Halstead and Hillebrandt didn’t claim that a 4-person year research effort could discover the key to economic growth. Their claim is simply about finding good donation opportunities:
A ~4 person-year research effort will find donation opportunities working on economic growth in LMICs which are substantially better than GiveWell’s top charities from a current generation human welfare-focused point of view.
My sense is such an effort might start from Hillebrandt’s appendices, in particular appendix 4. The output of such an effort might look like one of Founders Pledge’s reports (example; Halstead is a coauthor).
Opportunities that development economists have missed?
The general ideas that Hauke suggests in the appendix are things like liberalisation, freeing trade, more open migration. They’re ideas that have been fiercely studied and debated before. Organisations like the World Trade Organisation and The World Bank are built around these ideas. The difficulty in testing and implementing these ideas is part of what drove the rise of the randomistas.
I think the “~4 person-years” idea is delusional and arrogant.
I think the tricky part is finding where smaller donors can donate, similar to GiveWell.
Those organisations have suggestions for large sums of money but there is a gap for advice for individuals that want to give to global development and are okay with it not just being RCT evidence.
Donation opportunities, yes. I’m not sure if donation opportunities in particular are something development economists look for; I’m not familiar with the literature.
I broadly agree with the substance of your comment, I just admittedly find the tone off-puttingly abrasive (“delusional and arrogant” doesn’t seem charitable), so I’ll respectfully bow out of this exchange.
Halstead and Hillebrandt didn’t claim that a 4-person year research effort could discover the key to economic growth. Their claim is simply about finding good donation opportunities:
My sense is such an effort might start from Hillebrandt’s appendices, in particular appendix 4. The output of such an effort might look like one of Founders Pledge’s reports (example; Halstead is a coauthor).
Opportunities that development economists have missed?
The general ideas that Hauke suggests in the appendix are things like liberalisation, freeing trade, more open migration. They’re ideas that have been fiercely studied and debated before. Organisations like the World Trade Organisation and The World Bank are built around these ideas. The difficulty in testing and implementing these ideas is part of what drove the rise of the randomistas.
I think the “~4 person-years” idea is delusional and arrogant.
I think the tricky part is finding where smaller donors can donate, similar to GiveWell.
Those organisations have suggestions for large sums of money but there is a gap for advice for individuals that want to give to global development and are okay with it not just being RCT evidence.
Donation opportunities, yes. I’m not sure if donation opportunities in particular are something development economists look for; I’m not familiar with the literature.
I broadly agree with the substance of your comment, I just admittedly find the tone off-puttingly abrasive (“delusional and arrogant” doesn’t seem charitable), so I’ll respectfully bow out of this exchange.