Search

Begin New Search Topic Funding Political Geography United States of America

1. UNRWA Funding is Burdened with Conditionality

Author:
Anne Irfan
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The UN agency’s essential humanitarian role lies in the balance thanks to the political contingencies of its donors.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Donors, Funding, and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America

2. Coronavirus Relief Fund: Review of Federal Fiscal Assistance and of Innovative County Response Strategies

Author:
Richard Callahan, Lisa Gordon, and Christopher Morrill
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
Abstract:
The United States began to experience impact from the global COVID-19 outbreak in late January 2020. States, counties, and localities were almost immediately affected, and faced unprecedented challenges in providing services to meet the urgent needs of their communities. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020 in late March, providing over $2 trillion to help cover the needs of affected individuals, families, and businesses. The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) – part of the CARES Act – provided direct assistance to state, local, and tribal governments, and designated $150 billion for counties with populations of more than 500,000. The National Association of Counties (NACo) asked the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to evaluate how well the CRF funding supported counties in addressing the pandemic and to review the effectiveness of the CRF federal aid package and its implementation. Additionally, they asked the Academy to identify and document innovative strategies employed by six specific counties using CRF funds and to highlight their approaches to address social equity. With the guidance of an Expert Advisory Group (EAG) of Academy Fellows, the Academy’s report presents findings and recommendations that can improve both current and future federal-to-local programs such as the CRF. It also highlights how these innovative counties responded to the challenges their residents faced as a result of COVID-19—examples that could be used by other counties in similar circumstances. I deeply appreciate our EAG members who contributed valuable insights and expertise throughout the project and the Academy Study Team that delivered focused research and analysis. The constructive engagement of NACo employees, as well as current and former federal officials and our broader community of Academy Fellows who have special expertise in intergovernmental relations and operations, was equally vital. They provided important knowledge and context that informed this report. We also owe special thanks to the administrators and leaders of the six counties – Cook County, Illinois; Franklin County, Ohio; Hennepin County, Minnesota; Lee County, Florida; New Castle County, Delaware; and Pierce County, Washington – who took time out of their demanding schedules while addressing the ongoing effects of the pandemic to provide information to us about their challenges and initiatives. This report provides information to federal policy makers on how they can better address the lasting effects of the pandemic and enhance relationships between the multiple levels of government in the United States. I trust that this report also will be useful to NACo as it continues to represent and support its constituents and that the county examples herein will be especially helpful to others facing similar challenges.
Topic:
Governance, Local, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Funding
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. Government as the First Investor in Biopharmaceutical Innovation: Evidence From New Drug Approvals 2010–2019

Author:
Ekaterina Cleary, Matthew J. Jackson, and Fred D. Ledley
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
The discovery and development of new medicines classically involves a linear process of basic biomedical research to uncover potential targets for drug action, followed by applied, or translational, research to identify candidate products and establish their effectiveness and safety. This Working Paper describes the public sector contribution to that process by tracing funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) related to published research on each of the 356 new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2010-2019 as well as research on their 218 biological targets. Specifically, we describe the timelines of clinical development for these products and proxy measures of their importance, including designations as first-inclass or expedited approvals. We model the maturation of basic research on the biological targets for drugs to determine the initiation and established points of this research, and demonstrate that none of the 232 products modelled were approved before this enabling research passed the established point. This body of essential research comprised 2 million publications, of which 409 thousand were supported by 317 thousand Funding Years of NIH Project support totaling $156 billion. Research on the 356 drugs comprised 229 thousand publications, of which 36 thousand were supported by 42 thousand Funding Years of NIH Project support totaling $31 billion. Overall, NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved from 2010-2019, totaling $187 billion. This funding supported investigator-initiated Research Projects, Cooperative Agreements for government-led research on topics of particular importance, as well as Research Program Projects and Centers and training to support the research infrastructure. This NIH funding also produced 22 thousand patents, which provided marketing exclusivity for 27 (8.6%) of the drugs approved 2010-2019. These data demonstrate the essential role of public sector-funded basic research in drug discovery and development, as well as the scale and character of this funding. It also demonstrates the limited mechanisms available for recognizing the value created by these early investments and ensuring appropriate public returns. This analysis demonstrates the importance of sustained public investment in basic biomedical science as well as the need for policy innovations that fully realize the value of public sector investments in pharmaceutical innovation that ensure that these investments yield meaningful improvements in health.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Research, Public Policy, Innovation, State Funding, Pharmaceuticals, and Funding
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

4. Meet the Moment: A Call for Progressive Philanthropic Response to the Anti-Gender Movement

Author:
Teddy Wilson, Jenna Capeci, and Gitta Zomorodi
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
In early 2020, Global Philanthropy Project worked with our member organizations and philanthropic partners to develop two related pieces of private research: 1) a report mapping the funding of the global “anti-gender ideology” or “anti-gender” movement, and 2) a report mapping the progressive philanthropic response. We offer the following public document in order to share key learning and to offer additional analysis gained in the comparison of the two reports. Additionally, we share insights based on comparing global and regional LGBTI funding data as documented in the 2017-2018 Global Resources Report: Government and Philanthropic Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Communities. These findings offer a clear call to action: progressive movements and their philanthropic partners are being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and the institutions providing that opposition funding have developed sophisticated and coordinated systems to learn, co-fund, and expand their influence. The philanthropic community is called to recognize the scale of the fight and to be both rigorous and creative in our response. Let us seize this remarkable opportunity to work together and engage our collective learning, spending power, and institutional knowledge to help transform the conditions of our communities. Together we can leverage the collective power that this generational crisis demands.
Topic:
LGBT+, Progressivism, Philanthropy, Funding, Transgender, and Gender Minorities
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, Europe, Asia, South America, Global Focus, and United States of America

5. Foreign Banks in the U.S.: A Primer

Author:
William Goulding and Daniel E. Nolle
Publication Date:
11-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Abstract:
This paper describes the foreign banking landscape in the United States. It begins by establishing a vocabulary for discussion of the subject, and then identifies a number of important data-related issues. With that information in hand, the remainder of the paper focuses on identifying the most important underlying trends on both sides of the balance sheets of foreign-owned banks' U.S. operations. At each step, the investigation considers how foreign-owned banks compare to U.S.-owned domestic banks, and how two types of foreign banks operations in the U.S. -- branches and agencies of foreign banks (FBAs), and foreign-owned subsidiary banks (FSUBs) -- compare to each other. The banking sector in the U.S. experienced substantial swings in performance and stability over the decade surrounding the 2008-2009 financial crisis and changes in every major dimension of foreign-owned banks' assets and liabilities were even larger than for domestic banks. Changes were especially large at FBAs. For example, cash balances came to dominate the assets side of FBAs’ aggregate balance sheet, with the absolute level of cash balances larger than those of domestic U.S. banks beginning in 2011, despite the fact that total assets of domestic U.S. banks are five times the assets of FBAs. Further, the recent unprecedented build-up of cash balances by FBAs was almost entirely composed of excess reserves. Changes in FBAs' liabilities-side activities have also been large, with much funding coming from large wholesale deposits and net borrowing from their foreign parents and related offices abroad.
Topic:
Foreign Direct Investment, Fiscal Policy, Capital, Banking, and Funding
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America