Search

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

41. 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:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In 2006, when a CGD working group, led by Ruth Levine, Bill Savedoff, and Nancy Birdsall, published its report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, very few social programs benefitted from studies that could determine whether or not they actually make a difference. Since then, the world has seen tremendous progress in harnessing better evidence to inform public policy decision making, especially from impact evaluations of programs in low- and middle-income countries. But COVID-19 has put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda, underscoring the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence—for both effectiveness and political credibility of the response. The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods lost when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data. 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? These questions were the focus of a CGD Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact, which set out to understand why these social benefits continue to go unrealized and to chart out a renewed funding agenda for greater value in government policymaking.
Topic:
Development, Leadership, Community, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

42. A Package of Reforms for Financing Pandemic Preparedness and Response for the G7

Author:
Amanda Glassman and Eleni Smitham
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
COVID-19 has shown the detrimental consequences of insufficient and fragmented financing for outbreak preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR). As the world seeks to recover from the current COVID-19 pandemic, and to mitigate recovery needs for future health crises, more must be done to accelerate global efforts to ensure rapid, adequate funding and governance for global health security, which has been under-resourced and under-prioritized. The rationale for reforming and replenishing the global health architecture to prepare for the next pandemic is clear: to protect health, human lives, and economic well-being.[1] Without dedicated and accelerated investment—in scaled up surveillance, strengthened national health systems, enhanced research and development of medical countermeasures, and more—we will continue to face more frequent and more complex epidemics and pandemics in the years ahead, and be less prepared to stop them.[2] Without the capacity to surge financing to respond at-scale to infectious disease outbreaks, we risk a repeat of the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Last July, the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP) on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, mandated by the Italian Presidency of the G20, released the report A Global Deal for Our Pandemic Age, laying out policies and investments needed to reduce vulnerabilities to future pandemics.[3] Likewise, in 2021, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response[4] described the shortcomings of the existing architecture and suggested similar policies for the future, including greater assessed contributions for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the need for dedicated financing to prevent and prepare for the next COVID-19 variant and pandemic risk. The Global Preparedness and Monitoring Board’s periodic reports went in this same direction[5] , as did earlier assessments following Ebola, SARS and MERS outbreaks though recommendations often went without implementation.[6] These reports and the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic itself have again made clear that existing mechanisms for financing pandemic preparedness and response are not fit-for-purpose, nor at the sufficient speed and scale needed to ensure global health security. Current financing for pandemic preparedness is small, fragmented, and concentrated in the health sector.[7] Different organizations across the global health and international financial institution architecture hold different comparative advantages in mobilizing and deploying monies and need to be fully financed to do what they are best suited to do. However, no institution (that is adequately funded, credible, and capable) is currently mandated to or accountable for ensuring pandemic preparedness, resulting in financing and accountability gaps, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where Global Health Security Action Plans too often go un-costed and unfunded.[8] Further, new regional organizations and groupings are leaders in their own development, and must be a central part of a new global health security architecture—the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Forum for the Progress and Development of South America (PROSUR), among others, are examples. Adequate reforms and robust replenishments of global health organizations new and old are needed to ensure stronger global health security and pandemic preparedness now and in the future. External funders should take a comprehensive view of the major global health initiatives and consider how a range of reforms, when combined, have the potential to respond more coherently and efficiently to the financing demands related to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, other macro risks that affect public spending on health, and in the face of future health threats. There are reasons for optimism. Unlike the experience during previous pandemic threats, COVID-19 has finally seen the International Monetary Fund become more aware and vocal on the need to address both COVID-19 and future pandemic risks as “systemic risk(s) to the global economy, not just the development […] of a particular country.”[9] Finance, health and development policymakers are increasingly coming together in different fora and recognizing the need to invest across sectors and to connect the international financial architecture with health initiatives in ways that will deliver better outcomes.[10]
Topic:
Reform, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

43. Let Them Eat Carbon

Author:
Vijaya Ramachandran and Arthur Baker
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The push for the World Bank and others to link their investments to addressing climate concerns stems from a fear that, unless developing countries take action to decarbonize now, their economic growth will lead to vast emissions that will derail all global efforts to limit climate change. This approach, which treats low- and middle-income countries as a monolith, is unhelpful to the conversation about climate change. To understand better where emissions are concentrated and how to address them, we projected carbon dioxide emissions to 2035—the point at which observers believe they will level off in most countries due to technological advances and accumulating wealth—under some simple assumptions. Emissions from the world’s poorest 64 countries, those which get IDA loans, will remain very low for decades to come, even if their economies grow rapidly and without action to reduce emissions. Pressuring low- and lower-middle-income countries to replace plans for gas power with solar or wind energy will have limited climate benefits compared to replacing coal generation in richer countries. It is just more efficient—and just—to focus on climate mitigation where emissions are high, and on poverty reduction where poverty is high. And given that there is no sign of an increase in aid spending, especially in the poorest countries, rich countries must not cannibalize development aid or reinvent the development finance architecture
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, World Bank, Finance, Banking, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

44. Assessment of Expenditure Choices by Low- and Low- Middle-Income Countries During the Pandemic and Their Impact on SDGs

Author:
Sanjeev Gupta and Lucas Sala
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Until the COVID pandemic, public spending in low- and low-middle-income countries had been growing modestly. As a result, governments expanded service provision, including in social sectors, and enlarged welfare programs. This was made possible in part by domestic revenue growth. However, the pandemic has significantly lowered revenue receipts of these countries, while creating pressures to spend more on shielding the population and providing support to the economy. Unfortunately, health outlays did not increase as a share of total output during 2000-2018. The preliminary evidence compiled in this paper shows that health spending in relation to GDP increased virtually in all low and low-middle income countries in 2020, though not by as much as in advanced economies. However, higher health spending in low and low-middle income countries is unlikely to be sustained because of the pandemic’s adverse impact on revenues and other spending pressures. Furthermore, COVID has critically scarred the future productivity of these countries. Before the pandemic, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 was doubtful in part because of the slow pace in generating additional revenues from domestic sources. As the financing needs have increased, the achievement of these goals will be delayed beyond 2030, unless additional financing sources can be found. This means that policy actions will need to be taken by these countries to create additional fiscal space going forward. There is potential to raise more revenues from domestic sources by implementing politically difficult policy measures and generating savings by improving the quality of public spending, including on health.
Topic:
Development, Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. Girls’ Education and Women’s Equality: How to Get More out of the World’s Most Promising Investment

Author:
Shelby Carvalho and David Evans
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
To hear talk of it, you might think educating girls is a silver bullet to solve all the world’s ills. A large and still growing collection of research demonstrates the wide-ranging benefits of girls’ education. Recent research has nuanced some of those findings, but the fundamental result stands: Educating girls is good for girls and good for the people around them
Topic:
Education, Gender Issues, Feminism, and Equality
Political Geography:
Global Focus

46. A Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness

Author:
Amanda Glassman, Eleni Smitham, and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 crisis has served as a painful demonstration that no country is fully prepared for a pandemic and that the existing global health architecture remains ill-equipped to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR). The rationale for preventing and containing pandemics is self-evident: the price of preparedness is a fraction of the cost of responding to catastrophic outbreaks, both in terms of human and economic well-being.[1] In the aftermath of the 2003 SARS outbreak, 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak, experts called for scaling up sustainable financing to ensure the world was better prepared to face that next global health threat. But even amid efforts to better understand and measure preparedness gaps,[2] little action was taken to mobilize financing and incentivize investments in strengthening detection, prevention, and response capabilities. As global health threats evolve, countries’ capacity to prepare for and respond to disease outbreaks is increasingly a global imperative. Now is the time to take concrete steps toward establishing sustained financing for pandemic PPR to help bring an end to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, combat future health security threats, and break the costly cycle of neglect.
Topic:
Security, Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

47. Schooling for All: Feasible Strategies to Achieve Universal Education

Author:
Justin Sandefur
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This report debates the case for specific public investments in education in low- and lower-middle-income countries, drawing on evidence of what has worked not just in small-scale experiments but historically and in large-scale national programs. Its messages are intended more for economic policymakers than educators, as they speak to what can be accomplished with fiscal instruments (money) and where trade-offs must be made. CGD does not take institutional positions. Each chapter is authored by a different set of CGD researchers (with some editorial steer), and each commentary is written by external contributors (who were promised space to disagree). This introduction tries to summarize the main arguments across all these contributions, noting points of consensus and ongoing debate.
Topic:
Development, Education, Reform, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Global Focus

48. Development Effectiveness in the “New Normal”: What Do the Changing Roles and Purposes of ODA Mean for the Effectiveness Agenda?

Author:
Rachael Calleja and Beata Cichocka
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This paper explores how the roles and purposes of official development assistance (ODA) are changing and what these shifts mean for the future of the development effectiveness agenda. Using data obtained through a survey of officials working in development agencies and partner countries, this paper maps perspectives on the changing role and purposes of ODA as well as perceptions of the continued relevance of the effectiveness agenda and the Busan principles in this changing development landscape. Our results show that providers are increasingly prioritizing global challenges and private sector development as main purposes of ODA, and that the catalytic role of ODA is becoming increasingly important. In spite of substantive changes to the development landscape, survey respondents overwhelmingly thought that the current effectiveness agenda remains relevant – however, they also expressed the need to revise or renew the effectiveness principles to keep pace with changing demands. Working from our survey responses, we propose a basic framework for considering options for the future of the effectiveness agenda and conclude by proposing four possible paths forward.
Topic:
Security, Development, International Cooperation, and Development Assistance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

49. Domestic Revenue Mobilization and Debt Relief: The Lack of Any Link

Author:
Mark Plant and Nancy Lee
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
As the global financial community considers how to extend debt relief accompanied by IMF adjustment programs to vulnerable low-income countries, the issue of policy conditions for fiscal adjustment will inevitably arise. This paper considers the effectiveness of conditions related to domestic revenue mobilization (DRM) in the last systematic round of debt relief in the early 2000s Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (HIPC/MDRI). We find that debt relief had no impact on low-income countries’ DRM. Countries benefitting from debt relief had roughly the same DRM as those that did not. And DRM grew only slightly over time for both sets of countries. In the months to come there will be pressure to use debt restructuring and leverage to accelerate fiscal reforms and boost domestic revenue mobilization so that LICs can be seen to be contributing “their fair share” to economic recovery and transformation. Experience with the HIPC/MDRI tells us that we must be realistic in our expectations: external forces have limited impact unless combined with strong internal will and implementation capacity.
Topic:
Debt, Economics, IMF, and Credit
Political Geography:
Global Focus

50. Country Platforms and Delivery of Global Public Goods

Author:
Daouda Sembene, Nancy Lee, and Mark Plant
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This paper discusses three potential requirements for country platforms to facilitate effective delivery of GPGs. We propose that existing country platforms be repurposed to coordinate the contribution of domestic and external stakeholders to GPG delivery efforts at the country level. For this proposed approach to be successful, an explicit link must be introduced between country-level efforts and global initiatives to provide GPGs. There is also merit in setting up country and global coordination mechanisms, with relevant agencies assigned to operate them both at the national and international levels. Using relevant country platforms, we suggest that international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the IMF and multilateral development banks (MDBs) be mandated with helping developing countries meet the financing needs associated with the provision of GPGs. In addition, technical support from the IFIs should be put on the table to improve the effectiveness of developing countries’ contribution to GPG delivery. In this regard, MDBs can and must play a central role in developing capacities in these countries as part of their own contribution to GPG delivery. At the same time, securing the contribution of civil society and the private sector to GPG delivery efforts is essential given the magnitude of potential financing needs.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Finance, Multilateralism, IMF, and Public Goods
Political Geography:
Global Focus