This looks like a really cool framework! Hoping to experiment with the inputs sometime to inform my future career decisions / my thoughts on funding desk research versus original research / value of replications.
Moving some funders from an overall lower cost effectiveness to a still relatively low or middling level of cost effectiveness can be highly competitive with, and, in some cases, more effective than working with highly cost-effective funders.
I’ve suspected this but never had the framework to formalize it. Or what parameters my claim was sensitive to. Mostly I had a toy metaphor in my head of “small nudge on giant slow rock” > “big nudge on tiny speeding rock” (the former being a bureaucrat nudging an agency budget and the latter being a CEO pivoting an EA-style non-profit). So having more of these cruxes and levers listed out here is very helpful
One concrete case I feel is a sort of “constrained optimization” where a funder has a specific theme they want to stick to. With governments, this might be a legal requirement.
This looks like a really cool framework! Hoping to experiment with the inputs sometime to inform my future career decisions / my thoughts on funding desk research versus original research / value of replications.
I’ve suspected this but never had the framework to formalize it. Or what parameters my claim was sensitive to. Mostly I had a toy metaphor in my head of “small nudge on giant slow rock” > “big nudge on tiny speeding rock” (the former being a bureaucrat nudging an agency budget and the latter being a CEO pivoting an EA-style non-profit). So having more of these cruxes and levers listed out here is very helpful
One concrete case I feel is a sort of “constrained optimization” where a funder has a specific theme they want to stick to. With governments, this might be a legal requirement.