Are the numbers comparable to GiveWell, or is one of them more conservative? One data point could be Malaria. Is the Benefit-to-cost ratio GiveWell calculates for e.g. AMF around 48 as well?
>Scale up coverage of long-lasting insecticidal bed nets coverage to 10 percentage points above the 2019 level. Use of chlorfenapir to offset insecticide resistance and social and behavioral change communication to increase the usage including hang-up campaigns.
Thanks for asking, Milli! I have added the following to the post:
I expect the benefit-to-cost ratios of the papers to be overestimates:
The paper on malaria estimates a ratio of 48, whereas I infer GiveWell’s is:
35.5 (= 14.8*2.4) for the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), considering the mean cost-effectiveness across 8 countries of 14.8 times that of cash transfers.
40.8 (= 17.0*2.4) for the Malaria Consortium, considering the mean cost-effectiveness across 13 countries of 17.0 times that of cash transfers.
Actually 24.0 (= 10*2.4) for any intervention, given GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness bar of 10 times that of cash transfers? I am confused about many of GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness estimates being much higher than their bar. In theory, each intervention should be funded until the marginal cost-effectiveness reaches the bar.
The paper on malaria studies an annual investment of 1.1 G 2020-$, whereas GiveWell’s estimates respect marginal donations.
Consequently, assuming diminishing marginal returns, and that GiveWell’s estimates are more accurate, that of the paper on malaria is a significant overestimate.
I guess the same reasoning applies to other areas.
Thanks for sharing!
Are the numbers comparable to GiveWell, or is one of them more conservative? One data point could be Malaria. Is the Benefit-to-cost ratio GiveWell calculates for e.g. AMF around 48 as well?
Thanks for asking, Milli! I have added the following to the post: