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.
The British Medical Association just released a new statement on the international migration of health workers. Sadly, it repeats a common, self-contradictory, profoundly unethical position on international high-skill migration.
In the UK, the Conservative Party is leading soundly in the polls and appears likely headed to win elections sometime next spring. What would a David Cameron-led government mean for British development policy--and especially the future of DFID?
In a masterful essay this past Sunday on how we can help the world’s poor (that was the title), Nicholas Kristof managed to honor Jeff Sachs (“indefatigable”) and Bill Easterly (“powerful and provocative book”).
But he probably has set off another round of the “ferocious intellectual debate” between those two and their adherents. That’s because he didn’t really get to the question the ferocious debate is actually about.
The headline in the Boston Globe on September 20, 2009 was catchy: "Billions of dollars and a Nobel Prize later, it looks like 'microlending' doesn’t actually do much to fight poverty." The article referred to the findings of two recent impact evaluations in microfinance in India and the Philippines conducted by researchers at MIT and Yale, respectively. The studies, which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of microfinance interventions, found “weak and in some cases nonexistent effects” of microfinance on profits, expenditures and well-being. Privately and publicly, donors, MFIs and practitioners are expressing concern about the impact of these studies on the future of microfinance. Are they right to be worried?
Uri Dadush at the Carnegie Endowment provides an excellent reader-friendly summary of the agenda and issues the G-20 leaders will face in Pittsburgh this week. His fourth of four challenges is for the leaders to develop a long-term agenda – and a long-term agenda implies ipso facto a development agenda.
What would Barack Obama be like if he was still president in 2051? We would expect that despite whatever initial good intentions, that four decades in power would inevitably give way to entrenched corruption, mindless sycophancy, and probably destroy our democracy. Such an outcome is not only barred by the U.S. constitution, but sounds like an absurd question today.
Next week, President Obama will meet with Congress to begin discussing changes in the way that the United States regulates who can enter this country and what they can do here. The elephant in the room: global development. U.S. immigration policy transforms the lives of low-income people from all over the world, but you won’t hear much about them.
That only makes sense, right? Aren’t immigration politics defined entirely by narrow domestic self-interest?
How long should presidents rule? On Tuesday, Colombia’s senate approved a national referendum to amend the constitution—again—to allow the popular president Alvaro Uribe to stand for election next year to yet another term in office.
You should care because this is representative of a big phenomenon that spans the whole developing world. For good reasons, many developing countries built presidential term limits into their constitutions—the contracts that govern how people agree to be ruled by each other.