I agree that centralised grant-making might mean that some promising projects are missed. But we’re not solely interested in this? We’re overall interested in:
Average cost-effectiveness per $ granted
*
Number of $ we’re able to grant
My intuition would be that the more decentralised the grant-making process, the more $ we’re able to grant.
But this also requires us to invest more talent in grant-making, which means, in practice, fewer promising people applying for grants themselves, which might non-negligibly reduce average cost-effectiveness per $ granted.
Beyond the above consideration, it seems unclear whether decentralised grant-making would overall increase of decrease the average cost-effectiveness. Sure, fewer projects above the current average cost-effectiveness would slip through the net, but so too fewer projects below the current average cost-effectiveness would slip through the net. So I’d expect these things to balance each other out roughly UNLESS we’re making a separate claim that the current grantmakers are making poor / miscalibrated decisions. But at that point, this is not an argument in favour of decentralising grant-making, but an argument in favour of replacing (or competing with) the current grantmakers.
So maybe overall, decentralising grant-making would trade an increase in $ we’re able to grant for a small decrease in average cost-effectiveness of granted $.
(I felt pretty confused writing these comments and suspect I’ve missed many relevant considerations, but thought I’d flesh out and share my intuitive concerns with the central argument of this post, rather than just sit on them.)
I agree that centralised grant-making might mean that some promising projects are missed. But we’re not solely interested in this? We’re overall interested in:
Average cost-effectiveness per $ granted * Number of $ we’re able to grant
My intuition would be that the more decentralised the grant-making process, the more $ we’re able to grant.
But this also requires us to invest more talent in grant-making, which means, in practice, fewer promising people applying for grants themselves, which might non-negligibly reduce average cost-effectiveness per $ granted.
Beyond the above consideration, it seems unclear whether decentralised grant-making would overall increase of decrease the average cost-effectiveness. Sure, fewer projects above the current average cost-effectiveness would slip through the net, but so too fewer projects below the current average cost-effectiveness would slip through the net. So I’d expect these things to balance each other out roughly UNLESS we’re making a separate claim that the current grantmakers are making poor / miscalibrated decisions. But at that point, this is not an argument in favour of decentralising grant-making, but an argument in favour of replacing (or competing with) the current grantmakers.
So maybe overall, decentralising grant-making would trade an increase in $ we’re able to grant for a small decrease in average cost-effectiveness of granted $.
(I felt pretty confused writing these comments and suspect I’ve missed many relevant considerations, but thought I’d flesh out and share my intuitive concerns with the central argument of this post, rather than just sit on them.)