Basically, funders are holding their bar significantly higher than GiveDirectly. And that’s because they believe that by waiting, we’ll be able to find and also create new opportunities that are significantly more cost effective than GiveDirectly, and therefore over the long term have a much bigger impact. So I’d say the kind of current bar of funding within GiveDirectly is more around the level of Against Malaria Foundation, which GiveWell estimates is 15 times more cost effective than GiveDirectly. So generally, charities that are around that level of cost effectiveness, that level of evidence base, and kind of good in the same other ways, have a good shot of getting funding.
Could you clarify what you mean here? Is “current bar of funding within GiveDirectly” the phrasing you intended? Is it that new interventions need the cost effectiveness of AMF, and also the scale of GiveDirectly? Sorry there’s not a more specific question, I’m just generally a bit confused by the literal meaning of this paragraph as you intended it.
Hey, that seems like I mis-spoke in the talk (or there’s a typo in the transcript). I think it should be “current bar of funding with global development”.
I think in general new charities need to offer some combination of the potential for higher or similar cost-effectiveness of AMF and scalability. Exactly how to weigh those two is a difficult question.
Could you clarify what you mean here? Is “current bar of funding within GiveDirectly” the phrasing you intended? Is it that new interventions need the cost effectiveness of AMF, and also the scale of GiveDirectly? Sorry there’s not a more specific question, I’m just generally a bit confused by the literal meaning of this paragraph as you intended it.
Hey, that seems like I mis-spoke in the talk (or there’s a typo in the transcript). I think it should be “current bar of funding with global development”.
I think in general new charities need to offer some combination of the potential for higher or similar cost-effectiveness of AMF and scalability. Exactly how to weigh those two is a difficult question.
Makes sense, thanks!