The Nonlinear Library EA - Copenhagen Consensus Center's best investment papers for the sustainable development goals by Vasco Grilo
Jan 10, 2024
08:20
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Copenhagen Consensus Center's best investment papers for the sustainable development goals, published by Vasco Grilo on January 10, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
This is a linkpost to Copenhagen Consensus Center's 12 best investment papers for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which were published in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis in 2023. Some notes:
Each paper does a cost-benefit analysis which accounts for health and economic benefits. The benefit-to-cost ratios across the 12 papers range from 18 (nutrition) to 125 (e-Government procurement).
All 12 ratios are much higher than the 2.4 estimated for GiveDirectly's cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
4 are similar to and 8 are higher than GiveWell's cost-effectiveness bar of around 24 (= 10*2.4), equal to 10 times the above.
Cash transfers are often preferred due to being highly scalable, but the 12 papers deal with large investments too. As can be seen in the table below, taken from a companion post, all 12 interventions together have:
An annual cost of 41 G 2020-$ (41 billion 2020 USD).
Annual benefits of 2.14 T 2020-$ (2.14 trillion 2020 USD), of which 1.12 T 2020-$ are economic benefits corresponding to 14.6 % (= 1.12*1.13/(8.17 + 0.528)) of the gross domestic product (GDP) of low and lower-middle income countries in 2022.
A benefit-to-cost ratio of 52.2 (= 2.14/0.041), 21.8 (= 52.2/2.4) times that of GiveDirectly's cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
I expect the benefit-to-cost ratios of the papers to be overestimates:
The paper on malaria estimates a ratio of 48, whereas I infer GiveWell's is:
35.5 (= 14.8*2.4) for the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), considering the mean cost-effectiveness across 8 countries of 14.8 times that of cash transfers.
40.8 (= 17.0*2.4) for the Malaria Consortium, considering the mean cost-effectiveness across 13 countries of 17.0 times that of cash transfers.
The paper on malaria studies an annual investment of 1.1 G 2020-$, whereas GiveWell's estimates respect marginal donations.
Consequently, assuming diminishing marginal returns, and that GiveWell's estimates are more accurate, that of the paper on malaria is a significant overestimate.
I guess the same reasoning applies to other areas.
I think 3 of the papers focus on areas which have not been funded by GiveWell nor Open Philanthropy[2]:
e-Government procurement (benefit-to-cost ratio of 125).
Trade (95).
Land tenure security (21).
As a side note, I wonder why GiveWell's (marginal) cost-effectiveness estimates do not roughly match its bar of 10 times that of cash transfers.
Agricultural research and development
Paper: Benefit-Cost Analysis of Increased Funding for Agricultural Research and Development in the Global South.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 33.
Investment:
Basic research and development, including capacity building, and technical and policy support with special focus on Low- and Lower Middle-Income countries. Research outcomes are difficult to predict, but an example could be crop yield increases using precision genetic technologies.
Childhood immunization
Paper: SDG Halftime Project: Benefit-Cost Analysis using Methods from the Decade of Vaccine Economics (DOVE) Model.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 101.
Investment:
Raise immunization coverage from 2022 levels to 2030 target for pentavalent vaccine, HPV, Japanese encephalitis, measles, measles-rubella, Men A, PCV, rotavirus, and yellow fever.
Maternal and newborn health
Paper: Achieving maternal and neonatal mortality development goals effectively: A cost-benefit analysis.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 87.
Investment:
Sufficient staff and resources at all birth facilities to deliver a package of basic emergency obstetric and newborn care and family planning services, including bag and mask for neonatal resuscitation, removal of retained products of...
This is a linkpost to Copenhagen Consensus Center's 12 best investment papers for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which were published in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis in 2023. Some notes:
Each paper does a cost-benefit analysis which accounts for health and economic benefits. The benefit-to-cost ratios across the 12 papers range from 18 (nutrition) to 125 (e-Government procurement).
All 12 ratios are much higher than the 2.4 estimated for GiveDirectly's cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
4 are similar to and 8 are higher than GiveWell's cost-effectiveness bar of around 24 (= 10*2.4), equal to 10 times the above.
Cash transfers are often preferred due to being highly scalable, but the 12 papers deal with large investments too. As can be seen in the table below, taken from a companion post, all 12 interventions together have:
An annual cost of 41 G 2020-$ (41 billion 2020 USD).
Annual benefits of 2.14 T 2020-$ (2.14 trillion 2020 USD), of which 1.12 T 2020-$ are economic benefits corresponding to 14.6 % (= 1.12*1.13/(8.17 + 0.528)) of the gross domestic product (GDP) of low and lower-middle income countries in 2022.
A benefit-to-cost ratio of 52.2 (= 2.14/0.041), 21.8 (= 52.2/2.4) times that of GiveDirectly's cash transfers to poor households in Kenya.
I expect the benefit-to-cost ratios of the papers to be overestimates:
The paper on malaria estimates a ratio of 48, whereas I infer GiveWell's is:
35.5 (= 14.8*2.4) for the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), considering the mean cost-effectiveness across 8 countries of 14.8 times that of cash transfers.
40.8 (= 17.0*2.4) for the Malaria Consortium, considering the mean cost-effectiveness across 13 countries of 17.0 times that of cash transfers.
The paper on malaria studies an annual investment of 1.1 G 2020-$, whereas GiveWell's estimates respect marginal donations.
Consequently, assuming diminishing marginal returns, and that GiveWell's estimates are more accurate, that of the paper on malaria is a significant overestimate.
I guess the same reasoning applies to other areas.
I think 3 of the papers focus on areas which have not been funded by GiveWell nor Open Philanthropy[2]:
e-Government procurement (benefit-to-cost ratio of 125).
Trade (95).
Land tenure security (21).
As a side note, I wonder why GiveWell's (marginal) cost-effectiveness estimates do not roughly match its bar of 10 times that of cash transfers.
Agricultural research and development
Paper: Benefit-Cost Analysis of Increased Funding for Agricultural Research and Development in the Global South.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 33.
Investment:
Basic research and development, including capacity building, and technical and policy support with special focus on Low- and Lower Middle-Income countries. Research outcomes are difficult to predict, but an example could be crop yield increases using precision genetic technologies.
Childhood immunization
Paper: SDG Halftime Project: Benefit-Cost Analysis using Methods from the Decade of Vaccine Economics (DOVE) Model.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 101.
Investment:
Raise immunization coverage from 2022 levels to 2030 target for pentavalent vaccine, HPV, Japanese encephalitis, measles, measles-rubella, Men A, PCV, rotavirus, and yellow fever.
Maternal and newborn health
Paper: Achieving maternal and neonatal mortality development goals effectively: A cost-benefit analysis.
Benefit-to-cost ratio: 87.
Investment:
Sufficient staff and resources at all birth facilities to deliver a package of basic emergency obstetric and newborn care and family planning services, including bag and mask for neonatal resuscitation, removal of retained products of...