Hide table of contents

Editorial note

This report was commissioned by GiveWell and produced by Rethink Priorities from June to July 2023. We revised this report for publication. GiveWell does not necessarily endorse our conclusions, nor do the organizations represented by those who were interviewed.

The primary focus of the report is to review GiveWell’s current formulation of its discount rate by recommending improvements and reinforcing justifications for areas that do not require improvement. Our research involved reviewing the scientific and gray literature, and we spoke with 15 experts and stakeholders.

We don’t intend this report to be Rethink Priorities’ final word on discount rates, and we have tried to flag major sources of uncertainty in the report. We hope this report galvanizes a productive conversation within the global health and development community about discounting practices in cost-effectiveness analyses. We are open to revising our views as more information is uncovered.

Executive summary

Notes on the scope and process of this project

This project aims to serve the dual purposes of reviewing GiveWell’s current approach to calculating its discount rate(s) to:

  1. Provide recommendations to GiveWell on how its approach to discount rates could be improved.
  2. Strengthen the justifications for its approach in cases where we do not recommend changes.

The direction of this project was mainly guided by our priors[1] that a prioritized investigation into three aspects could potentially make the biggest difference to GiveWell’s discount rate:

  1. A review of how other major organizations in the global health and development space (within and outside effective altruism) choose and justify their discount rates.
  2. A review of GiveWell’s overall approach to calculating discount rates to determine:
    1. Whether GiveWell should use a different overall calculation approach.
    2. Whether GiveWell should think differently about discounting consumption vs. health outcomes.
  3. A review of the pure time preference component of GiveWell’s discount rate.

We also reviewed several other components of the discount rate (consumption growth rate, compounding non-monetary benefits, temporal uncertainty), but decided to spend less time on those as we deemed it less likely to make major recommendations or expected it would be harder to make meaningful progress. Table 1 summarizes our recommendations for GiveWell’s discounting practices.

The majority of this report focuses on the discount rate used for consumption benefits, as this appears to be the “main” discount rate used by GiveWell,[2] but we also discuss discounting of health benefits. We do not discuss discounting of costs in this report as (1) GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness models rarely involve discounting costs, and (2) our general impression is that the typical approach across organizations is to discount monetary costs and benefits equally and we have seen very little discussion of alternative approaches.[3] A review of the shape of the utility functions[4] used is also out of scope for this review. Moreover, we focus exclusively on temporal discounting.[5] If the time frame is not specified, all discount rates expressed as percentages are annual. Due to the variety of existing opinions and approaches with respect to discount rates and a relative lack of consensus, we opted to approach this project from a perspective of figuring out whether there are any compelling reasons to change GiveWell’s current approach, rather than starting from scratch and coming up with a discount rate independently of the current approach.

Summary of recommendations

Table 1: Summary of Rethink Priorities’ recommendations for GiveWell’s discounting

ConsiderationCurrent GiveWell choiceRethink Priorities’ recommendationComments
Overall annual discount rate4.0%

4.3%

(if current inconsistent choice of η is kept)

  • The 0.3 percentage point increase is a result of an increased consumption growth rate estimate and a small change in the formula used to calculate the wealth effect. We recommend no other immediate changes.
  • However, as mentioned in the report, our recommended discount rate is also contingent on whether GiveWell decides to use a consistent utility curvature η across applications. For example, if η = 1, the wealth effect would be 0% and the resulting discount rate would decrease to 2.3%.
  • In several instances, our main reason for recommending to keep the current approach is that we could not find strong reasons to justify major changes. Thus, our recommendations do not always reflect a strong endorsement of a current approach, but can also reflect high uncertainty.
Overall approach to calculating the discount rateSocial rate of time preference (SRTP) approach

SRTP approach

[Confidence: Medium-high]

  • We argue that the following constitute compelling reasons to continue to use the SRTP approach:
    • In line with GiveWell’s welfare-maximizing goals & focus on cross-intervention comparisons of cost- effectiveness;
    • Limited applicability of critiques in GiveWell’s case;
    • Transparency of key assumptions;
    • Relative ease of use;
    • Commonly and increasingly used in practice.
  • However, we think the social opportunity cost of capital (SOC) approach could also be a reasonable choice.
GiveWell’s current SRTP approach vs. Ramsey equation
  • Determine individual components and sum them up
  • Calculate wealth effect implicitly in spreadsheet
  • Use GiveWell equivalent of Ramsey equation, r = δ + (η - 1)g.
  • This means that wealth effect is calculated explicitly via formula, (η - 1)g.
  • We recommend using a consistent η across applications. Note that using η=1 in line with the implicit utility function would lead to a 0% wealth effect and thus a lower discount rate. [Confidence: High, though this is contingent on SRTP being the correct approach]
  • Current approach can already be considered a variant of the Ramsey equation that is more suited to GiveWell’s modeling; we just think this should be more explicit.
  • Main difference to Ramsey: Ramsey is based on absolute increases in consumption, whereas GiveWell’s model is based on percent increases, which yields a different wealth effect.
  • We found and fixed a small calculation error in GiveWell’s calculations of the wealth effect.
  • We think that using a higher η for calculating the discount rate than for the underlying utility function to model income benefits (as is done currently) risks overdiscounting of benefits. However, we have not reviewed which assumption for η would be the best choice.
Discounting consumption vs. health benefitsDiscount health benefits using only the temporal uncertainty component
  • Tentatively keep current approach
  • Continue to discount health benefits at a lower rate than consumption [Confidence: Low-medium]
  • We find that discounting health and monetary outcomes at equal rates is still dominant but do not find the arguments in favor of the dominant practice convincing.
  • Instead, we concur with the view, broadly and increasingly supported in the economic literature, that health outcomes should be discounted at a lower rate.
  • However, given the lack of a consensus view in the literature and various uncertainties such as those with respect to the shape of the utility function, we could not devise a superior approach to GiveWell’s discount rate for health outcomes.
Consumption growth rate
  • 3% consumption growth rate
  • This results in a 1.7% discount rate from improving circumstances, or the wealth effect
  • Raise consumption growth rate to 3.3%
  • This results in a 2.0% discount rate from the wealth effect (according to the correct wealth effect formula)
  • We expect the growth rate to decline over time and recommend next revisiting this estimate in 2028 [Confidence: Medium]
  • We recommend using published projections of real GDP per capita growth rates instead of eyeballing past GDP figures.
  • Our approach considers both sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia as part of a population-weighted composite.
  • We define time windows during which growth is being projected; our approach anchors the time interval to the longest-effect duration programs.
  • We define time periods during which the current wealth effect estimate applies; we suggest revisiting the estimate at the end of each period (5.2 years).
Pure time preference rate0%

Keep current assumption of 0%

[Confidence: Medium-high]

  • Our impression is that the predominant opinion in the philosophical literature is that δ = 0%. Several arguments in favor of δ > 0% exist, though these seem highly context-dependent and somewhat controversial.
  • Empirical estimates of individuals’ time preferences are extremely noisy and seem implausibly high to us; thus, not very useful. In a large expert survey on discount rates, δ = 0% is the modal response.
  • δ = 0% is rarely used in practice. In many (though not all) cases where researchers/organizations assume a positive δ, it actually reflects a positive temporal uncertainty component rather than what GiveWell considers pure time preferences.
  • Some theoretical articles show that δ = 0% leads to absurd predictions, but we do not think those specific predictions would apply in GiveWell’s case.
Temporal uncertainty1.4%

Tentatively keep current assumption of 1.4%

[Confidence: Low]

  • Temporal uncertainty has traditionally been defined more narrowly, as the risk of death or human extinction, than GiveWell does. GiveWell also considers changes in economic structure, catastrophe, and political instability.
  • The current GiveWell assumption is roughly in line with other estimates, e.g.: other organizations with links to effective altruism use a broad range of estimates for existential risk ranging from 0.1% to 2.3%.
Compounding non-monetary benefits0.9%
  • Tentatively keep current assumption of 0.9%
  • More reasoning transparency in public write-up [Confidence: Low]
  • Including a component for non-monetary benefits sounds intuitively plausible to us, though we have not investigated the magnitude and the way of modeling.
  • Our main reason for keeping the current assumption is that we couldn’t find strong counterarguments quickly.
  • The SPC approach to discounting is the only approach we know of that accounts for reinvestment of benefits, but it is highly impractical to use and covers only a part of what GiveWell tries to capture in this component.
  • We think a higher level of reasoning transparency in GiveWell’s public write-up would facilitate more critical engagement with this component.

To read the full report, please click here.

Acknowledgments

Jenny Kudymowa and James Hu jointly researched and wrote this report. Jenny also served as the project lead. Melanie Basnak and Tom Hird supervised the report. Special thanks to Bob Fischer, Sagar Shah, and Ben Snodin for their generous assistance in specific sections of the report, and further thanks to Andrew Martin (GiveWell), Ruby Dickson, and Aisling Leow for helpful comments on drafts. Thanks also to Anthony Boardman (University of British Columbia), Vicky Cox (Charity Entrepreneurship), Sam Donald (Open Philanthropy), Spencer Ericson (SoGive), Sanjay Joshi (SoGive), James Snowden (Open Philanthropy), Joel McGuire (Happier Lives Institute), Caitlin McGugan (GiveWell), Andreas Mogensen (Global Priorities Institute), Mark Moore (Simon Fraser University), Chris Smith (Open Philanthropy), Katie Stanford (The Life You Can Save), Dan Stein (IDinsight), Aidan Vining (Simon Fraser University), and Damian Walker (Management Sciences for Health) for taking the time to speak with us.

GiveWell provided funding for this report, but it does not necessarily endorse our conclusions.

Notes

  1. ^

    Our priors are based on a combination of what we understood to be of high priority for GiveWell from speaking with Andrew Martin, and arguments and recommendations made in the “Change Our Minds” contest entries by SoGive and Julian Jamison.

  2. ^

    This is the discount rate that is discussed in GiveWell’s 2020 discount rate write-up.

  3. ^

    The only case we’ve seen different discounting approaches being suggested for monetary benefits and costs is Dhaliwal et al. (2012, p. 38) (J-PAL): “The discounting of costs is representative of the choice a funder faces between incurring costs this year, or deferring expenditures to invest for a year and then incurring costs the next year. An organization or government’s discount rate is usually calculated as the social opportunity cost of capital (SOC). [...] The discounting of benefits, on the other hand, represents how an end user of the program would trade off between the uses of the services this year versus next year. The appropriate discount rate for such a calculation is the social rate of time preference (SRTP) [...].” However, J-PAL itself does not use differential discounting of costs and benefits, but SOC for both outcomes. 

  1. ^

    GiveWell uses three different utility functions for its cost-effectiveness analyses: an isoelastic utility function with η = 1 (also called log-utility) to model consumption benefits, an isoelastic utility function with η = 1.59 to calculate the “improving circumstances” or “wealth effect” component of the discount rate, and a linear utility function for health outcomes.

  2. ^

    We are aware that GiveWell uses other types of discounting (e.g., generalizability/evidence discounting). We do not focus on those other types of discounting in this report.

Show all footnotes
Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I am a bit surprised you (seemingly) missed my post https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JvEHiKWWwtvT3YanA/givewell-misuses-discount-rates given the relevance is so clear from the title. I haven't thought about this more since writing it for the competition, but have no reason to think I was wrong then. The simple idea I propose in that piece is that GiveWell should use a probability distribution over possible discount rates, and that this will meaningfully change the cost-effectiveness of deworming charities.

Hi Oscar, Thanks for your comment. I've actually read your post and thought your points are valid! The reason why it is not mentioned in our report is that we agreed with GiveWell that this aspect of discount rates would be out of scope for this particular report (which does not mean it is not important).

OK makes sense thanks! As I understand GiveWell is interested in/working on incorporating distributions rather than point estimates in general so hopefully discount rates fit in with that work (I don't have much context on what GiveWell's plans actually are).

Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
Recent opportunities in Global health & development