This is a great question, and it’s worth pointing out that some of the same issues could apply to charities working on pretty different things, too, like Helen Keller International or New Incentives, or even totally different cause areas like mental health or animal welfare. When you start a new charity, you want to allow more funding to be spent at a higher marginal cost-effectiveness than otherwise in expectation, keeping in mind that you can adjust your programs, pivot or shut down when you don’t meet this bar. This holds regardless of how their programs or beneficiaries might differ. However, in practice, donors are often not cause-neutral or intervention-neutral and often don’t make allocations between causes based on cost-effectiveness, so there would be less competition over funding between causes than within causes, as well as less between charities working on the same intervention than across interventions (with similar cost-effectiveness). Also, there are other reasons to funding multiple things, e.g. see Open Phil’s post.
On AMF vs MC:
AMF and MC were founded in 2004 and 2003 respectively. This could have been too close together to tell if either would end up very cost-effective, so starting AMF after MC could have still made sense ex ante, because if MC didn’t go well, then AMF could pick up more, and if AMF didn’t go well, but MC did, then AMF could shut down (or pivot or get much less funding). AMF focused on bednets and has been a GiveWell Top Charity since 2011, while MC worked on multiple programs, including bednets and chemoprevention, and has only been top since 2016, for its chemoprevention program. I think it’s reasonable to assume that AMF has a more cost-effective net program, maybe far better, and, based on what GiveWell believed over 2011-2015, AMF probably had a lot of expected counterfactual impact. (Mostly based on AMF’s Wikipedia page and MC’s Wikipedia page.)
In retrospect, MC could have shut down during the years AMF was a top charity but MC wasn’t or while both were top charities but AMF beat MC. But that probably would have been bad in the longer run, because MC has become more cost-effective than AMF, according to GiveWell. Also, having both might allow more funding to be spent at a higher bar for cost-effectiveness. AMF’s and MC’s programs are still different enough that if you are ambiguity averse or consider the possibility of a larger difference in cost-effectiveness between them in the future (so value of information), keeping both programs running now seems good (even if disproportionately funding whichever is more cost-effective). If the programs were the same, then you’d have much less uncertainty about how the two might differ in cost-effectiveness now and in the future, so there’d be less value to diversification.
AMF and MC both vary significantly in marginal cost-effectiveness based on where they can work next (AMF sheet, MC sheet) and GiveWell allocates funding dynamically between them (and other top charities) to maximize impact, through its Top Charities Fund. If it only had one to allocate to, then it would plausibly do far less good, because it would have to go further down in marginal cost-effectiveness.
One thing I’m now wondering about is whether GiveWell accounts for recipients of both a bednet and preventive antimalarial medicine, if any, in their cost-effectiveness estimates. It looks like AMF and MC work in some of the same countries, like Togo, Nigeria and Chad (AMF sheet, MC sheet).[1] If someone has already received one, then they are at much lower risk of death, so the extra impact of giving them the other should be lower than if they didn’t already receive the first (assuming they would actually use the bednet). So, there’s a risk of double-counting some lives saved. Similarly, I wouldn’t be surprised if vitamin A deficiency made children more vulnerable to death from malaria, so there could be some double-counting with Helen Keller International, too. MC apparently takes bednet coverage into account in deciding where to work, and GiveWell makes adjustments for MC based on bednet coverage and for AMF based on chemopreventive medicine coverage, so maybe there’s little overlap. On the other hand, it’s not just past coverage, but you need to make sure you don’t end up working in the same places in any given year (unless it’s still worth it without any double-counting), which probably requires some coordination. The highest priority regions for both AMF and MC, before coordinating, would probably be regions with low net use and no recent preventive antimalarial medicine distribution, and so overlap substantially.
This is a great question, and it’s worth pointing out that some of the same issues could apply to charities working on pretty different things, too, like Helen Keller International or New Incentives, or even totally different cause areas like mental health or animal welfare. When you start a new charity, you want to allow more funding to be spent at a higher marginal cost-effectiveness than otherwise in expectation, keeping in mind that you can adjust your programs, pivot or shut down when you don’t meet this bar. This holds regardless of how their programs or beneficiaries might differ. However, in practice, donors are often not cause-neutral or intervention-neutral and often don’t make allocations between causes based on cost-effectiveness, so there would be less competition over funding between causes than within causes, as well as less between charities working on the same intervention than across interventions (with similar cost-effectiveness). Also, there are other reasons to funding multiple things, e.g. see Open Phil’s post.
On AMF vs MC:
AMF and MC were founded in 2004 and 2003 respectively. This could have been too close together to tell if either would end up very cost-effective, so starting AMF after MC could have still made sense ex ante, because if MC didn’t go well, then AMF could pick up more, and if AMF didn’t go well, but MC did, then AMF could shut down (or pivot or get much less funding). AMF focused on bednets and has been a GiveWell Top Charity since 2011, while MC worked on multiple programs, including bednets and chemoprevention, and has only been top since 2016, for its chemoprevention program. I think it’s reasonable to assume that AMF has a more cost-effective net program, maybe far better, and, based on what GiveWell believed over 2011-2015, AMF probably had a lot of expected counterfactual impact. (Mostly based on AMF’s Wikipedia page and MC’s Wikipedia page.)
In retrospect, MC could have shut down during the years AMF was a top charity but MC wasn’t or while both were top charities but AMF beat MC. But that probably would have been bad in the longer run, because MC has become more cost-effective than AMF, according to GiveWell. Also, having both might allow more funding to be spent at a higher bar for cost-effectiveness. AMF’s and MC’s programs are still different enough that if you are ambiguity averse or consider the possibility of a larger difference in cost-effectiveness between them in the future (so value of information), keeping both programs running now seems good (even if disproportionately funding whichever is more cost-effective). If the programs were the same, then you’d have much less uncertainty about how the two might differ in cost-effectiveness now and in the future, so there’d be less value to diversification.
AMF and MC both vary significantly in marginal cost-effectiveness based on where they can work next (AMF sheet, MC sheet) and GiveWell allocates funding dynamically between them (and other top charities) to maximize impact, through its Top Charities Fund. If it only had one to allocate to, then it would plausibly do far less good, because it would have to go further down in marginal cost-effectiveness.
One thing I’m now wondering about is whether GiveWell accounts for recipients of both a bednet and preventive antimalarial medicine, if any, in their cost-effectiveness estimates. It looks like AMF and MC work in some of the same countries, like Togo, Nigeria and Chad (AMF sheet, MC sheet).[1] If someone has already received one, then they are at much lower risk of death, so the extra impact of giving them the other should be lower than if they didn’t already receive the first (assuming they would actually use the bednet). So, there’s a risk of double-counting some lives saved. Similarly, I wouldn’t be surprised if vitamin A deficiency made children more vulnerable to death from malaria, so there could be some double-counting with Helen Keller International, too. MC apparently takes bednet coverage into account in deciding where to work, and GiveWell makes adjustments for MC based on bednet coverage and for AMF based on chemopreventive medicine coverage, so maybe there’s little overlap. On the other hand, it’s not just past coverage, but you need to make sure you don’t end up working in the same places in any given year (unless it’s still worth it without any double-counting), which probably requires some coordination. The highest priority regions for both AMF and MC, before coordinating, would probably be regions with low net use and no recent preventive antimalarial medicine distribution, and so overlap substantially.
And even if they didn’t, one charity might have taken on the other charity’s countries if the other charity didn’t exist.
On the other hand, they might not work in the same regions, cities or villages or whatever.