With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
It was a beautiful, barely-fall Friday in Washington, which made it all the more impressive that twelve members dropped in on a morning House Financial Services Subcommittee hearing on the multilateral development banks (MDBs). Perhaps it was the pull of a stellar panel of expert witnesses that included CGD senior fellow Scott Morris, along with CGD non-resident fellows Dean Karlan and Martin Ravallion, and Patrick Chovanec. In any case, the dialogue struck a surprisingly positive tone, as members inquired about how the role of the MDBs has evolved over time and the ways in which these institutions might improve and meet current challenges.
Dean Karlan focused his remarks on the role of the MDBs in producing and sharing knowledge that could translate into better policy, while Martin Ravallion emphasized the need for research to help guide the World Bank’s decision-making, and highlighted the Bank’s provision of global public goods. Patrick Chovanec discussed China’s potential motivations behind the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. And Scott Morris argued for stronger US leadership in the MDBs and called attention to Congress’ all-too-frequent practice of attaching MDB-related policy riders to appropriations bills without open deliberation or debate.
Director of the US Development Policy Initiative, Co-Director of Sustainable Development Finance, and Senior Fellow
Members’ questions ran the gamut. Here’s a bit of what I gleaned from the exchanges.
The MDBs can play an important, complementary role to the private sector by sharing knowledge, providing public goods, investing in infrastructure in places where needs aren’t being met, and supporting small and medium enterprises. (But most could do a bit more to facilitate these kinds of investments.)
China likely has a range of motivations for establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Rather than worry about the influence of the AIIB, the United States would be well served by stepping up its leadership in the MDBs (like the World Bank and Asian Development Bank) where it is among the largest shareholders. (For more on how the United States can rise to the challenge, read Scott’s proposal in The White House and The World.)
While attribution is challenging, the MDBs have had an important role in the progress the world has made in reducing poverty. They could do more by sharing the knowledge of what works and what doesn’t in development programs garnered from evaluations and research.
My colleague Beth Schwanke noted in advance of the hearing that we hoped renewed congressional interest would initiate a broader conversation about US leadership in the MDBs. This hearing was certainly a good start.
Sorry you missed it? Watch the full hearing here or check out one of Scott’s key arguments in the clip below.
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
Not only is the Trump administration supporting a $7.5 billion capital increase for the IBRD (and at that, one that is 50 percent larger than the capital increase supported by the Obama administration in 2010), it has also signed on to a policy framework for the new money that makes a good deal of sense.
In 1944, the United States created a blueprint for economic statecraft that relied heavily on a new class of multilateral institutions to pursue US interests in the world. The blueprint itself is now under serious duress in the “America First” strategy of international engagement of the Trump administration.
Earlier this month the US Treasury’s top international official announced at a congressional hearing that he would like to see the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) “wound down.” Scratching beneath GAFSP’s surface, there are good reasons to be concerned about the potential loss of this particular trust fund. And for those very reasons, it seems unlikely that the other GAFSP donors will be so quick to follow the US lead.