It seems likely to me that the average life in the developing world is worth living, and that the value of an average year of life in the developing world is no more than 3x lower than the value of an average year of life in the developed world.
I think it should be the marginal life saved by AMF that is relevant here, and it is probably of much lower quality than the average life in the developing world. AMF was chosen by GiveWell because it represents the lowest cost per life saved, which must be because it targets people with the lowest incomes, people who can’t afford to purchase even very low cost disease preventions on their own behalf.
Your point is a valid one, but in practice, I don’t think it alters the bottom line. Some points:
It’s not clear to me that AMF’s net recipients are poorer than usual. If they’re not, you might wonder why the people don’t purchase nets themselves. I think that they may not be fully aware of the health benefits. You have to cover on the order of 400 people with nets to save a single life, and people may not be attuned to such small probabilities.
I think that the difference in income between “average” and “poorest of the poor” in these countries is probably no more than a factor of 2.
Note that the poorest of the poor may be able to improve their economic standing over the next 50 years.
I think that the difference in income between “average” and “poorest of the poor” in these countries is probably no more than a factor of 2.
If you define “developing world” as “low-income countries” (GNI per capita up to $1,025), which is what GiveWell seems to do in its blog posts, then I think you’re probably right about this difference in income being no more than a factor of 2, but then I’d doubt that an average year of life in a low-income country is worth at least 1⁄3 that in the developed world. Also I think even a factor of 2 is a big deal when you’re talking about going from barely having enough to eat, to having half of your income available for making quality of life improvements.
On the other hand, if you define “developing world” as “low and middle income countries” (GNI per capita up to $12,475), which is what I had been assuming since that’s how the World Bank defines it, I can buy “at least 1/3” but I think the median income in those countries is probably between $5 and $10 per day, which is much more than twice that of the “poorest of the poor”.
I think it should be the marginal life saved by AMF that is relevant here, and it is probably of much lower quality than the average life in the developing world. AMF was chosen by GiveWell because it represents the lowest cost per life saved, which must be because it targets people with the lowest incomes, people who can’t afford to purchase even very low cost disease preventions on their own behalf.
Your point is a valid one, but in practice, I don’t think it alters the bottom line. Some points:
It’s not clear to me that AMF’s net recipients are poorer than usual. If they’re not, you might wonder why the people don’t purchase nets themselves. I think that they may not be fully aware of the health benefits. You have to cover on the order of 400 people with nets to save a single life, and people may not be attuned to such small probabilities.
I think that the difference in income between “average” and “poorest of the poor” in these countries is probably no more than a factor of 2.
Note that the poorest of the poor may be able to improve their economic standing over the next 50 years.
Surely by “average” you actually mean “median”?
Yes.
If you define “developing world” as “low-income countries” (GNI per capita up to $1,025), which is what GiveWell seems to do in its blog posts, then I think you’re probably right about this difference in income being no more than a factor of 2, but then I’d doubt that an average year of life in a low-income country is worth at least 1⁄3 that in the developed world. Also I think even a factor of 2 is a big deal when you’re talking about going from barely having enough to eat, to having half of your income available for making quality of life improvements.
On the other hand, if you define “developing world” as “low and middle income countries” (GNI per capita up to $12,475), which is what I had been assuming since that’s how the World Bank defines it, I can buy “at least 1/3” but I think the median income in those countries is probably between $5 and $10 per day, which is much more than twice that of the “poorest of the poor”.
It probably cheaper to transport bednets to a city which engages into economical trade than a small town in some remote place.
Distribution to wealthier people might be cheaper.
...or don’t beware trivial inconveniences.