I have no particular take on LG, I was mostly focused on your question about the market failure. I've no reason to think LG couldn't do a great job, this sounds very much like their area of expertise!

I can't speak to this product in particular but my experience at One Acre Fund in Tanzania was that it's often just really hard to physically distribute products to rural Africa without super high costs or damage. The practicalities of distribution are hard to solve, which I guess is more what Nick is looking to do here. Once you find a way to get the product in front of users and it saves them money, they'll often buy it, I agree that it might not need to be given for free (not withstanding another practical note: if you need to charge, that also generates a bunch of logistics!)

Ah I am so jealous, you only get that first The Goal reading experience once :). I have recommended it more than any other book I've read, I think. I hope you enjoyed it even 10% as much as I did!

Nice, agreed. I could totally see cups being superior, I mostly was thinking of OAF from the perspective of having shareable lessons on e.g. marketing, impact measurement, stuff that might make ODH's work a little easier. Will share what I hear!

Interesting idea. I know One Acre Fund had a (possibly just pilot) program distributing Afripads in Kenya (https://www.afripadsfoundation.org/the-challenge/). I happen to be chatting with old colleagues from the Kenya program soon, will share any lessons + connect you if useful.

Hey Vasco, I just joined CEA last month to start building out an internal monitoring and evaluation function. Getting into our impact in terms of things like career changes + donations is a top priority. For now, I'm still in learning mode, but I hope to have some defensible ideas on this soon!

Totally agreed! I very much assumed my audience was very EA and already stepping back on cause-prio + intervention choice every so often. You are right that that often isn't the case, and the way I've framed things here might encourage some folks to just plough on and not ask important questions on whether they are working on the right thing, in the right way. 

Love the clarity of the post but I agree with Geoffrey that the $ impact/household seems extremely low and I also don't follow how you get to $1k+/HH (which would be like doubling household income).

Back calculating to estimate benefits/household:

• $1.5m national savings over 5 years = $300k/year
• Number of adopters:
  • 50m people in Uganda
  • 5 people/household means 10m households
  • 1/3 of households use charcoal: 10m/3 = ~3m households use charcoal
  • 1% adopt: 3m * 1% = 30k adopting households
• Benefits/household: $300k/year over 30k adopting households = $10/household/ year (or just $1/person/year), which seems super low to me

I'd guess that's at least part of why you don't see more bean soaking already, the savings are just so modest, unless I've missed something in my calculation.

As you note, behaviour change around cooking practices is also super hard. When I worked at One Acre Fund Tanzania, our 2 biggest failures were introducing clean cookstoves and high-iron beans, both of which people just didn't want to use because of how they conflicted existing norms, e.g. color of the new bean variety "bled" into ugali, making it look dirty.

So the $ benefits would make me skeptical of this as promising but I'm hoping I missed something big in my calculation!

Thanks Chris, that's a cool idea. I will give it a go (in a few days, I have an EAG to recover from...)

One thing I should note is that other comments on this post are suggesting this is well known and applied, which doesn't knock the idea but would reduce the value of doing more promotion. Conversely, my super quick, low-N look into cash RCTs (in my reply below to David Reinstein) suggests it is not so common. Since the approach you suggest would partly involve listing a bunch of RCTs and their treatment/control sizes (so we can see whether they are cost-optimised), it could also serve as a nice check of just how often this adjustment is/isn't applied in RCTs

For bio, that's way outside of my field, I defer to Joshua's comment here on limited participant numbers, which makes sense. Though in a situation like early COVID vaccine trials, where perhaps you had limited treatment doses and potentially lots of willing volunteers, perhaps it would be more applicable? I guess pharma companies are heavily incentivised to optimise trial costs tho, if they don't do it there'll be a reason!

As a quick data point I just checked the 6 RCTs GiveDirectly list on their website. I figure cash is pretty expensive so it's the kind of intervention where this makes sense. 

It looks like most cash studies, certainly with just 1 treatment arm, aren't optimising for cost: 

Suggests either 1) there's some value in sharing this idea more or 2) there's a good reason these economists aren't making this adjustment. Someone on Twitter suggested "problems caused by unbalanced samples and heteroskedasticity" but that was beyond my poor epidemiologist's understanding and they didn't clarify further.