Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Publishing Institution Center for Global Development (CGD)

31. 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

32. Healthier Firms for a Stronger Recovery: Policies to Support Business and Jobs in Latin America and the Caribbean

Author:
Andrew Powell and Liliana Rojas-Suarez
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This report—the product of a joint working group convened by the Center for Global Development and the Inter-American Development Bank—focuses on firms and labor markets in Latin America and the Caribbean during the COVID-19 crisis and the highly uncertain recovery phase now underway. The ongoing Russian war in Ukraine, volatility in international financial markets, and fears of global stagflation (low growth and high inflation) combine with the impacts of the pandemic to make the economic environment particularly challenging. Through a balance sheet analysis, the report describes how larger firms have navigated the crisis by cutting back on vari­able costs and investment. It also focuses on small and medi­um-size enterprises (SMEs), which appear to have suffered more in terms of closures and restrictions on credit access. The impacts on labor markets were unprecedented, with steep falls in employment and participation rates. A key question is whether the reallocation of resources, favor­ing firms in sectors that were hit less hard and able to take advantage of digital technologies, will persist. Key dangers are that informality is higher than ever, that productive resources remain trapped in small and less productive or ultimately unviable enterprises, and that firms are not rebuilding their capital stocks quickly. Drawing on an analysis of firms and labor markets, the report provides a set of recommendations for policymakers in the region and suggestions for international financial institutions to assist productive firms to invest, support the growth of new firms, and enhance labor market performance.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Finance, and Banking
Political Geography:
South America, Latin America, Caribbean, and North America

33. ABCs of the IFIs: The African Development Fund’s 16th Replenishment

Author:
Jocilyn Estes and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Many African countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, continue to grapple with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic while simultaneously confronting the challenges posed by slowing global growth, private capital outflows, debt distress, and the impacts of climate change. An estimated 55 million people on the continent have been pushed into extreme poverty since the onset of the pandemic. This devastating trend has been exacerbated by the ripple effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—supply chain disruptions, tightening fiscal space, and growing pressure on the cost of food, fuel, and fertilizer. International financial support for the continent has fallen woefully short of levels required to prevent the current crisis from derailing long-term development. The African Development Bank (AfDB) is the largest regional multilateral development finance institution on the continent. It provides critical financial support to countries across the region, including investment in vital infrastructure projects. The African Development Fund (AfDF) is the Bank’s concessional window, providing financing in the form of grants and concessional loans to resource-constrained governments responding to the growing challenges on the continent, including gaps in critical infrastructure and rising debt burdens. Amid ongoing and overlapping global emergencies, the stakes for the AfDF’s upcoming replenishment could hardly be higher. The AfDF is making the case to donors—who will come together later this year for a final meeting of the AfDF’s 16th replenishment (AfDF-16)—that the Fund needs substantial new resources to continue to support African people, businesses, and governments and make up lost ground in the fight against poverty. An ambitious 16th replenishment—coupled with policy and governance reform commitments—presents an opportunity for donors, including the United States, to complement long-standing investments in regional growth and infrastructure, offer a sustainable alternative to non-concessional Chinese lending, and make headway on the long road to economic recovery from the pandemic and worsening food security crisis.
Topic:
Development, Investment, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. ABCs of the IFIs: Understanding IDA20

Author:
Jocilyn Estes and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
With the COVID-19 pandemic hitting government balance sheets especially hard in low-income countries, the World Bank’s shareholders—including the United States—agreed to an advance replenishment of its grant and low-interest loan window, the International Development Association (IDA). By holding a pledging session one year early, donors sought to ensure IDA, which serves the world’s poorest countries, would have the resources to provide financing where it was needed most. In December 2021, following the final meeting of the 20th replenishment of IDA (IDA20), the World Bank announced a $93 billion replenishment package, leveraging $23.5 billion in contributions from 48 high- and middle-income countries. The United States reclaimed its position as IDA’s top donor, pledging $3.5 billion over three years to support pandemic response and an economic rebound in the world’s poorest countries. The United States has long had a vested interest in the World Bank, and in IDA in particular, working to ensure it is well run and resourced appropriately, and that its policy agenda reflects US interests. The US Congress plays a pivotal role in overseeing US engagement with the institution—managed by the Treasury Department—and providing funding to enable the US to meet its commitments. Due to the acceleration of IDA19, the US has two IDA installments due this year. The president’s fiscal year 2023 (FY23) budget request includes funding for a final payment to deliver on its IDA19 commitment and a partial first installment toward the latest US pledge to IDA.
Topic:
Development, Multilateralism, Sustainability, and Banking
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

39. Understanding the Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination in Nigeria

Author:
Helen Dempster, Jennifer Dew, Samuel Huckstep, Martina Castigliono, and Cassandra Zimmer
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM) calls on countries of destination to both expand regular migration pathways and take steps to increase the development impact of these pathways. Migration can have a positive impact on the economic development of migrants themselves, their families, their countries of origin, and their country of destination, if aspects such as integration, remittances, and skill transfers are prioritized. This paper, produced by the Center for Global Development (CGD) and the UK office of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), outlines lessons for the UK Government to implement if they are to increase the development potential of both their existing and new immigration pathways, particularly in the agriculture, nursing, and green technology sectors
Topic:
Development, Migration, Immigration, and Reform
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

40. 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