CAUSE AREAS
Unlike in previous years, we decided in 2020 to consider multiple different cause areas, which leaves more room for cause comparison. We think that generally, both entrepreneurs and donors have specific cause areas in mind when they attend or support our program. However, some have asked us for a sense of how the different cause areas, and more importantly, charities within them, compare. We think each area has its strengths and weaknesses and at this level, it's hard to reliably compare because many assumptions (both ethical and epistemic) need to be made. This article offers a starting point for such comparisons. First we show roughly how our 2020 cause areas compare, and then we look back at and compare our recommended interventions from research done in 2019. In 2019, our research focused on interventions for animals and within global health. As of 2020, we are considering the following four cause areas:
Mental health
Family planning
Animals
Health policy
2020 RESEARCH: COMPARING CAUSE AREAS
The table below shows our weighted factor model framing for our 2020 cause areas. Each area is color-coded from strongest to weakest.
Area | Direct cost-effectiveness | Relevant evidence | Execution difficulty | Non-captured externalities** | |
Mental health | Moderate | Some | Funding | Easier | EA movement |
Family planning | Low | Moderate | Logistical | Complex | Child, animals |
Animals | High | Low | Talent | Easier | Bar setting |
Health policy | High | High | Funding | Complex | Precedent |
* If the limiting factor cell is red, this means that the limiting factor will be met very quickly. Green means that the factor will be hard to meet. ** If the non-captured externality cell is green, this means that the externalities are large and positive. If the cell is red, this means that externality is small.
Another way to frame this is in terms of more specific key strengths and weaknesses.
Area | Strengths | Weaknesses |
Mental health |
|
|
Family planning |
|
|
Animals |
|
|
Health policy | Naive cost-effectiveness estimates show higher cost-effectiveness than standard global health interventions and maybe all other human-focused areas
|
|
2019 RESEARCH: COMPARING INTERVENTIONS
Area | Direct cost-effectiveness | Relevant evidence | Limiting factor | Execution difficulty | Non-captured externalities** |
Immunization reminders | Low | Moderate | Funding | Easy | Limited |
Tobacco taxation | High | Mixed | Policy windows | Complex | Precedent |
Iron and folic acid fortification | Moderate | Moderate | Logistical | Moderate | Moderate |
Area | Strengths | Weaknesses |
Immunization reminders |
|
|
Tobacco taxation |
|
|
Iron and folic acid fortification |
|
|
Area | Direct cost-effectiveness | Relevant evidence | Limiting factor | Execution difficulty | Non-captured externalities |
Dissolved oxygen for fish | Moderate | High | Logistical | Moderate | Moderate |
Food fortification for egg-laying hens | Low | High | Logistical | Low | Moderate |
Ask research | High | Moderate | Talent | Moderate | High |
Animal careers | Moderate | Low | Replicability | Low | High |
Area | Strengths | Weaknesses |
Dissolved oxygen for fish |
|
|
Food fortification for egg-laying hens |
|
|
Ask research |
| The impact depends strongly on the effectiveness of corporate and governmental campaigns
Impact relies on NGOs and organizations updating based on research
|
Animal careers |
|
|
Commenti