Search

Begin New Search Topic Finance

1. The Future of Official Development Assistance: Incremental Improvements or Radical Reform?

Author:
Masood Ahmed, Rachael Calleja, and Pierre Jacquet
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Over the last decade, donor country governments have faced new and additional demands for financing international challenges, including providing global public goods (GPGs) and addressing historically high numbers of refugees and humanitarian crises. They have partly done so by re-allocating their official development assistance (ODA) away from its original aim: to support poverty reduction and growth in developing countries. This has led to questions about the integrity and credibility of ODA. These questions are only likely to grow more pertinent in the coming decade because the pressures on ODA—and on public finances more broadly—are here to stay. ODA budgets are being cut in a number of traditional donor countries and what remains is increasingly being deployed to meet emerging needs beyond traditional development and to reflect a more national security perspective on development cooperation. The time is right, therefore, to ask whether the concept and accounting for ODA need to be modified to ensure that the needy and vulnerable it was designed to serve continue to be protected in the face of fiscal constraints and changing geopolitical circumstances. This report, a compendium on the future of ODA, aims to provide fresh thinking and inspire the action needed for ODA to remain relevant and effective. It brings together reflections and proposals from leading experts and practitioners, including the under-secretary-general and executive director of UNOPS to a former DAC chair, to inform policymakers. In this executive summary, we will introduce the key arguments from the compendium contributors. The contributions are organised into four key areas of discussion that reflect the main themes raised in this compendium: the rationale for ODA reform, the political and institutional realities shaping reform, using ODA for climate and leveraging private finance, and forward-looking proposals for reimagining ODA’s role and purpose.
Topic:
Development, Finance, Humanitarian Crisis, Donors, and Foreign Assistance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. The Distribution of Climate Finance among Annex-II Countries: A CBDR-RC Approach for Partial Funding of the Developing Countries

Author:
Shouvik Chakraborty
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:
Developing nations face the significant challenge of reconciling their efforts in climate change mitigation with the urgent need for financial resources to adapt to climate-related disasters, achieve sustainable development, and stabilize their economies. The financial requirements for addressing climate impacts span various sectors, including energy transition, energy efficiency, transportation, agriculture, forestry, other land use (AFOLU), and adaptation strategies. Estimates provided by reputable international organizations, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggest that the annual global climate finance needs may range from $4.2 trillion to $5.7 trillion. Within this framework, the share allocated to developing countries is estimated to constitute approximately $1.9 trillion to $2.0 trillion annually, mainly to support mitigation efforts. It is widely acknowledged that developing countries are unlikely to meet these financial demands independently. Consequently, it is projected that around $1 trillion must be sourced from advanced economies, particularly the AnnexII countries. This paper introduces a methodology grounded in the principles of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability (CBDR-RC). It facilitates a structured distribution of financing responsibilities among Annex II nations. The methodology incorporates the notion of historical responsibility, quantified as carbon debt, while also measuring capability through a balanced consideration of the wealth and gross domestic product (GDP) of the AnnexII countries. The analysis conducted reveals that the United States of America (USA) is required to contribute nearly half of the total financial obligations among the AnnexII countries, with the remaining funds to be apportioned among other nations within this group.
Topic:
Development, Finance, Climate Finance, and Burden Sharing
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Can guarantees effectively leverage financing for SMEs in low- and middle-income countries?

Author:
Bao-We-Wal Bambe
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require significant financing and investment, particularly as growing challenges from climate events highlight the insufficiency of public funds to meet the 2030 Agenda (World Economic Forum 2024). Private capital for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) surged in recent years, with significant commitments from multilateral development banks (MDBs). However, the financing gap to achieve the SDGs remains sizable, highlighting the need for greater effort to mobilise much larger private capital for sustainable development. In recent years, guarantees have emerged as a key leveraging mechanism. They are designed to mitigate high investment risks to support private capital mobilisation in LMICs. However, despite some progress, guarantees are used sparingly, suggesting considerable scope for increasing their scale, as highlighted by the G20 Independent Expert Group (IEG). This Policy Brief examines whether guarantees can serve as an effective leveraging mechanism for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This is especially so because SMEs remain largely hampered by poor access to finance, despite their key role in providing jobs for the local population and contributing to economic growth. Moreover, in the face of climate change, SME adaptation requires new investments in climate-resistant technologies and clean energies, highlighting the need for additional financing amid severe constraints on access to capital. Guarantees can complement other leveraging mechanisms, further easing financing constraints for SMEs in LMICs. Guarantees can absorb some of the risks associated with investment, offering financial institutions greater security. This added security can, in turn, help improve access to capital for SMEs. On the other hand, they can also help catalyse private sector investment in LMICs. Recognising both the potential benefits and short-comings of guarantees, this Policy Brief provides the following policy recommendations on how guarantees could be extended efficiently to the SME sector in LMICs. • Guarantees should be directed at financial institu-tions to mitigate portfolio risk and actively promote lending to small projects or SMEs in high-risk sectors, particularly those with the potential to generate substantial economic, environmental, or social benefits. • Complement guarantees with additional measures to improve SMEs’ financial management, enhance risk assessment, and strengthen technical capacity through professional training and advisory services. • Implement partial credit guarantees to require financial institutions to retain a share of the risk, thereby reducing moral hazard and promoting rigorous analyses of borrowers’ creditworthiness. Complement these guarantees with conditionalities and monitoring criteria, such as regular reporting, to ensure the incrementality and additionality of guaranteed financing. Enhance the harmonisation of guarantees with other leveraging mechanisms, improve coordination among MDBs and DFIs, and streamline guarantee frameworks to achieve greater efficiency. • Recognise that guarantees alone cannot address structural vulnerabilities and institutional weakness in LMICs; a long-term commitment from decision-makers is essential to improve institutional and economic performance.
Topic:
Development, Finance, Sustainable Development Goals, and Investment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Financing for development: from Monterrey to Seville

Author:
Stephan Klingebiel, Jorge A. Pérez-Pineda, and Kathrin Berensmann
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The United Nations financing for development process, including the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Seville in 2025, is an important building block to foster global cooperation amid the current geopolitical tensions and multiple crises that have led to increased development financing needs on the one hand, and increased spending on the other, with the OECD estimating that the financing gap in funding required for developing countries to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals is $3.9 trillion per year. Against this backdrop, a coordinated international effort is essential to increase the scale and effectiveness of development financing and promote sustainable development globally, particularly in line with the 2030 Agenda. The overarching goal of the FfD process, including FfD4, is to mobilise adequate financial resources for the sustainable development of countries in the Global South, and to design appropriate architectures for development and sustainable finance. The FfD process is unique in that it takes a holistic approach, involving all sources of development finance and all public and private stakeholders. In this respect, the FfD process has an extraordinary convening power. The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to provide meaningful input to the preparatory process of FfD4 by offering insights into key challenges, opportunities and innovative approaches. The paper aims to contribute to the broader dialogue on financing for sustainable development and support informed decision-making for a robust and inclusive development agenda beyond 2030. Topics range from reforms of official development assistance, innovative approaches to private-sector and sustainable finance, and innovative reforms of multilateral development banks.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Finance, Sustainable Development Goals, and OECD
Political Geography:
Global Focus and Global South

5. Macroprudential policies and private domestic investment in developing countries: an instrumental variables approach

Author:
Bao-We-Wal Bambe
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper examines the effect of macroprudential policies on private domestic investment using a panel of 87 developing countries from 2000 to 2017. Our instrumental variables strategy exploits the geographic diffusion of macroprudential policies across countries, with the idea that reforms in neighbouring countries can affect the adoption or strengthening of domestic reforms through peer pressure or imitation effects. The findings indicate that the tightening of macro-prudential policies significantly reduces private domestic investment. This effect holds for both instruments targeting borrowers and those targeting financial institutions, and is subject to heterogeneity depending on several economic and institutional factors. The transmission channel analysis highlights that the negative impact of macroprudential policies on investment is primarily driven by a reduction in credit supply and financial inclusion.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Finance, Investment, and Macroprudential Policies
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Distinguishing Among Climate Change-Related Risks

Author:
Lisa Sachs, Denise Hearn, Matt Goldklang, and Perrine Toledano
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
Understanding the diverse types of climate change-related risks is crucial for developing effective strategies to address the global climate crisis. A holistic yet disaggregated approach allows for a comprehensive view of the challenges while enabling targeted responses from various stakeholders. This document outlines three main categories of climate-related risks: planetary, economic, and financial, detailing their relevance to various stakeholders, timeframes, and potential response strategies. This short brief aims to disentangle the complex nature of risk discussions for productive discourse and appropriate risk management approaches for different stakeholders. In practice, discussions related to assessing and responding to climate change risk have conflated categories of risk, confusing discussions and undermining the effectiveness of related strategies. We hope this brief can bring clarity and rigor to analyses of risk and support constructive discussion among policymakers, financial institutions, social sector actors, and the public. We plan to follow this short briefing with a longer report including more detailed analysis, integrating feedback to these initial ideas.
Topic:
Climate Change, Finance, Economy, Investment, Risk, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Rethinking development finance in Tajikistan: Towards more sustainable and inclusive fiscal pathways

Author:
Jovid Ikromi
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
This paper rethinks development finance in Tajikistan through the lens of fiscal sociology, arguing that sustained reliance on foreign aid and external borrowing may weaken state-society trust and erode institutional legitimacy. Anchored in the political economy of development finance, the paper explores how alternative financing strategies, such as tax reform, diaspora bonds, thematic bonds, and blended finance, interact with domestic institutions, investor confidence, and citizen perceptions of fiscal fairness. While external flows have financed essential infrastructure and social programmes, they have also limited incentives for domestic resource mobilization and weakened public accountability. Issues of debt sustainability increasingly constrain long-term planning, while climate finance is emerging as both a challenge and an opportunity for diversifying development funding. Drawing on policy analysis and secondary data, the paper shows that financial instruments succeed not only through technical design but through their ability to reinforce the fiscal social contract. Tajikistan’s case illustrates that without improvements in governance, transparency, and citizen engagement, even well-structured innovations in development finance may fail to gain traction. The findings offer practical insights for low-income countries seeking to reduce aid dependency while building more credible and inclusive systems of public finance.
Topic:
Development, Foreign Aid, Finance, Climate Finance, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Central Asia and Tajikistan

8. The Impact of Increased Mass Litigation in the UK

Author:
Oscar Guinea, Dyuti Pandya, Vanika Sharma, and Renata Zilli
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has seen a marked rise in collective litigation, transforming what was once a niche legal, rarely employed, tool into a fast-growing business model with wide-ranging economic implications. At a time when the country seeks to boost investment, support innovation and attract global business, the proliferation of mass litigation risks undermining these ambitions. This study takes a closer look at how mass litigation is reshaping the UK’s legal, business and regulatory landscape – and asks whether the balance between justice and economic efficiency is tipping too far. The UK stands out among European countries for the ease with which mass claims can be launched. It has long provided a favourable environment for consumer representation and dispute resolution, with a strong culture of accountability. But recent years have seen the emergence of a new ecosystem: law firms specialising in group actions; litigation funders offering upfront capital in exchange for a share of awards; and Claims Management Companies (CMCs) that recruit claimants en masse and process high volumes of cases. The business model has proved highly successful, making group litigation an asset class in its own right and pushing collective actions far beyond traditional sectors such as banking and pharmaceuticals. Today, a growing portion of the UK economy is in the firing line – with potentially damaging consequences. This shift has been rapid and striking. From fewer than 10 mass litigation cases in the late 2010s, the UK saw 47 such actions in 2024 alone, more than any other European country. On a per capita basis, the UK ranks as one of the most litigious jurisdictions in Europe, well ahead of comparable economies such as France or Germany. The implications for the UK economy are far-reaching: many of the companies targeted by these actions operate in sectors that were included in the UK Government’s latest industrial strategy as critical to the country’s future economic growth. Whereas previously limited to financial and professional services, mass litigation cases are now rising in UK companies working in life sciences, advanced manufacturing and digital services. These are industries where risk-taking, long product development cycles and data-driven innovation are the norm. The threat of mass litigation introduces uncertainty and cost at exactly the moment when these businesses need regulatory clarity and investment stability. Moreover, claims against public sector entities involve a direct transfer of capital from the tax payer to hedge fund litigation funders. The financial burden is also considerable. Legal fees and returns to funders often consume a large share of total settlements, reducing the compensation that actually reaches affected individuals. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, for example, £46 million in legal fees and funders payments were deducted from a £57 million settlement, leaving a paltry sum of just over £20,000 per claimant. In the recent judgment of Merricks v. Mastercard, £100 million have been allocated to compensate consumers. Affected individuals could receive up to £70 each if only 5 percent claim, but as little as £2.5 if the full class of 44 million comes forward. These figures raise questions about who really benefits from mass litigation. The limited benefits for individual consumers stand in stark contrast to the substantial costs that mass litigation imposes on the UK economy as a whole. Our scenario modelling shows that, under a scenario where the costs of mass litigation are just 30 percent of the current costs in the US, litigation costs in the UK could reach more than half of the claim value; the cost of mass litigation for the UK economy could reach close to £18 billion, and the market capitalisation of the UK’s most innovative companies could fall by £11.2 billion, more than half the announced public investment into R&D in the 2025 Autumn Budget. These financial pressures affect the whole country. While many large companies are headquartered in Greater London, their operations, and the jobs they support, are often spread across the wider regions. This means that the impact of a legal challenge is not just a concern for a corporate boardroom in London, but it impacts local economies and communities across the UK. As the Civil Justice Council reviews the framework for litigation funding, this study provides evidence to inform the debate. It does not argue against collective actions per se but urges a careful weighing of their benefits against broader economic costs. If the UK wants to remain an attractive destination for business, investment, and innovation, it must ensure that its legal infrastructure supports rather than stifles those ambitions.
Topic:
Economics, European Union, Finance, and Litigation
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

9. How to improve the European Union’s sustainable finance framework

Author:
Silvia Merler
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The European Union has sought to steer corporate behaviour to support its climate goals by adopting a large body of rules on sustainable investment, sustainability disclosures and sustainability labelling of financial products, underpinned by a taxonomy of activities considered sustainable. It is unclear, however, if this effort has had significant results. Examination of financial market data and metrics of investment flows towards green and sustainable investment shows up several weaknesses – both contingent and structural – in the EU sustainable finance framework, which could limit its effectiveness in aligning capital flows with climate objectives. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is aimed at making the sustainability content of financial products more transparent but rests on a concept of ‘sustainable investment’ that is too broad and loosely defined. Meanwhile, the EU Taxonomy Regulation has not yet become established as the reference framework for corporate bond issuance or sustainable investing. The EU also lacks a coherent framework for transition finance – or investment that is not yet classified as sustainable but that represents progress to greater sustainability – despite this being the market segment to which the largest volumes of investment will need to flow in the short to medium run. Five adjustments would make the EU sustainable finance framework more effective at delivering the desired alignment of incentives. First, the taxonomy framework should be completed and clarified. Second, the SFDR definition of sustainable investment should be toughened. Third, the neutrality of the framework across capital market instruments, in particular debt versus equity, should be ensured. Fourth, a dedicated framework for transition finance should be developed. Finally, formal sustainable and transition labels for financial products should be introduced. This approach would make the sustainable finance framework more easily applicable to all kind of companies and all types of capital market instruments, regardless of whether they limit the use of proceeds, and it would be naturally extendable into a framework for transition finance and into a transparent sustainability labelling regime for financial products.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Regulation, Finance, Macroeconomics, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
Europe

10. China’s Anti-Corruption Efforts Gain Momentum in Finance and Healthcare

Author:
Alexis Brown
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
On September 27, Chinese President Xi Jinping presided over a meeting of the Politburo, where he announced the end of the current round of finance inspections but suggested that more were to follow (Xinhua, September 27). The authorities may have chosen to focus on financial corruption to coincide with the restructuring of financial regulators in March, in which a central finance commission was created to give the Party center more direct control over the finance sector. This move indicates that the Party has taken a greater interest in the sector. So far in 2023, China’s anti-corruption organs, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI, 中国共产党中央纪律检查委员会) and the National Supervisory Commission (NSC, 中华人民共和国国家监察委员会), have intensified investigations across both the healthcare and finance sectors. Authorities have investigated at least 180 hospital chiefs and 80 senior employees in financial institutions between January and early September. [1] By comparison, the CCDI and NSC only targeted 12 hospital leaders from 2019-2022 (CCDI). Through the anti-corruption campaigns, the party leadership is likely to bolster support among certain demographics, eliminate political opponents, and address some real instances of graft. However, due to the absence of robust institutions and transparency, systemic corruption will persist after the current drives wind down. The Party and state organs carry out anti-corruption in healthcare regularly, but in 2023 they have elevated the importance of this work. This is the first time the CCDI and NSC were involved in the National Health Commission’s annual conference on anti-corruption, where a national centralized campaign to crack down on graft was launched. The campaign will continue until mid-2024 (National Health Commission, July 21). [2] One motivation may be to address public frustrations with healthcare from the COVID-19 pandemic. There was an uproar over incidents like hospitals turning away ER patients for not having negative Covid tests and testing centers generating huge profits but producing fraudulent test results (Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council, December 9 2022 Credit China, December 23 2022). Another reason may be to combat illegal healthcare charges in order to boost household consumption, one of the government’s top economic targets for 2023 (Xinhua, March 14).
Topic:
Corruption, Finance, Public Policy, and Healthcare System
Political Geography:
China and Asia