Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Political Geography Global Focus

121. 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The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data.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

122. 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

123. 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

124. 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

125. 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

126. 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

127. Options for a Loss and Damage Financial Mechanism

Author:
Michael Franczak
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Peace Institute (IPI)
Abstract:
As efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change fall short, discussions around loss and damage (L&D) resulting from climate change have gained urgency. These discussions pivot on questions around financing, which remains very limited. Going into the twenty-seventh UN Climate Change Conference (COP27), the call for a new L&D financial mechanism has been raised by developing countries. This paper provides a brief overview of the state of play of global negotiations on L&D and explores options for funding arrangements for addressing L&D in the context of the positions of the G77 and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). The paper considers options related to four key questions concerning a new mechanism for financing L&D: Where will it be located? A new L&D financial mechanism could be located within the climate regime. However, there could also be complementary mechanisms outside the climate regime. Who will pay for it? There are two broad options for funding: ask for public contributions from donors or impose new taxes. An L&D financial mechanism could adopt both approaches, though some taxes could negatively impact some of the very countries advocating for L&D. Who will control it? Any mechanism should be guided by the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility and should be new and additional; needs-based, adequate, and predictable; public and grant-based; guided by vulnerability criteria; and locally driven. What will it do? The fund should make clear how L&D is both distinct from and linked to mitigation and adaptation and should take special care to address critical gaps in financing for slow-onset and noneconomic losses.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, and Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

128. TOSSD Data for 2020: An overview of key trends in the data in support of sustainable development

Author:
Brian Tomlinson
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
Data on total official support for sustainable development (TOSSD) take a recipient perspective, in contrast to official development assistance (ODA) data, which take a donor perspective. The TOSSD metric captures development resource flows that are not included in donors’ reports to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee, and are intended to link resource flows to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For 2020, 98 donors reported TOSSD data, an increase of six donors from 2019. Reported net disbursements totaled $291 billion, including $62 billion reported only to TOSSD. The top five sectors in TOSSD reporting, accounting for 65% of net disbursements, were energy, donor administrative costs, in-donor refugee costs, health, and government and civil society. For those disbursements linked to one or more of the SDGs, 61% went to the Health, Poverty Eradication, Climate Change, support for Decent Work and Sustainable Economic Growth, Ending Hunger, and Partnerships SDGs. The gender equality SDG was allocated just 4.5% of total net disbursements. TOSSD data provided a foundation of activity level detail to enable further research on allocations to SDGs. The picture that TOSSD data provide could be more complete if additional donors submitted reports to TOSSD, and if all donors reported on links to SDGs.
Topic:
Development, Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

129. How renewable energy transitions impact power structures in local communities

Author:
Maria-Louise Clausen
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
International donors often see renewable energy transitions in fragile and conflict-affected states as a building block for peace and development. But donor-supported transitions to small-scale renewable energy generation can both mitigate and exacerbate local conflict dynamics and undermine the central state. In fragile and conflict-affected states, it is often difficult for the central authorities to protect large-scale energy infrastructure from attacks and sabotage, and thus guarantee long-term stability. Moreover, local communities often use fuel-driven generators to supplement the state-driven national grid, but national diesel supply lines are also vulnerable to disruptions. Consequently, international donors increasingly support small-scale renewable energy generation as a climate friendly alternative to centralised and state-led energy generation. Solar photovoltaic (PV) in particular has become a widely promoted, affordable and accessible technology for local energy generation.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Development, Water, Non State Actors, Governance, Inequality, Renewable Energy, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

130. Private Insurance, Public Welfare, and Financial Markets: Alpine and Maritime Countries in Comparative-Historical Perspective

Author:
A. van der Heide and S. Kohl
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies
Abstract:
Contemporary capitalist societies use different institutions to manage economic risks. While different public welfare state and financial institutions (banks, capital markets) have been studied across coordinated and liberal market economies, this paper adds the private insurance sector to the study of countries’ security arrangements, following up on Michel Albert’s classical distinction between Alpine and Maritime insurance cultures. Building on extensive new insurance data collections (1880–2017) and institutional analysis, this paper corroborates the long-run historical existence of two worlds of private insurance. Maritime countries (USA, GBR, CAN) developed much bigger life and non-life insurance earlier, with no state-associated insurance enterprises and riskier investments steered towards financial markets. Alpine insurance (AUT, DEU, CHE), by contrast, was initially smaller, with strong state involvement, a significant reinsurance tradition and relatively heavy investments in mortgages and property, due to economic and financial backwardness. We argue that the larger and more “Maritime” the insurance sector, the more it made welfare states liberal and securities markets large. Insurance is thus a hidden factor for countries’ varieties of capitalism and world of welfare. The recent convergence on the Maritime model, however, implies that the riskier and risk-individualizing type of private insurance has added to privatization and securitization trends everywhere.
Topic:
Development, Capitalism, Finance, and Welfare
Political Geography:
Global Focus