Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publishing Institution Center for Global Development (CGD)

31. Do Cash Transfers Deter Migration?

Author:
Michael A. Clemens
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Conditional Cash Transfers are increasingly used by development aid agencies to reduce the incentives for migration from low-income countries. The evidence to date suggests that such transfers typically increase the rate of migration when they are conditional on investment, such as investment in education. They do this primarily by facilitating acquisition of human capital and by lowering capital constraints—increasing both migration aspirations and the means to achieve them. But with certain design features, particular transfer programs have reduced the incentive to migrate. Broadly speaking, migration can be deterred by transfer programs that are conditional on presence in the origin country—provided that the condition is strict, targeted, and lengthy.
Topic:
Economics, Migration, Finance, and Investment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

32. The ABCs of Sovereign Debt Relief

Author:
Rakan Aboneaaj, Jocilyn Estes, and Clemence Landers
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
We are living in a time when many countries face heightened debt vulnerabilities. Already high before the pandemic, debt levels reached a 50-year peak following the growth in government spending to combat COVID-19. Debt is not inherently bad; borrowing can allow countries to finance vital government investment. But unsustainable levels of debt can have devastating consequences for a country’s population, crowding out government spending on even basic necessities including food, medicine, and fuel imports. In Sri Lanka, for example, 71 percent of government revenue was spent on debt service before the country defaulted. Even where the tradeoff is not so dire, unsustainable debt service can limit productive investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other sectors, hampering the economic growth necessary to reduce a country’s debt burden. After a decade-long period of low borrowing costs, a confluence of rising interest rates, inflation, and commodity shocks have raised the likelihood of overlapping debt crises in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) now estimates that 30 percent of emerging market countries and 60 percent of low-income countries could face trouble paying down their debts or will soon. There is no international bankruptcy mechanism for countries that default on their external obligations. Instead, countries have historically depended on a patchwork of precedents, contracts, and conventions to bring creditors to the table for debt relief negotiations. The United States has a legacy as the lead architect of large global debt relief initiatives, from the Brady Bond plan for Latin America to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative that kickstarted debt relief for poor countries in the 1990s. However, the global creditor landscape has changed significantly over the past decade. Low-income sovereigns’ largest creditors today—China and private bondholders—operate under much different principles than the leading bilateral creditors of the past, making the traditional norms and structures less effective for present debt challenges. The objective of the international financial architecture—historically overseen by the IMF and its shareholders— will be to corral these new creditors into a cooperative arrangement to deliver on debt relief.
Topic:
Debt, Development, Governance, Credit, and Sovereign Debt
Political Geography:
Global Focus

33. Reforming the World Bank and MDBs to Meet Shared Global Challenges

Author:
Center for Global Development
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Last July, the Center for Global Development hosted a meeting with other think tanks to exchange perspectives on the multilateral development bank (MDB) system. We shared a common diagnosis that MDBs must more aggressively address the global challenges that defy national borders and threaten human life as we know it. By virtue of its global reach, financial firepower, and expertise, the World Bank is especially well positioned to be a major driver of progress on climate, pandemic preparedness natural resource conservation, and other global public goods. But it is not meeting its full potential. Participants at our meeting agreed to set out a shared “call to action” where we lay out ideas to evolve the World Bank. The central ideas are to make climate mitigation and adaptation a core component of the World Bank’s mandate; greatly expand its financing capacity; create more incentives for countries to invest in climate and health preparedness; and reform the organizational structure of the institution. Together these could help lay the foundation for a modern World Bank that is meeting the defining challenges of our time head on. Unless otherwise noted, we the undersigned support these ideas in our personal capacity. More information on related work underway in our organizations can be found at our respective websites.
Topic:
Sovereignty, Reform, Finance, and Banking
Political Geography:
Global Focus

34. The Next Game Changers: A Priority Innovation Agenda for Global Health

Author:
Cordelia Kenney and Rachel Silverman
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Over the last century, scientific and technological innovation has led to unprecedented improvements in health outcomes—yet research and development (R&D) investments and progress to address health threats has been uneven. Commercial R&D has focused where investors can expect substantial financial returns: rich countries, the diseases that affect them, and high-tech solutions designed for the richest and most sophisticated systems. Despite supplemental funding from philanthropic and government grants, R&D to address many leading causes of death and disability—especially those that primarily affect low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) or insure against future risk—has been consistently underfunded relative to potential health gain. This implies that many untapped opportunities remain to dramatically improve global health and welfare via biomedical innovation. In this paper, we report the results of a horizon-scanning exercise to source opportunities for global health R&D investment—that is, high-value potential biomedical innovations which are currently underfunded but which could be transformative for health, quality of life, and health security in LMICs and around the world. Drawing from a literature review and expert interviews with researchers, economists, funders, advocates, and implementers, we lay out an expansive and high-promise (though non-comprehensive) biomedical innovation agenda for global health spanning the unfinished MDG agenda; non-communicable diseases; and global health security. We conclude with a discussion of implications for research, funding, and practice.
Topic:
Development, Health, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus

35. Is There a Better Way to Use Global Reserves?

Author:
Mark Plant
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Global reserves can serve as a global public good, facilitating the short-term global recovery from the economic impacts of the pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as the longer-term global transition to a sustainable and equitable economic future. Strategic allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) could facilitate sharing of global reserves with low- and middle-income countries to the mutual benefit of advanced and developing countries. This will require the development of new SDR sharing mechanisms, in which multilateral development banks could be instrumental. Other SDR reforms should also be pursued.
Topic:
Development, Multilateralism, Sustainability, and Banking
Political Geography:
Global Focus

36. What’s the Best Way to Bolster the IMF’s Capacity to Lend to Low-Income Countries?

Author:
David Andrews
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The IMF’s concessional lending to low-income countries through its Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) has risen dramatically since the start of the pandemic and demand for the PRGT resources is expected to remain above pre-pandemic levels for quite some time. But the surge in lending has strained the PRGT's finances—loan resources have dwindled, subsidy costs have risen sharply, and reserves need bolstering. Projections show the risks to PRGT financing are accentuated given the Russian invasion of Ukraine and rising global interest rates. A multi-pronged decade-long effort is needed to ensure sound PRGT financing: (1) reinforce current fundraising efforts for loan and subsidy resources; (2) promote the use of the PRGT's deposit investment account; (3) terminate the reimbursement of PRGT administrative resources to the IMF's General Resources Account and (4) begin a discussion on IMF gold sales to take place in the out years. Each prong of the effort should start immediately, given the time lags involved in reaching consensus and implementation.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Finance, and IMF
Political Geography:
Global Focus

37. Why and How Development Agencies Facilitate Labor Migration

Author:
Helen Dempster and Beza Tesfaye
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Development agencies in high-income countries spend a large amount of both official development assistance (ODA) and other forms of financing on migration programming. While most of this spending is aimed at deterring migration, increasingly more is being focused on facilitating migration: to the high-income country itself; within and between low- and middle-income countries; and supporting people on the move and the diaspora. This paper, written by the Center for Global Development and Mercy Corps, aims to explore why and how development agencies in high-income countries facilitate labor, or economic, migration, and how they have been able to justify and expand their mandate in this area. Based on interviews with nine development agencies, we find that development agencies use a range of arguments to justify their work in this area, including supporting economic development and poverty reduction in partner countries while also meeting labor market demands at home or other countries. Yet expanding a mandate in this area requires substantial cross-government coordination and political buy-in, both of which are difficult to achieve. It also requires the ability to be able to use ODA to facilitate labor migration, which is currently up for debate. As development agencies seek to expand their work on labor migration, it will be necessary to define shared goals and start with pilot projects that focus on low-hanging fruit, while maintaining a focus on development and poverty reduction.
Topic:
Development, Migration, Diaspora, and Labor Issues
Political Geography:
Global Focus

38. Breakthrough to Policy Use: Reinvigorating Impact Evaluation for Global Development

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Amanda Glassman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In 2006, when a CGD working group published its report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, very few social programs benefitted from studies that could determine whether they actually make a difference. Since then, there has been tremendous progress in harnessing better evidence to inform public policy decision making, especially from impact evaluations of programs in low- and middle-income countries. Impact evaluation is a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program, making it uniquely well suited to inform decision making about resource allocation, program design, and scale up or drawdown. But the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda, underscoring the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data. Approximately 15 million more deaths took place in 2020 and 2021 than would have occurred in the absence of COVID-19, and cumulative economic losses from the pandemic are expected to reach 13.8 trillion. Given the potential real-world benefits, why have decision makers within governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence—including from impact evaluations—for better public policies? Looking ahead, how can the development community renew momentum and broaden bases of support for impact evaluation and the wider evidence agenda? In response to these questions and building on progress to date, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact. The working group aimed to develop a renewed agenda for investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for policy use. It brought together a diverse group of policymakers and experts to review recent progress and examine how to address remaining obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development, with a focus on impact evaluation. This brief summarizes the final report of the working group. The report collates resources and insights on progress in implementing and using impact evaluations for decision making and proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice, directed to the development community—government policymakers; other multilateral, bilateral, and philanthropic funders; researchers, and NGOs
Topic:
Development, Governance, Leadership, NGOs, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

39. Leveraging Knowledge Generation for Policy Impact: Recommendations for the World Bank

Author:
Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Since the 2006 release of the CGD report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, there have been nearly two decades of progress in generating and using evidence for public policy decisions and development programs. There has been a steady increase in the number of impact evaluations—a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program. Their ability to assess attribution makes impact evaluations uniquely well suited for decision making. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda and underscored the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. Across sectors, decision makers in governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs have not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence for better public policies. Numerous challenges limit evidence use. On the demand side, impact evaluations may lack relevance to policy decisions and fail to respond to decision makers’ priorities, timelines, and questions. On the supply side, decision makers often lack institutional incentives and funding to generate and act on relevant evidence. Current funding models compound these challenges by contributing to misaligned incentives between policymaker needs and academic researchers. In response to these challenges, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact to develop a renewed agenda for the next generation of investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for real-world decision making. The group brought together policymakers and experts to review the progress and obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development. Its final report highlights how far the field has come in addressing critiques about the scale, generalizability, and policy utility of impact evaluation, and offers recommendations to the development community on “what and how to fund to deliver on the promise of impact evaluation and bolster the broader evidence ecosystem.” The working group proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice: (1) design evaluations that start from the policy question and decision space; (2) harness technology for timely, lower-cost evidence; (3) advance locally grounded evidence-to-policy partnerships; (4) enact new incentives and structures to strengthen evidence use; and (5) invest in evidence leaders and communities.
Topic:
International Cooperation, World Bank, Finance, and Banking
Political Geography:
Global Focus

40. Mainstreaming Evidence Use through Locally Led Development: Recommendations for USAID

Author:
Janeen Madan Keller, Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, and Ruth Levine
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
ince the 2006 release of the CGD report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, there have been nearly two decades of progress in generating and using evidence for public policy decisions and development programs. There has been a steady increase in the number of impact evaluations—a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program. Their ability to assess attribution makes impact evaluations uniquely well suited for decision making. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda and underscored the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. Across sectors, decision makers in governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs have not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence for better public policies. Numerous challenges limit evidence use. On the demand side, impact evaluations may lack relevance to policy decisions and fail to respond to decision makers’ priorities, timelines, and questions. On the supply side, decision makers often lack institutional incentives and funding to generate and act on relevant evidence. Current funding models compound these challenges by contributing to misaligned incentives between policymaker needs and academic researchers. In response to these challenges, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact to develop a renewed agenda for the next generation of investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for real-world decision making. The group brought together policymakers and experts to review the progress and obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development. Its final report highlights how far the field has come in addressing critiques about the scale, generalizability, and policy utility of impact evaluation, and offers recommendations to the development community on “what and how to fund to deliver on the promise of impact evaluation and bolster the broader evidence ecosystem.” The working group proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice: (1) design evaluations that start from the policy question and decision space; (2) harness technology for timely, lower-cost evidence; (3) advance locally grounded evidence-to-policy partnerships; (4) enact new incentives and structures to strengthen evidence use; and (5) invest in evidence leaders and communities. This brief details how USAID can mainstream evidence use across the agency. It is based on working group discussions, numerous consultations with experts including current and former USAID staff, and background research over the course of the project.
Topic:
Development, Local, USAID, and Foreign Assistance
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America