïve to margins and counterfactuals, remains the role with higher impact after adding those calculations in, even if it is indeed the more competitive role.
I think for most people when it comes to big cause area differences like CEA vs AMF, what they think about the big picture regarding cause areas will likely dominate their considerations. Your estimate would have to fall within a very specific range before adjustments for counterfactual additionality on the margin would be a consideration that tips the scale, wouldn’t it?