Hey Jeroen! I'm a researcher at ACE and have been doing some work on our country prioritization model. This is a helpful question and one that we've been thinking about ourselves.

The general argument is that strong economic performance tends to correlate with liberalism, democracy, and progressive values, which themselves seem to correlate with progressive attitudes towards, and legislation for, animals. This is why it’s included in Mercy For Animals’ Farmed Animal Opportunity Index (FAOI), which we previously used for our evaluations and which our current country prioritization model is still loosely based on.

The relevance of this factor depends on the type of intervention being used - e.g., economic performance is likely to be particularly relevant for programs that depend on securing large amounts of government funding. For a lot of programs it won’t be very relevant, and for some a similar but more relevant indicator of tractability could be the percentage of income not spent on food (which we also use), as countries are probably more likely to allocate resources to animal advocacy if their money and mental bandwidth aren’t spent on securing essential needs. (Because of these kinds of considerations, this year we took a more bespoke approach when considering the likely tractability of each charity's work, relying less on the quantitative outputs of the country prioritization framework.)

Your intuition about money going further in poorer countries (everything else being equal) makes sense. We seek to capture this where possible on a charity-by-charity basis in our Cost-Effectiveness Assessments. For country prioritization more broadly, in theory it’s possible to account for this using indices like the OECD’s Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) Index. Various issues have been raised with the validity of PPP measurements (some examples here), which is one of the reasons we haven’t included it to date in our prioritization model, but for next year we plan to explore those issues in more detail and what the trade-offs are.

Hope that helps!

Hey, thanks for the question! I'm Max, a researcher at ACE. To provide some additional context to the other helpful comments:

• For our 2023 Evaluations we used a weighted factor model to calculate a cost-effectiveness score (rather than DALYs averted) for the charities that we evaluated. You can read more about this process, and the rationale for it, on the 'Criterion 2' tab of this page (with some additional context in this Forum comment).
• For our 2024 Evaluations, we're making a few updates to our criteria, including moving to more bespoke Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of each charity's key programs. This will be more in line with the DALYs-type metrics you mention (though of course will still be subject to plenty of caveats, uncertainties, and wide confidence estimates).
• Generally we think the best bet for ACE donors is our Recommended Charity Fund, as this allows us to allocate funds to the charities that we determine need it most at the time of disbursement. 
• In case you've not already seen it, you might also find Rethink Priorities' Cross-Cause Cost-Effectiveness Model helpful.
• Here’s my Calendly if you want to chat in more depth about ACE’s Evaluations process any time :-)

This is a really interesting project, thanks for sharing! Did you get any insights into how these attitudes might vary between animals/products? I assume people will feel a lot more disgusted about the idea of autonomous farms for e.g. cows and pigs than for e.g. insects, fish, and shrimp, and maybe chickens. (You might have seen this already but in theory you can already buy autonomous insect farms.) I guess public attitudes to this will also vary a lot between countries and cultural contexts. 

Generally I think it's really helpful to start thinking about our messaging around AI's role in animal farming - there seems like a big risk of industry 'AI-washing' their products and making out that all their animals now receive round-the-clock individualized care when actually they might just be using AI to maximise productivity and cut costs, with potentially minimal welfare gains. 

Thanks Bruce! Yes, I saw that - great to see this area getting some more funding and public attention!

Thanks for highlighting that point Hayven - I agree, and also hope we get to the point where animals are sufficiently well represented in democratic decision-making that those kinds of conflicts are massively reduced.

Thanks Cameron! That's a helpful point that I didn't really touch on in this post. Great that you're doing work in that space - I'm really interested to hear more about it so will get in touch.

Cheers Vasco! Glad you found it helpful and thanks for the useful points :-)

Thanks for this! For what it's worth I think this is an important and under-explored area and would be really interested in seeing a longer-form post version.

Thanks Rahela, really appreciate the feedback and great to hear that you found it helpful!

Cheers Stephen, that's really interesting! Taking your example, I can also imagine people finding ways to use this tech to e.g. track down and kill rodents in their homes more efficiently, so definitely agree this is an important area to explore in more detail.