Your idea that “cost-effectiveness doesn’t drop off sharply after GiveWell’s top charities are funded” depends heavily on the effectiveness and scalability of GiveDirectly’s unconditional cash transfers.
I think EAs tend to be overly certain about GiveDirectly’s effectiveness and scalability, given that the Cochrane review that you mention is unable to conclude much about unconditional cash transfers.
What do we know about the scalability of the charities other than GiveWell though? I kind of suspect “No room for more funding” is very much a short-term thing, and if more funding came in programmes could be scaled up to more regions over a period of months and years, Hiring a few more people, building more infrastructure.
My impressions was that the top charities are scaling as fast as they can. Hopefully soon they’ll have room for hundred of millions of dollars of more funding.
Your idea that “cost-effectiveness doesn’t drop off sharply after GiveWell’s top charities are funded” depends heavily on the effectiveness and scalability of GiveDirectly’s unconditional cash transfers.
I think EAs tend to be overly certain about GiveDirectly’s effectiveness and scalability, given that the Cochrane review that you mention is unable to conclude much about unconditional cash transfers.
What do we know about the scalability of the charities other than GiveWell though? I kind of suspect “No room for more funding” is very much a short-term thing, and if more funding came in programmes could be scaled up to more regions over a period of months and years, Hiring a few more people, building more infrastructure.
My impressions was that the top charities are scaling as fast as they can. Hopefully soon they’ll have room for hundred of millions of dollars of more funding.