So we can’t assume that CG is filling EG organizations’ budgets until their multiplier is about 1.
What if funding caps are part of CG’s strategy to maximise impact? They may result in greater diversification of funding sources, and therefore greater resilience against shortfalls in CG’s funding, and potentially more funding longterm. The benefits will not be observed nearterm. So the expected marginal multiplier may be closer to 1 than the observed nearterm marginal multiplier.
The ideal funding cap would vary by grantee neglecting CG’s assessment costs. However, having a single or a few funding limits could save time, and therefore be closer to optimal.
Thanks for the good points, Matt.
What if funding caps are part of CG’s strategy to maximise impact? They may result in greater diversification of funding sources, and therefore greater resilience against shortfalls in CG’s funding, and potentially more funding longterm. The benefits will not be observed nearterm. So the expected marginal multiplier may be closer to 1 than the observed nearterm marginal multiplier.
The ideal funding cap would vary by grantee neglecting CG’s assessment costs. However, having a single or a few funding limits could save time, and therefore be closer to optimal.
@Melanie Basnak🔸, do you have any thoughts?