I share a lot of Drew's skepticism about the study, especially the experimenter demand effects. If monitoring alone is enough to increase productivity, I think it's quite plausible that there is some further response (beyond a direct effect of the glasses on vision) to monitoring plus the provision of glasses. Even as a large proponent of quantile regression in many applications, I do think OLS is more appropriate for a cost effectiveness analysis. A median shift could be consistent both with a much larger or much smaller (even negative) impact on aggregate utility. 

However, I do think the point about glasses as an experience good is a good one and could quite possibly be at play here. If getting glasses for work is not a normal activity, it could be easy to underestimate the benefits of doing so.

Thanks for all the helpful thoughts. The distinction between the growth work and treatment spillovers is useful. Growth theory doesn't seem to be a huge field these days, whereas program evaluation is quite large.

Hi everyone, I'm Connor. I'm an economics PhD student at UChicago. I've been tangentially interested in the EA movement for years, but I've started to invest more after reading What We Owe The Future. In about a month, I'm attending a summer course hosted by the Forethought Foundation, so I look forward to learning even more.

I intend to specialize in development and environmental economics, so I'm most interested in the global health and development focus area of EA. However, I look forward to learning more about other causes.

I'm also hoping to learn more about how to orient my research and work towards EA topics and engage with the community during my studies.