Inspired by the recent discussion on the cost-effectiveness of deworming and GlaxoSmithKline's pledge to provide albendazole (a main deworming drug) until the eradication of lymphatic filariasis, I am wondering how others' donations should be considered in EA-related cost-effectiveness analyses.
Deworming example:
According to GiveWell's office hours, the cost of the manufacturing a deworming drug is added to the total cost of the program. The counterfactual impact of the drug's cost (if spent by the donor otherwise) is subtracted from the total impact.
For the SCI Foundation cost-effectiveness analysis, leverage and funging[1] adjustments include the drug cost (e. g. $0.32/person/year[2]) that would have otherwise provided 0.005 units of value per dollar[3] (counterfactual value adjustment).
Question elaboration based on the example:
How should others' donations be taken into account in EA-related cost-effectiveness analyses?
"Leverage" refers to our charities causing other entities to spend more on the program than they otherwise would have; "Funging" refers to our charities causing other entities to spend less on the program than they otherwise would have. (2022 GiveWell cost-effectiveness analysis — version 4, SCI Foundation tab, lines 95–102)
A zero change in non-philanthropic actors spending in absence of GW's funding is included in GW's analysis (2022 GiveWell cost-effectiveness analysis — version 4, SCI Foundation tab, line 135).
"Units of value generated per philanthropic dollar spent, after accounting for leverage/funging" (2022 GiveWell cost-effectiveness analysis — version 4, SCI Foundation tab, line 196)