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 asking, Milli! I have added the following to the post: