Alexander Berger and Emily Oehlsen described how Open Philanthropyâs Global Health and Wellbeing (OPâs GHW) cost-effectiveness bar becoming 2 times as high resulted in less future funding for GiveWellâs recommendations, but they did not discuss changes to the funding going towards animal welfare interventions. In theory, all animal welfare grants with a cost-effectiveness between OPâs previous and current bar would stop being funded. What are these interventions? I think the absence of such interventions would suggest something is not right with OPâs prioritisation between human and animal welfare interventions. In this case, at least before the update of OPâs cost-effectiveness bar, OPâs marginal animal welfare grants would be at least 2 times as cost-effective as OPâs marginal GHW human welfare grants, which would be evidence of OP not being cause neutral.
Whoops, I put this answer under the wrong question. Here it is here. I think Emilyâs Forum comment from six months ago remains most relevant here. In particular:
To date, we havenât focused on making direct comparisons between GHW and FAW. Instead, weâve focused on trying to equalize marginal returns within each area and do something more like worldview diversification to determine allocations across GHW, FAW, and Open Philanthropyâs other grantmaking. In other words, each of GHW and FAW has its own rough âbarâ that an opportunity must clear to be funded. While our frameworks allow for direct comparisons, we have not stress-tested consistency for that use case. Weâre also unsure conceptually whether we should be trying to equalize marginal returns between FAW and GHW or whether we should continue with our current approach. Weâre planning to think more about this question next year.
On your specific question, the raising of OPâs GHW cost-effectiveness bar did not affect animal welfare interventions.
On your specific question, the raising of OPâs GHW cost-effectiveness bar did not affect animal welfare interventions.
In this case:
How does OP decide on the amount of funding to allocate to farm animal welfare? If it is set to a given fraction of the total funding, how does OP decide on this fraction?
Does OPâs farm animal welfare area have other explicit cost-effectiveness bar?
Side note. OPâs GHW portfolio includes the focus area farm animal welfare. If interventions in this area are not affected by OPâs GHW bar, I think it would be better to say in posts like the one I linked above that the bar being discussed only applies to human welfare interventions. Maybe OP could call it OPâs GHW human welfare bar.
Alexander Berger and Emily Oehlsen described how Open Philanthropyâs Global Health and Wellbeing (OPâs GHW) cost-effectiveness bar becoming 2 times as high resulted in less future funding for GiveWellâs recommendations, but they did not discuss changes to the funding going towards animal welfare interventions. In theory, all animal welfare grants with a cost-effectiveness between OPâs previous and current bar would stop being funded. What are these interventions? I think the absence of such interventions would suggest something is not right with OPâs prioritisation between human and animal welfare interventions. In this case, at least before the update of OPâs cost-effectiveness bar, OPâs marginal animal welfare grants would be at least 2 times as cost-effective as OPâs marginal GHW human welfare grants, which would be evidence of OP not being cause neutral.
Whoops, I put this answer under the wrong question. Here it is here. I think Emilyâs Forum comment from six months ago remains most relevant here. In particular:
On your specific question, the raising of OPâs GHW cost-effectiveness bar did not affect animal welfare interventions.
Thanks, Lewis!
In this case:
How does OP decide on the amount of funding to allocate to farm animal welfare? If it is set to a given fraction of the total funding, how does OP decide on this fraction?
Does OPâs farm animal welfare area have other explicit cost-effectiveness bar?
Side note. OPâs GHW portfolio includes the focus area farm animal welfare. If interventions in this area are not affected by OPâs GHW bar, I think it would be better to say in posts like the one I linked above that the bar being discussed only applies to human welfare interventions. Maybe OP could call it OPâs GHW human welfare bar.