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.
A few weeks ago I applauded the release of a very useful report from the General Accountability Office on the extra budgetary and timeliness costs associated with how U.S. food aid is delivered—in kind and mostly on U.S.-flagged ships. Now we have another new report bolstering calls for reform, this one from the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa on another odd aspect of U.S. food aid programs called “monetization.” As defined in the report, monetization “involves the sale in a recipient country, for local currency, of food aid that has been purchased in and shipped from the United States.” Monetization is usually carried out by “private voluntary organizations” that receive donated food and use the proceeds from the sales for development projects aimed at increasing food security in the long run.
In addition to providing yet more evidence supporting the GAO report conclusion on the costs of providing food aid in-kind, rather than as cash, the new report focuses on the other costs and benefits that might arise from monetizing food aid. As with using cash to purchase food aid supplies locally, if it is not done carefully, monetization risks disrupting local or regional markets by displacing commercial sales and the report finds some evidence that this concern is justified. This concern is particularly salient in countries where several private and public organizations are involved in providing food aid, but are not coordinating their activities.
In both reports, the authors were frustrated in their aim to draw clear lessons by the lack of data and evidence on the impacts of U.S. food aid programs. Both reports call for increased monitoring and evaluation. That is a conclusion supported by work at the Center that led to creation of the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (IIIE). It sounds like it is way past time for U.S. food aid agencies to assess themselves, and the IIIE can help.
CGD blog posts reflect theviews of the authors drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD does not take institutional positions.
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) have teamed up with Democratic colleagues Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) to introduce new legislation that would reform US international food aid to deliver more help to more people in crisis, faster.
As donors gather next week in Rome to pledge funds to the International Fund for Agriculture Development , they may be wondering where the United States is. Given the generally high marks this independent fund earns for development effectiveness, the uncertainty around a US pledge is troubling. In this “America First” moment, it’s worth asking when it comes to IFAD, what’s in it for the United States and what will be lost if the United States drops out?
One of the mysteries of development economics is why more people in subsistence agriculture don't migrate to cities where incomes are much, much higher. New data suggests one answer: when they move, their incomes may not go up as much as we thought.
Members of the World Trade Organization will be meeting next week in Buenos Aires to discuss the future of agricultural and other trade policies that could have important implications for food security and jobs in developing countries (eventually). And members of the US House and Senate agricultural committees will be meeting through next year to craft a new five-year farm bill that will help shape global markets and determine how much and how quickly US food aid can be delivered to people in desperate need around the world.