I don’t have time to research this take, but one of my economist friends criticised this study for the following two reasons:
They claimed the averted deaths were in a famine, so there was regression to the mean (in a normal period there wouldn’t have been so many deaths in the control)
They claimed the averted deaths were close to hospitals, so areas without existing healthcare infrastructure would not see this benefit so the counterfactual value of the money is less.
I haven’t looked into this robustly so if someone has, please agree or disagree vote with this comment accordingly.
I don’t have time to research this take, but one of my economist friends criticised this study for the following two reasons:
They claimed the averted deaths were in a famine, so there was regression to the mean (in a normal period there wouldn’t have been so many deaths in the control)
They claimed the averted deaths were close to hospitals, so areas without existing healthcare infrastructure would not see this benefit so the counterfactual value of the money is less.
I haven’t looked into this robustly so if someone has, please agree or disagree vote with this comment accordingly.
Thanks GiveDirectly for their work.