Probably because life-saving interventions do not scale this well. Itâs perfectly plausible that some lives can be saved for $1600 in expectation, but millions of them? No.
Peter Rossiâs Iron Law of Evaluation: the âexpected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero.â If there were something that did scale this well, it would be a gigantic revolution in development economics. For discussion, se Vivalt (2020), Duflo (2004), and, in a slightly different but theoretically isomorphic context, Stevenson (2023).
On the other hand, Sania (the CEO) is making a weaker claimââyour ability...is compromisedâ is not the same as âwithout that funding, 1.1 million people will die.â Thatâs why sheâs CEO, she knows how to make a nonspecific claim seem urgent and let the listener/âreader assume a stronger version.
Gavi do vaccines, something that governments and other big bureaucratic orgs sure seem to handle well in other cases. Government funding for vaccines is how we eliminated smallpox, for example. I think âother vaccination programsâ are a much better reference class for Gavi than the nebulous category of âsocial programsâ in general. Indeed the Rossi piece youâve linked to actually says âIn the social program field, nothing has yet been invented which is as effective in its way as the smallpox vaccine was for the field of public health.â Iâm not sure it is even counting public health stuff as âsocial programsâ that fall under the iron law.
Thatâs not to say that Gavi can actually save a life for $1600, or save millions at $1600 each, or that GiveWell should fund them. But impact of literally zero here seems very implausible.
Probably because life-saving interventions do not scale this well. Itâs perfectly plausible that some lives can be saved for $1600 in expectation, but millions of them? No.
Peter Rossiâs Iron Law of Evaluation: the âexpected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero.â If there were something that did scale this well, it would be a gigantic revolution in development economics. For discussion, se Vivalt (2020), Duflo (2004), and, in a slightly different but theoretically isomorphic context, Stevenson (2023).
On the other hand, Sania (the CEO) is making a weaker claimââyour ability...is compromisedâ is not the same as âwithout that funding, 1.1 million people will die.â Thatâs why sheâs CEO, she knows how to make a nonspecific claim seem urgent and let the listener/âreader assume a stronger version.
Gavi do vaccines, something that governments and other big bureaucratic orgs sure seem to handle well in other cases. Government funding for vaccines is how we eliminated smallpox, for example. I think âother vaccination programsâ are a much better reference class for Gavi than the nebulous category of âsocial programsâ in general. Indeed the Rossi piece youâve linked to actually says âIn the social program field, nothing has yet been invented which is as effective in its way as the smallpox vaccine was for the field of public health.â Iâm not sure it is even counting public health stuff as âsocial programsâ that fall under the iron law.
Thatâs not to say that Gavi can actually save a life for $1600, or save millions at $1600 each, or that GiveWell should fund them. But impact of literally zero here seems very implausible.