In their November blog post about Open Phil's Global Health and Wellbeing cause prioritization framework, they say that they've increased how much they value improved health relative to percent increases in consumption in low-income settings. However, economic growth could improve health outcomes and reduce poverty over the medium to long term. This post talks about possible interventions that could spur economic growth in developing countries, and I'd like to see philanthropists like Open Phil think through the trade-off between pro-growth and near-term interventions so we as a community can get a sense of how valuable these interventions would be.

So for example, what is the value of an intervention with a  chance of producing  economic growth for a country/region containing  people for  years, in terms of Open Phil's framework? (The OP framework expresses impact in terms of DALYs and logarithmic changes in income.) How does this compare to the value of GiveWell-style interventions like AMF and cash transfers?

New Answer
Ask Related Question
New Comment
1 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:36 PM

By the way, I think this could be a good introductory problem for EAs interested in trying their hand at quantitative global priorities research.