Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Aid Author Charles Kenny

1. When Does “What Works” Work? And What Does that Mean for UK Aid R&D Spend?

Author:
Charles Kenny, Euan Ritchie, and G. Lee Robinson
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The UK’s Secretary of State for International Development[1] oversees an aid-financed R&D[2] budget that is larger than that of the next 15 biggest donors combined. [3] At the moment, a considerable proportion of that UK R&D spend goes towards solving global technological challenges related to neglected tropical diseases including malaria, and a considerable proportion again towards local evaluation of aid-financed development interventions. Much of the rest is somewhat opaquely distributed to British universities for research supposedly related to development. As well as reform of this last category, the range of more legitimate activities benefiting from ODA “research and development” calls for innovation in approaches to deliver outcomes. This paper will argue there is a (fuzzy) spectrum of development procedures, for some of which global innovation, evaluation, or “best practice” can be informative, for some of which local evaluation or experimentation can be useful, and for some of which perhaps only practical experience and local wisdom can help. That there is a spectrum of intervention types and research opportunities, and that local evidence is often required, has implications for the kind of research that UK aid can usefully support as part of its R&D program and where that research should happen. In turn, that suggests a reform agenda for the way UK ODA for R&D is currently spent.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Foreign Aid, and Research
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

2. Results-Based Payments Reduce the Real Costs of Corruption in Foreign Aid

Author:
Charles Kenny and William Savedoff
Publication Date:
01-2014
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Why don't foreign aid programs simply pay recipients for attaining agreed upon results? The idea has been around for decades, but it continues to meet resistance. Some donors worry that programs that pay for outputs or outcomes would not be able to control how funds are used and would thus be vulnerable to corruption. This brief explains why results-based payment systems are actually likely to be less vulnerable to corruption than traditional input-tracking approaches by making the effects of corruption-the failure of programs to deliver results-more visible.
Topic:
Corruption, Development, and Foreign Aid

3. Can Results-Based Payments Reduce Corruption?

Author:
Charles Kenny and William Savedoff
Publication Date:
10-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
A common objection to results-based programs is that they are somehow more vulnerable to corruption. This paper explains why results-based approaches to foreign aid may be less vulnerable to corruption than the traditional approaches which monitor and track the purchase and delivery of inputs and activities. The paper begins by classifying different corruption costs and specifically distinguishes the problem of diverted funds from the costs associated with failing to generate benefits. It then characterizes the key differences between traditional input-tracking programs and results-based approaches in terms of how they are supposed to work, the implicit risks that preoccupy designers, how they function in practice, and what this means both for the scale of corruption and the realization of benefits. It then considers the conditions under which one approach or another might be more appropriate. The paper concludes that input-tracking approaches are vulnerable to corruption because they have high failure costs and a weak track record for controlling diverted funds. By contrast, results-based approaches are less prone to failure costs and limit the capacity of dishonest agents to divert funds unless those agents first improve efficiency and outputs.
Topic:
Corruption, Development, Foreign Aid, and Governance

4. The Best Things in Life are (Nearly) Free: Technology, Knowledge and Global Health

Author:
Charles Kenny and Ursula Casabonne
Publication Date:
05-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Casabonne and Kenny argue that two major factors underlie improved global health outcomes: first, the discovery of cheap technologies that can dramatically improve outcomes; second, the adoption of these technologies, thanks to the spread of knowledge. Other factors have played a role. Increased income not only allows for improved nutrition, but also helps to improve access to more complex preventative technologies. Institutional development is a second key to the spread of such complex technologies. Nonetheless, evidence of dramatic health improvements even in environments of weak institutions and stagnant incomes suggests that the role of these factors may be secondary.
Topic:
Development, Health, Poverty, and Foreign Aid

5. More Money or More Development: What Have the MDGs Achieved?

Author:
Charles Kenny and Andy Sumner
Publication Date:
12-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
What have the MDGs achieved? And what might their achievements mean for any second generation of MDGs or MDGs 2.0? We argue that the MDGs may have played a role in increasing aid and that development policies beyond aid quantity have seen some limited improvement in rich countries (the evidence on policy change in poor countries is weaker). Further, there is some evidence of faster-than-expected progress improving quality of life in developing countries since the Millennium Declaration, but the contribution of the MDGs themselves in speeding that progress is—of course—difficult to demonstrate even assuming the MDGs induced policy changes after 2002. The paper concludes with reflections on what the experience of MDGs in terms of global goal setting has taught us and how things might be done differently if there were to be a new set of MDGs after 2015. Any MDGs 2.0 need targets that are set realistically and directly link aid flows to social policy change and to results.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Humanitarian Aid, Poverty, and Foreign Aid