Search

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

51. IDB COVID-19 Response Projects and Gender Integration

Author:
Shelby Bourgault, Kelsey Ross, and Megan O'Donnell
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This paper aims to determine the extent to which gender was considered in the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) operations aimed at responding to the COVID pandemic and associated economic crisis. Using keywords to identify COVID response projects, we found 264 projects approved between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021 for our analysis. We found that 135 projects (51 percent) had publicly available project documents for analysis, and of these, 32 projects (24 percent) included gender-focused indicators in their results frameworks. Most gender indicators focus on women as participants of social protection programs or as owners of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Our recommendations to the IDB include increasing transparency by publishing more project documents and ensuring gender indicators are included in projects’ results frameworks across sectors. This project builds on previous analysis of gender integration in COVID response projects at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and African Development Bank.
Topic:
Pandemic, COVID-19, Social Groups, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

52. Prioritizing Public Spending on Health in Lower-Income Countries: The Role of the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents

Author:
Janeen Madan Keller, Rachel Silverman, Julia Kaufman, and Amanda Glassman
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The Global Financing Facility (GFF), launched in 2015, is a partnership backed by a multi-donor World Bank trust fund that aims to “prioritize and scale-up evidence-driven investments to improve reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH-N) interventions” in low- and lower middle-income countries. A major component of the GFF’s operational model is centered around the investment case, described by the GFF as “a description of the changes that a country wants to see with regard to reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) and a prioritized set of investments required to achieve these results.” Looking retrospectively at investment cases and associated ongoing World Bank operations, this paper aims to shed light on specific aspects of the GFF’s operating model, approach, theory of change, and results to date related to the “development of a costed and prioritized investment case,” and whether the investment case helps to prioritize public spending on health in the real world. The portfolio-wide findings suggest that the GFF delivers a clear value-add within the global health architecture by directing more funding to flow directly through governments via increased World Bank lending for RMNCAH-N (especially in the context of COVID-19-related service disruptions and fiscal contractions). The role of the investment case in aligning and prioritizing resources behind a consensus set of highest-value RMNCAH-N interventions within a specific funding envelope is less well documented in the public domain; GFF efforts to directly influence government RMNCAH-N spending decisions and their efficiency seem to occur primarily through follow-on resource mapping and expenditure tracking. The paper concludes with three recommendations for the GFF and its donors: (1) pursue a deliberate strategy for prioritization of RMNCAH-N services and products within the realistic budget constraint to advance evidence-based decisions on certain trade-offs; (2) increase transparency and public visibility into GFF-supported activities and funding, especially related to RMNCAH-N product procurement and overall resource tracking; and (3) explore incentives for increased donor co-financing within the framework of World Bank projects as a strategy to pool and channel more resources through government coffers.
Topic:
Health, Children, Women, Public Spending, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

53. Strengthening Regional Policy Frameworks to Better Respond to Environmental Migration: Recommendations for the UK Government

Author:
Amelia Dal Pra, Mariam Traore Chazalnoel, and Helen Dempster
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The Bay of Bengal, the Sahel, and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are especially vulnerable to the impacts of slow-onset climate events resulting from climate change. Global temperature warming is leading to a dramatic rise in sea levels, which will lead to coastal erosion and land loss across SIDS and the Bay of Bengal. Such warming will also contribute to increasing desertification and water scarcity issues in the Sahel. This environmental damage is irreversible and may seriously threaten economies as well as the daily lives of communities. Without strong policy interventions to bolster in-situ resiliency and increase climate change adaptation and mitigation, including migration, the regions most vulnerable to climate impacts might experience major human security and security crises. This paper provides an analysis of some of relevant regional frameworks that could be useful in addressing environmental migration across these three regions. It concludes that high-income countries such as the UK should do two things: provide financial and technical support to bolster climate adaptation in regions uniquely vulnerable to slow-onset climate events; and support the establishment and / or implementation of regional migration frameworks and free movement agreements (FMAs) that can potentially offer safe, orderly, and regular migration pathways to those affected by the impacts of slow-onset climate events.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Regional Cooperation, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

54. How Can Multilateral Organizations Strengthen Global Data Governance Practices? Roundtable Summary

Author:
Michael Pisa and Ugonma Nwankwo
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This brief is based on a roundtable hosted by CGD as part of the Governing Data for Development project, which explores how governments can use data to support innovation, development, and inclusive growth while protecting citizens and communities against harm. The views expressed here are those of the participants and do not necessarily represent the views of CGD staff. For other briefs in the series, as well as more on the project, visit cgdev.org/governing-data. Cross-border data flows are governed through a patchwork of complex, overlapping arrangements and trade agreements. The absence of a more systematic approach to data governance at the global level may make it harder for low- and middle-income countries to participate in the global digital economy and develop their own frameworks for governing the use of data in a responsible manner. It also leaves them with limited leverage in negotiations with both Big Tech companies and wealthier jurisdictions. This meeting is the third in a series of private roundtables convened by the Center for Global Development aimed at exploring the relationship between data governance and economic development. The first event examined whether current approaches to data protection and privacy are a good fit for resource-constrained countries. The second explored whether evolving digital trade rules support or hinder economic development. This third roundtable explored the role and limitations of multilaterals in promoting better data governance. This document summarizes key takeaways from the meeting, including the remarks of four keynote speakers and themes raised in a discussion among 30 experts, who are listed in the appendix. The roundtable was moderated by Pam Dixon, founder and executive director of the World Privacy Forum, and co-chair of the working group for CGD’s Governing Data for Development project.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Digital Economy, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

55. Who’s Responsible for Climate Change? New Evidence Based on Country-Level Estimates of Climate Debt

Author:
Benedict Clements, Sanjeev Gupta, and Jianhong Liu
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In this paper, we introduce the concept of climate debt and provide country-level estimates through 2035 under a business-as-usual scenario. These estimates can help inform the debate on climate change by providing a clear view of which countries have (until the present) contributed the most to climate change, as well as the likely path for climate debt by country over the next 15 years. We then discuss the implications for carbon emissions if the G-20 countries and EU were to adopt either of the two policy options proposed in recent months: the first by President Biden for the US and the other by the EU for its member countries. The implications for fiscal policy are that beyond the need to keep public debt at sustainable levels, countries will also need to allocate funds for expected increases in pension and health spending associated with aging populations. As a result, there may be little room for new expenditures (such as green infrastructure or subsidies for clean energy) to reduce the growth of climate debt. Countries could turn to the revenue side, in particular greater taxation of energy with carbon taxes. This would have the advantage of reducing emissions while also helping countries to fund spending on green infrastructure.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Humanitarian Response, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

56. Meeting the Global Health Challenge to Reduce Death and Disability from Alcohol, Tobacco, and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption with Corrective Taxes

Author:
Chris Lane and Vinayak Bhardwaj
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Behind the daily trauma of COVID-19 lies a larger and longer-lasting global health challenge resulting from the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages. Using a sample of 25 large advanced and emerging market economies accounting for three-quarters of global GDP, we show that about 60 million productive life years were lost every year in 2000, 2010, and 2019 from death and disability attributable to alcohol, tobacco, and diets high in sugar-sweetened beverages. Using the cost-of-illness framework, the economic value of these lost productive years in 2019 is approximately $2.1 trillion in our country sample (in 2017 purchasing power parity dollars [PPP$]). We show that over a 20-year period, a higher tax effort is associated with larger reductions in economic costs. We also show that total corrective taxes for all the products under investigation fall far short of the indirect costs of consumption in all countries. We conclude that all advanced economies and emerging markets could reap substantial macroeconomic benefits from better health by raising corrective taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by introducing corrective taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.
Topic:
Health, Disability, Tax Systems, Health Crisis, and Addiction
Political Geography:
Global Focus

57. Navigating the Straits: Pull Financing for Climate and Development Outcomes

Author:
Ranil Dissanayake
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
An increasing share of official development assistance is being used for climate-related activities. This trend is continuing despite the lack of comprehensive cost-effectiveness evidence to guide spending decisions and continuing concerns that few applications are effective or efficient mechanisms for either climate or development outcomes. This represents both a waste of scarce resources and a missed opportunity. This paper proposes that a well-designed pull financing mechanism, which identifies specific problems for which it will pay a pre-specified price for solutions that can scale up, has the potential to navigate these problems. When they work, a pull instrument can solve problems at scale at low cost by incentivizing private innovators to produce a socially beneficial product that people want to buy and use. However, the design challenges associated with them are not trivial: firstly, the identification and selection of technologies or problems for which the pull financing facility would be a sufficiently large portion of the market to shift incentives for innovators or producers (for technologies that exist but have not been taken up widely yet); and secondly, the ability to design contracts that incentivize socially beneficial innovation that are bought and used. This paper sets out the case for pull financing for climate and development activities, the challenges that need to be addressed to do it well, criteria for judging potential applications of pull financing and an initial indication of some sectors to which pull financing may be applied.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Environment, and Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

58. How Do Humanitarian Donors Make Decisions, and What Is the Scope for Change?

Author:
Rose Worden and Patrick Saez
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
n this policy paper we review donor responses to a survey and interviews to probe the effects of the broader political and economic context in which donors operate, and identify internal constraints on humanitarian funding, planning, and making allocative decisions. We identify and highlight perceived and real constraints with which donors contend when making decisions on how to allocate limited resources. The way humanitarian donors fund is key to system-wide efficiency, effectiveness, and reforms in the humanitarian system. Donors face competing priorities when engaging in humanitarian response. They care about retaining control, must rely on limited information sources to inform decisions, and balance their approaches with other foreign policy objectives. Institutional legacies, trust, and visibility for their efforts also matter to donors. These factors have shaped how donors have approach their current commitments to Grand Bargain reforms as donors prepare to engage with the newest iteration of reform—the Grand Bargain 2.0.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Reform, Institutions, and Donors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

59. Are Development Finance Institutions Good Value for Money?

Author:
Paddy Carter
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Finance institutions take money from foreign aid budgets to invest in private enterprises. How much should they be given? We can make some progress on that question by looking at the return on investment in the form of higher real incomes for workers and customers, and comparing that to a cash transfer benchmark. There is considerable uncertainty, but what evidence we have suggests returns on investment are in a range that compares well to that benchmark. There is also a diversification argument that because we don’t know which of the things that aid can finance will ultimately prove most important for poverty eradication, aid allocation should hedge its bets. A low single digit percentage of aid allocated to increase the quantity and quality of private investment in low- and middle-income countries seems reasonable.
Topic:
Development, Foreign Aid, Finance, Investment, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

60. Valuing Climate Liabilities: Calculating the Cost of Countries’ Historical Damage from Carbon Emissions to Inform Future Climate Finance Commitments

Author:
Lee Robinson and Ian Mitchell
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
A central commitment of action on climate is the promise of “developed countries” to jointly mobilize $100 billion of climate finance per year by 2020 (and through to 2025), formalised at the UN climate change conference in 2010 (COP16). Five years later, the Paris Agreement reaffirmed this commitment and promised a new goal after 2025 “from a floor of USD 100 billion per year.” We propose an approach for calculating financial climate liabilities for each country based on their historical CO2 emissions, using the idea of an externality: a social cost that has not been borne by the agent whose actions produced it. The paper follows earlier work on calculating carbon debts (e.g., Kunnas, 2014) which we update with recent and authoritative research on carbon pricing methods. We also adjust for awareness, calculating the accruing of liabilities only from the time that countries knew that their emissions were harmful. We present several scenarios adjusting this and other assumptions. The main scenario produces a clearly quantified liability for each country and a total carbon liability to the world of $34 trillion, or $4,500 per capita. If this liability was used to set climate finance goals, it would suggest OECD countries would need to contribute $190 billion a year to 2100. The analysis also highlights that other industrialised countries, notably China and Russia, have also built-up substantial liabilities and should therefore also contribute to future climate finance goals.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Carbon Emissions, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus