When the Global Development Council meets on May 17 it should identify three to five key moments when President Obama, with the advice of the Council, can make a development difference. Among the immediate possibilities: the June G-8 summit in the United Kingdom, the September G-20 summit in Russia, the UN General Assembly meeting, and President Obama’s upcoming trip to Africa.
Bradley Parks and Zachary Rice share with the Center for Global Development the results of a global survey about whether the “MCC effect” exists.
This MCA Monitor predicts which countries the MCC board of directors will decide which of these countries will be eligible for assistance when they meet on December 19, 2012.
This brief on the General Capital Increase is one of a suite of policy briefs that provides basic background information and practical analysis of the financial and governance issues facing the international financial institutions.
To inform the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s review of its country selection process, the MCA Monitor has conducted a parallel review and offers five key recommendations.
This analysis draws upon two recent congressionally mandated reports and country indicator performance to predict which countries the MCC board will select as eligible to apply for FY2011 compact or threshold assistance.
This MCA Analysis offers a preliminary look at country scores on the FY2011 control of corruption indicator.
After dramatically increasing their lending during the global financial crises, the international financial institutions are requesting an unusual General Capital Increase. Senior fellow Todd Moss and co-authors explain what this means—and why it’s important.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) candidate selection process uses designations for low income and lower middle income countries that are impeding the overall intent of the MCC’s legislated mandate to work with well-governed poor countries. A technical adjustment to how graduation from low income to lower middle income classification is calculated is needed to fix a problem that will otherwise get worse.
The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) provides more than $5 billion per year to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS. Exactly how is that money spent? Donors, recipients, and even PEPFAR staff are often left guessing, because much of the extensive data the U.S. government collects on the program isn't released. In this new CGD note, Michael Bernstein and Sarah Jane Staats (Hise) urge the U.S. Congress to require that PEPFAR regularly release this data. They argue that this would improve coordination between PEPFAR and other donors, help PEPFAR staff assess progress and hold recipients accountable, and increase cost-effectiveness. Some of the data will soon be available anyway: CGD's HIV/AIDS Monitor is preparing to release PEPFAR funding data for Fiscal Years 2004-2006 obtained by a partner organization through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Learn More