Thanks for sharing your thought! They seem right to me. A typical argument against “overall-comparative-methodology-and-estimate building” is that the opportunity cost is high, but it seems worth it on the margin given the large sums of money being granted. However, grantmakers have disagreed with this at least implicitly, in the sense the estimation infrastructure is apparently not super developped.
It is not, but I would not see this as revealed preference.
I think it’s easy for there to be a relative underinvestment in comparative methodology when most grantmakers and charity evaluators are specialized on specific causes or, at least, work sequentially through different cause-specific questions.
Thanks for sharing your thought! They seem right to me. A typical argument against “overall-comparative-methodology-and-estimate building” is that the opportunity cost is high, but it seems worth it on the margin given the large sums of money being granted. However, grantmakers have disagreed with this at least implicitly, in the sense the estimation infrastructure is apparently not super developped.
It is not, but I would not see this as revealed preference.
I think it’s easy for there to be a relative underinvestment in comparative methodology when most grantmakers and charity evaluators are specialized on specific causes or, at least, work sequentially through different cause-specific questions.