We see cost-effectiveness analysis as a valuable tool, but in some cases, it requires so many uncertain assumptions that it risks obscuring more than it reveals. In certain cases, two reasonable models can differ so much that one suggests a massive impact, and the other little to no impact.
Our hope is that donors to use cost-effectiveness estimates as one input, rather than treating them as final scores. Our goal isnāt to say which charity is ābest,ā but to offer high-quality information that empowers donors to make informed decisions.
You estimated the animals helped per $ for the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI), and SWP. I think your analyses would be more valuable if you got estimates for the increase in welfare per $. I know one needs to make contentious assumptions to compute these, but I still think producing them is valuable such that people can see which organisations increase welfare the most per $ under their preferred assumptions. Making calibrated adjustments is harder without an underlying model. Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) estimated the cost-effectiveness of some charities in terms of suffering averted per $, which I believe is quite similar to welfare increased per $[1].
Our goal isnāt to say which charity is ābest,ā but to offer high-quality information that empowers donors to make informed decisions.
I encourage you to clarify which are your criteria for recommending a charity. I think impact-focussed evaluators avoid large differences in cost-effectiveness among their recommendations[2]. So people may infer you do not think there are large differences in cost-effectiveness among your recommendations.
Vince Mak, ACEās charity evaluations manager, said āWe do not recommend charities if there is a large enough gap between their expected marginal cost-effectiveness and that of our other charitiesā. GiveWellās top charities save a life for 3.5 k to 5.5 k$.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, Vascoāitās very much appreciated!
To clarify a few things:
We looked at a lot of charities, and in our opinion, these three were the best. That said, we donāt want readers to donate just because we called them ātopā charities. Our goal is for people to read our reviews, understand what each charity is doing, and make their own decision based on their values and priorities.
Itās possible there are large differences in cost-effectiveness between our recommendations, but we donāt know if this is true, and we also donāt have a strong intuition as to what the ranking between the three would be. We also think that trying to rank the three in terms of cost-effectiveness would be somewhat misleading (like trying to say a banana is more cost-effective than a hammer). Each solves a different problem, and which one is ābetterā depends heavily on what the donor values.
We only estimated total cost-effectiveness for SWP. For FWI, we cited their historical cost-effectiveness calculation, but didnāt attempt to calculate their total cost-effectiveness. Itās entirely possible FWI is the most (or least) cost-effective of the three. For example, FWI is currently attempting to use satellites to monitor water quality. If this succeeds, this could make it much cheaper to monitor water quality on fish farms. However, it remains speculative whether or not this will happen.
Thanks again for engaging with our workāwe really value this kind of discussion
Thanks for the clarifications.
You estimated the animals helped per $ for the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI), and SWP. I think your analyses would be more valuable if you got estimates for the increase in welfare per $. I know one needs to make contentious assumptions to compute these, but I still think producing them is valuable such that people can see which organisations increase welfare the most per $ under their preferred assumptions. Making calibrated adjustments is harder without an underlying model. Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) estimated the cost-effectiveness of some charities in terms of suffering averted per $, which I believe is quite similar to welfare increased per $[1].
I encourage you to clarify which are your criteria for recommending a charity. I think impact-focussed evaluators avoid large differences in cost-effectiveness among their recommendations[2]. So people may infer you do not think there are large differences in cost-effectiveness among your recommendations.
I think the impact of the interventions ACE assessed mostly comes from decreasing suffering, not increasing happiness.
Vince Mak, ACEās charity evaluations manager, said āWe do not recommend charities if there is a large enough gap between their expected marginal cost-effectiveness and that of our other charitiesā. GiveWellās top charities save a life for 3.5 k to 5.5 k$.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, Vascoāitās very much appreciated!
To clarify a few things:
We looked at a lot of charities, and in our opinion, these three were the best. That said, we donāt want readers to donate just because we called them ātopā charities. Our goal is for people to read our reviews, understand what each charity is doing, and make their own decision based on their values and priorities.
Itās possible there are large differences in cost-effectiveness between our recommendations, but we donāt know if this is true, and we also donāt have a strong intuition as to what the ranking between the three would be. We also think that trying to rank the three in terms of cost-effectiveness would be somewhat misleading (like trying to say a banana is more cost-effective than a hammer). Each solves a different problem, and which one is ābetterā depends heavily on what the donor values.
We only estimated total cost-effectiveness for SWP. For FWI, we cited their historical cost-effectiveness calculation, but didnāt attempt to calculate their total cost-effectiveness. Itās entirely possible FWI is the most (or least) cost-effective of the three. For example, FWI is currently attempting to use satellites to monitor water quality. If this succeeds, this could make it much cheaper to monitor water quality on fish farms. However, it remains speculative whether or not this will happen.
Thanks again for engaging with our workāwe really value this kind of discussion