I would really appreciate further analysis of family planning as an intervention. Some specific questions I’d like to see tackled:
What is the cost effectiveness of these interventions/organizations when looking at a variety of metrics (e.g. preventing maternal deaths, preventing obstetric fistula, increasing subjective well-being, increasing wealth etc.)?
Some framework for tallying these benefits.
Do these interventions lead to a permanent reduction in family size, or a temporary one?
What is the impact to farmed animals (i.e. does this intervention benefit from the meat-eater problem)?
What about climate change or other environmental impacts?
In terms of cost effectiveness, Layifa Nigeria made a great coat effectiveness analysis for their org which I used for OneDay health and looks at most of your health metrics, but doesn’t include other potential externalities.
>Do these interventions lead to a permanent reduction in family size, or a temporary one?
Note that even if total number of children ends up the same, there are benefits to spacing children by at least 18 months in terms of health (mother has more chance to recover between pregnancies, mother and baby are better nourished, better care for older siblings). Families may also be able to better afford to educate children who are more widely spaced.
This isn’t relevant to all the impacts, you list, though — still worth thinking about those separately!
I would really appreciate further analysis of family planning as an intervention. Some specific questions I’d like to see tackled:
What is the cost effectiveness of these interventions/organizations when looking at a variety of metrics (e.g. preventing maternal deaths, preventing obstetric fistula, increasing subjective well-being, increasing wealth etc.)?
Some framework for tallying these benefits.
Do these interventions lead to a permanent reduction in family size, or a temporary one?
What is the impact to farmed animals (i.e. does this intervention benefit from the meat-eater problem)?
What about climate change or other environmental impacts?
Here are some posts that provide a start:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WYmJoDxJZToDcA9Bq/population-size-growth-and-reproductive-choice-highly
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zgBmSgyWECJcbhmpc/family-planning-a-significant-opportunity-for-impact
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BMzmCohuPYRaGPcZD/maybe-family-planning-charities-are-better-for-farmed
And here’s a really good report on one org:
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/family-empowerment-media
And CE has some good reports on some interventions:
https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/health-reports
In terms of cost effectiveness, Layifa Nigeria made a great coat effectiveness analysis for their org which I used for OneDay health and looks at most of your health metrics, but doesn’t include other potential externalities.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sJpCYcHDGjHFG2Qvr/introducing-lafiya-nigeria
Love this topic!
>Do these interventions lead to a permanent reduction in family size, or a temporary one?
Note that even if total number of children ends up the same, there are benefits to spacing children by at least 18 months in terms of health (mother has more chance to recover between pregnancies, mother and baby are better nourished, better care for older siblings). Families may also be able to better afford to educate children who are more widely spaced.
This isn’t relevant to all the impacts, you list, though — still worth thinking about those separately!