This is a linkpost for Copenhagen Consensus Centerâs 12 best investment papers for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which were published in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis in 2023. Some notes:
Each paper does a cost-benefit analysis which accounts for health and economic benefits. The benefit-to-cost ratios across the 12 papers range from 18 (nutrition) to 125 (e-Government procurement).
All 12 ratios are much higher than the 2.4 estimated for GiveDirectlyâs cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
4 are similar to and 8 are higher than GiveWellâs cost-effectiveness bar of around 24 (= 10*2.4), equal to 10 times the above.
Cash transfers are often preferred due to being highly scalable, but the 12 papers deal with large investments too. As can be seen in the table below, taken from a companion post, all 12 interventions together have:
An annual cost of 41 G 2020-$ (41 billion 2020 USD).
Annual benefits of 2.14 T 2020-$ (2.14 trillion 2020 USD), of which 1.12 T 2020-$ are economic benefits corresponding to 14.6 % (= 1.12*1.13/â(8.17 + 0.528)) of the gross domestic product (GDP) of low and lower-middle income countries in 2022.
A benefit-to-cost ratio of 52.2 (= 2.14/â0.041), 21.8 (= 52.2/â2.4) times that of GiveDirectlyâs cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
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 GiveWellâs 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 GiveWellâs cost-effectiveness bar of 10 times that of cash transfers? I am confused about many of GiveWellâs 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 GiveWellâs estimates respect marginal donations.
Consequently, assuming diminishing marginal returns, and that GiveWellâs estimates are more accurate, that of the paper on malaria is a significant overestimate.
I guess the same reasoning applies to other areas.
I think 3 of the papers focus on areas which have not been funded by GiveWell nor Open Philanthropy[2]:
e-Government procurement (benefit-to-cost ratio of 125).
Basic research and development, including capacity building, and technical and policy support with special focus on Low- and Lower Middle-Income countries. Research outcomes are difficult to predict, but an example could be crop yield increases using precision genetic technologies.
Raise immunization coverage from 2022 levels to 2030 target for pentavalent vaccine, HPV, Japanese encephalitis, measles, measles-rubella, Men A, PCV, rotavirus, and yellow fever.
Sufficient staff and resources at all birth facilities to deliver a package of basic emergency obstetric and newborn care and family planning services, including bag and mask for neonatal resuscitation, removal of retained products of conception, clean cord care, uterotonics, pills and condoms etc.
IT systems to manage procurement activities of works, goods, and services required by the public sector resulting in for example more transparent and less corruption-prone project budgeting, submission of bids, bid evaluation, auctions, publication of contract award results, and vendor payments.
Scaling up diagnosis and care, such as modern diagnostics, integration of screening with other health services for early detection, and prevention. Partnering with the community and private sector. Accelerating development of new tools.
Complementary feeding promotion for mothers with children 6â23 months. Multi-micronutrients and calcium supplements to the 40% of pregnant women, that currently take iron and folic acid supplementation.
Regulations, taxes, and information to reduce smoking, consumption of alcohol, salt, and trans-fats. Scale-up eight highly cost-effective clinical interventions, for example basic treatment of cardiovascular disease, depression, and early-stage breast cancer.
Urban and rural land registration, digitizing land registries to improve efficiency and transparency, strengthening institutions and systems to resolve land disputes and manage expropriations over a ten-year implementation period, and land administration operations and land records maintenance over 30 years.
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.
Structured pedagogy, a coherent package of textbooks, lesson plans, and teacher training and coaching that work together to improve in-class teaching. Teaching according to learning level rather than age or grade, either technology-assisted learning with tablets, or teaching assistants by deploying âteaching-at-the-right levelâ.
Copenhagen Consensus Centerâs best investment papers for the sustainable development goals
Link post
This is a linkpost for Copenhagen Consensus Centerâs 12 best investment papers for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which were published in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis in 2023. Some notes:
Each paper does a cost-benefit analysis which accounts for health and economic benefits. The benefit-to-cost ratios across the 12 papers range from 18 (nutrition) to 125 (e-Government procurement).
All 12 ratios are much higher than the 2.4 estimated for GiveDirectlyâs cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
4 are similar to and 8 are higher than GiveWellâs cost-effectiveness bar of around 24 (= 10*2.4), equal to 10 times the above.
Cash transfers are often preferred due to being highly scalable, but the 12 papers deal with large investments too. As can be seen in the table below, taken from a companion post, all 12 interventions together have:
An annual cost of 41 G 2020-$ (41 billion 2020 USD).
Annual benefits of 2.14 T 2020-$ (2.14 trillion 2020 USD), of which 1.12 T 2020-$ are economic benefits corresponding to 14.6 % (= 1.12*1.13/â(8.17 + 0.528)) of the gross domestic product (GDP) of low and lower-middle income countries in 2022.
A benefit-to-cost ratio of 52.2 (= 2.14/â0.041), 21.8 (= 52.2/â2.4) times that of GiveDirectlyâs cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
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 GiveWellâs 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 GiveWellâs cost-effectiveness bar of 10 times that of cash transfers? I am confused about many of GiveWellâs 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 GiveWellâs estimates respect marginal donations.
Consequently, assuming diminishing marginal returns, and that GiveWellâs estimates are more accurate, that of the paper on malaria is a significant overestimate.
I guess the same reasoning applies to other areas.
I think 3 of the papers focus on areas which have not been funded by GiveWell nor Open Philanthropy[2]:
e-Government procurement (benefit-to-cost ratio of 125).
Trade (95).
Land tenure security (21).
Agricultural research and development
Paper: Benefit-Cost Analysis of Increased Funding for Agricultural Research and Development in the Global South.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 33.
Investment:
Childhood immunization
Paper: SDG Halftime Project: Benefit-Cost Analysis using Methods from the Decade of Vaccine Economics (DOVE) Model.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 101.
Investment:
Maternal and newborn health
Paper: Achieving maternal and neonatal mortality development goals effectively: A cost-benefit analysis.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 87.
Investment:
e-Government procurement
Paper: The investment case for e-Government Procurement: a cost-benefit analysis.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 125.
Investment:
Tuberculosis
Paper: One million lives saved per year: A cost-benefit analysis of the Global Plan to End TB, 2023â2030 and beyond.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 46.
Investment:
Nutrition
Paper: Investing in nutrition â a global best investment case.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 18.
Investment:
Trade
Paper: Benefit-cost analysis of increased trade: An order-of-magnitude estimate of the benefit-cost ratio.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 95.
Investment:
Chronic diseases
Paper: Best investments in chronic, noncommunicable disease prevention and control in low- and lowerâmiddle-income countries.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 23.
Investment:
Land tenure security
Paper: The Investment Case for Land Tenure Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 21.
Investment:
Malaria
Paper: Benefits and Costs of Scaling up Coverage and Use of Insecticide Treated Nets.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 48.
Investment:
Skilled migration
Paper: A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Increased International Migration of Skilled Labor in Africa and the World.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 20.
Investment:
Education
Paper: Improving Learning in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 65.
Investment:
Mean across the estimates for 8 countries.
I checked GiveWellâs and Open Philanthropyâs grants.