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.
Welcome to the Center for Global Development's Press Center!
The Center for Global Development’s communications team is standing by to assist reporters on deadline. Our experts can provide analysis, commentary, data, and unique expertise on the global development and economic issues that are driving the news cycle. You can search for experts by their area of expertise here. To arrange an interview or to be added to our press list, please contact Holly Shulman, Communications Director, by phone or email at +1202.416.4040 and email@example.com.
You can subscribe here to our weekly newsletter, events invite list, and topic specific newsletters. You can also follow CGD on Twitter at @CGDev. Or send us an email with your interests and we would be happy to add you to our press lists.
Jeremy Gaines, Center for Global Development, firstname.lastname@example.org
Colin Bowyer, Stanford University email@example.com
Stanford, CA – An estimated 210,000 girls may have “gone missing” due to China’s “Later, Longer, Fewer” campaign, a birth planning policy predating the One Child Policy, according to a new study from the Center for Global Development. The study looked at hundreds of thousands of births occurring before and during the “Later, Longer, Fewer” policy to measure its effect on marriage, fertility, and sex selection behavior.
The researchers found that China’s “Longer, Later, Fewer” population control policy—which began in the 1970s and preceded China’s One-Child Policy—reduced total fertility rates by 0.9 births per woman and was directly responsible for an estimated 210,000 missing girls countrywide. Importantly, the study emphasizes that because this policy existed before ultrasound technology was widely available—and therefore before selective abortion was an option—these missing girls must have been due to postnatal neglect of infant girls, or in the extreme, infanticide. The phenomenon of “missing girls” widely recognized in later years under the One Child Policy is largely thought due to sex-selective abortion after ultrasound technology spread across China.
“Prior research has shown that sex ratios rose dramatically under China's One-Child Policy, leading to stark imbalances in the numbers of men and women. But we’re finding that girls went missing earlier than previously thought, which can in part be directly attributed to the birth planning policy that predates the One-Child Policy.” said Grant Miller, Director of the Stanford Center on Global Poverty and Development, a Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Global Development, and one of the authors of the study.
The top findings of the study include:
The birth planning policy reduced fertility by 0.9 births per woman, explaining 28% of the overall decline during this period.
The Later, Longer, Fewer policy is responsible for a roughly twofold increase in the use of “fertility stopping rules,” the practice of continuing to have children until the desired number of sons is achieved.
The Later, Longer, Fewer policy is also responsible for an increase in postnatal neglect, from none to 0.3% of all female births in China during this period.
Sex selection behavior was concentrated among couples with the highest demand for sons (couples that have more children but no sons), with sex ratios reaching 117 males per 100 female births among these couples.
“Population control strategies can have unforeseen consequences and human costs,” Miller said. “At the same time, as China debates the future of birth planning policies, it’s also important to note that family planning policy does not appear to be the largest driver of fertility.”
You can read the full study at https://www.cgdev.org/publication/limits-and-human-costs-population-policy-fertility-decline-and-sex-selection-china.
From the article:
Small agencies that work alone, siloed off from the rest of a country’s development work: That’s how development finance institutions might have been described just a decade ago. But DFIs have gained prominence as the role of the private sector has been accepted and because their work can be put in direct service of meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.
As the paradigm shifted from a focus on social service support and grant-based official development assistance to one more driven by private sector development, countries have turned to development finance institutions to provide solutions to help create jobs, spur economic development, and reduce poverty. As a result, the number of institutions has proliferated.
In the past several years, a number of DFIs moved to invest more in least developed or low-income countries.
Deals in LDCs are difficult and complex. They require taking more financial risk and more effort and creativity, said Colin Buckley, chief operating officer at CDC.
Historically, DFIs have been hesitant to invest in fragile states and risky settings where the investment had less than an 80 percent probability of success, even if it had the capacity for transformative impact, Buckley said.
“One thing DFIs need to be more comfortable doing is rolling the dice for transformative impact,” he said.
DFIs will not, and cannot, solely invest in the poorest, riskiest places. In an effort to remain profitable and balance their portfolios, they will continue to make some investments that are deemed safer, even as they look to invest more in low-income countries.
But some experts believe that DFIs should be taking more risk and doing more to crowd capital into higher risk markets where private finance is especially scarce.
“Some DFIs — I’d pick on IFC [the International Finance Corp.] for sure here — are mostly not in high-risk markets and not very engaged in high-risk sectors and are mostly doing safe projects,” said Todd Moss, the executive director at the Energy for Growth Hub, a spin-off from the Center for Global Development, where he is also a visiting fellow.
Part of the problem has to do with incentives: At some DFIs, investment teams are rewarded based on the amount of money invested, rather than on where it is invested or what its impact will be. There is also often pressure on the financial side, especially for DFIs that operate like commercial banks and are trying to maintain AA or AAA credit ratings.
“The scale and risk issues mean for these agencies to succeed, they need to create internal incentives for people to take risk and subsidize upfront costs,” Moss said.
As a result, in some industries, DFIs appear to be preventing a natural progression to more commercial capital over time, keeping them locked in as sectors dependent on concessional financing, he said.
Not all DFIs are investing in that way, the investor noted. He pointed to a recent Overseas Private Investment Corp. deal where OPIC made part of its investment junior debt, a move that would allow the fund to raise more commercial sources of capital, which would need to be senior debt.
“I dont think they’re chasing out private capital very often. The bigger problem is sometimes crowding in other DFIs rather than truly private capital,” Moss said, adding that it could be an issue of immature markets that would change over time.
Some, including Andreasen, said that they don’t see competition as a problem, and instead often see DFIs working together. About one-third of individual investments that the European bilateral DFIs make are done alongside other European DFIs, he said.
“It’s fine to have debate and scrutiny in this respect, but I don’t see a lot of specific evidence,” Andreasen said.
One place DFIs are playing a critical role, and are working together, is in financing local banks in Africa in the wake of restrictive regulations around risk that have led many commercial banks to pull out, he said.
Buckley said DFIs haven’t been very good at coordination with one another or with aid agencies. Often, transformative investments need regulatory or institutional reform — and that is where DFIs should work more closely with aid agencies to address some of those challenges.
“I think people should demand more cooperation as DFIs grow in prominence and capital,” Buckley said.
Transparency and measurement
As more funds are funneled through DFI investment mechanisms, demand is growing for better measurement and improved transparency.
“As public agencies, they should be as transparent as possible — they don’t need to release every detail of every project, but they should release information about activities ... as maximally as possible,” Moss said.
A DFI should release all information unless there is a commercial reason not to, he said. It should be transparent about systems for evaluating development impact during and after it makes investments, and the data should be made available in easily accessible formats.
From the article:
LONDON — The legitimacy of the World Bank’s presidential appointment process is under renewed scrutiny after U.S. President Donald Trump’s pick, David Malpass, emerged as the only candidate to succeed Jim Kim.
Nominations for the position closed on Thursday, and the World Bank confirmed in a press release that Malpass, currently a U.S. Department of Treasury official and a former investment banker, was the only candidate nominated for the job.
Civil society groups and development experts reacted with dismay. Many had hoped the historic “gentleman’s agreement,” which sees the United States appoint the World Bank chief and Europe nominate the head of the International Monetary Fund, would face a genuine challenge this time around. With only one candidate, it is hard for the bank’s directors to argue credibly that the process was merit-based and transparent, they say.
“It is very depressing that the World Bank board has failed to live up to the repeated commitments of its members to an open, merit-based process for key international appointments,” said Owen Barder, vice president at the Center for Global Development.
“Going back to choosing the World Bank president by coronation rather than a fair contest is a setback for an effective, rules-based multilateral system. This is another nail in the coffin for the World Bank,” he said.
As Malpass made his rounds to meet with World Bank shareholders, he secured commitments of support from countries including Australia and South Korea before the nomination deadline closed, begging questions about whether they were ever open to challenging the Trump administration’s pick by considering alternative candidates.
From the article:
U.S. President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the World Bank faces a clear path toward approval as a nomination deadline passed on Thursday with no challengers, continuing the tradition of the United States choosing the development lender’s president.
David Malpass, the U.S. Treasury’s undersecretary for international affairs, will interview with the World Bank’s executive directors in the coming days, the bank said in a statement.
The directors expect to conclude their selection process before the World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings on April 12-14, the bank said.
Malpass also has said he was committed to pursuing the World Bank’s goals on combating climate change, which have been at odds with the Trump administration’s support for coal. The lender has largely withdrawn from financing new coal-fired power projects in favor of renewable energy projects.
Pledging to stay the course on climate change goals will likely win support for Malpass from board members, said Scott Morris, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and a former Treasury official.
“He’s distanced himself from some of his past positions,” Morris said. “His message has been that he’s committed to implementing the bank’s agenda put forth in the capital increase last year. That’s an ambitious agenda, not one of dialing the bank back.”
Morris added that it would be “extremely unlikely” that Malpass would be rejected by the bank’s board in the absence of other candidates.
One of Malpass’ first issues to handle at the bank would be dealing with the aftermath of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that opens the door to lawsuits against the International Finance Corp, part of the World Bank Group, in American courts over projects it finances.
From the article:
WASHINGTON — When President Trump selected David Malpass to lead the World Bank last month, he showered his nominee with gratitude for years of loyal support, praised his intelligence and made one thing abundantly clear: The World Bank under his watch must put America first.
“My administration has made it a top priority to ensure that U.S. taxpayers’ dollars are spent effectively and wisely, serve American interests and defend American values,” Mr. Trump said. He noted, not for the first time, that the United States was the bank’s biggest donor and said that Mr. Malpass “has been a strong advocate for accountability at the World Bank.”
But as Mr. Malpass, 63, canvasses the world to seek support for his candidacy, he is trying to distance himself from his boss. In meetings with dozens of world leaders in both established and developing economies, Mr. Malpass has struck a conciliatory tone and tried to assure other nations that he will not simply serve as a proxy for the United States president.
Mr. Trump himself has called global warming a “hoax” and promotes climate change deniers on Twitter. He has also vowed to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement and said that the pact among nearly 200 nations to voluntarily curb greenhouse gases “hamstrings the United States.” Those positions have made other global leaders apprehensive about whether Mr. Malpass can effectively take the reins on what has become a core issue for the bank.
“As he has made the rounds, this is the key area where he would have to provide reassurances,” Scott Morris, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, said of preserving the bank’s climate agenda. “That said, it’s still hard to imagine him going off to the climate summits and being a cheerleader.”
From the article:
In the summer of 1981, a poor, technologically backward country looking to move up in the world got its first loan from the World Bank. China borrowed $200 million to modernize its universities so they could churn out more scientists and engineers—a big step for a nation whose average worker earned less in a year than most Americans did in a week.
More than three decades later, China is the world’s No. 2 economy, with more than $3 trillion in foreign-currency reserves and development banks of its own that lend around the world. It’s also one of the World Bank’s biggest borrowers. But maybe not for long.
China’s huge trade surplus with the U.S., along with its plans to muscle into such areas as artificial intelligence, has raised hackles in Washington. President Donald Trump tends to talk about China in zero-sum terms: Its rise is a threat to America. Curtailing World Bank lending to China would fit with the administration’s efforts to contain Beijing’s economic power.
As part of a deal that paved the way for a $13 billion capital increase from members last year, the World Bank agreed to curb lending to “upper-middle-income” countries. Nations with per capita incomes above roughly $7,000 are supposed to start the process of “graduating.” If they still get loans, it should be to finance “global public goods” that markets can’t provide, according to the plan. The idea is that World Bank capital could be harnessed to fight problems that transcend borders, such as global warming.
Yet only 38 percent of World Bank loans to China went to public goods such as pollution control in the last three years, according to a new report by Scott Morris and Gailyn Portelance of the Center for Global Development. The rest went to such areas as transportation and agriculture that critics argue China could easily finance on its own.
World Bank loans to China are already falling—to $1.8 billion in the year through June 30, from $2.4 billion the previous year. Under Malpass, there could be a further squeeze. Plans for the bank to invest alongside China in some Belt and Road projects may also be shelved. Still, with other nations pushing back on the bank’s board and environmental questions rapidly rising on the list of global concerns, China’s graduation could be gradual.
But Morris says there are downsides to forcing China to quit cold turkey, including the risk that the bank will be worse-equipped to tackle the big global problems its members want it to target. “China is the world's largest polluter,” he says.
From the article:
WASHINGTON — For the third consecutive year, the Trump administration’s budget proposes slashing global development funding. It also underscores the need for increased burden sharing and proposes policy changes related to U.S. aid reorganization.
The budget requests $42.7 billion for the foreign affairs budget, including the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. Congress appropriated $56.1 billion in the fiscal year 2019.
It is widely expected that Congress will reject the administration’s proposal when determining its budget — and there were already some signals Monday that might be the case. Ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, said Monday in a statement that while he welcomes cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” from programs, “we must be careful that cuts don’t have unintended consequences that cost us more in the medium and long term. This is especially true of impactful cuts to humanitarian and development assistance.”
A merger between USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance and the Office of Food for Peace has long been in the works, but the budget proposes taking the consolidation a step further by bringing the State Department’s humanitarian assistance work into the new USAID bureau.
All humanitarian assistance would then be funded through a single appropriations account. It would also restructure some of the State Department’s refugee and migrant work and create a leadership position that would be dual-hatted at USAID and State.
Merging the principal humanitarian accounts is technically a very good idea, said Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development, who served as the director of OFDA from 2013-2017: “Having a refugee account and a food account and an everything else account does not really reflect how the world works,” he said, adding that it makes it difficult to have coherent humanitarian assistance.
Having a single account will mean that aid is less siloed, both in terms of the type of aid, but also by who is receiving it, and decisions can be made by professionals closest to the crisis rather than by Congressional appropriations, Konyndyk said.
The policy proposal, however, is only “half good,” he said. The decision to move all assistance from State to USAID is one that Konyndyk warned against in a 2017 blog post. It is useful to have refugee expertise and assistance at the State Department with resources tied to it, he said.
“You need a strong partnership between State and USAID. Displacement is an inherently diplomatic and political issue, so State needs both the expertise and the resources at its disposal to be able to respond and influence policy and we’re concerned that the proposal ignores that reality,” said Mercy Corps’ Doherty.
Congress will likely carefully examine the administration’s proposals for reforms, particularly when it comes to humanitarian assistance and refugee and migrant issues, Konyndyk said. The administration will have to work hard to make the case for the changes and convince legislators that it would not further undermine U.S. leadership on refugee and migrant issues, which will be a “tough case to make,” he said.
It will be made more difficult by the fact that the administration still lacks senior people in key positions who would be making that case, Konyndyk said.
The budget also reiterates a commitment to further reform USAID and focus on “self-reliance” by prioritizing private sector-led growth, domestic resource mobilization, and economic and governance reforms. It highlighted the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative as the type of “responsible spending” the administration wants to achieve and touted its “cohesive whole-of-government approach,” rigorous metrics and leveraging of partnerships.
Another change proposed in the budget is that the U.S. African Development Foundation and the Inter-American Foundation would cease to be independent organizations and will become part of a new small grants office at USAID. The key to such a move would be ensuring that the unique capabilities of the agencies — they provide direct support to organizations and local civil society in the developing world — would not be lost in the process and the U.S. doesn’t have a good track record of doing that, Konyndyk said.
From the article:
The shallow waters of the Gulf of Kutch, an inlet of the Arabian Sea along the northwestern coast of India, are ideal for fishing, with coral reefs and mangrove forests that provide breeding grounds for a diverse array of marine life. On the gulf’s northern coast, near the town of Mundra, the gently sloping seabed and calm tides make it easy to catch local delicacies like prawns, pomfret and a type of lizardfish known colloquially as “Bombay duck.”
The Waghers, a Muslim minority group, have fished these waters for generations. They maintain permanent inland villages, but from September until May, many Waghers erect temporary settlements along the coast. From there, they venture out to fish in small boats and on foot, and their catch is dried, processed and sold to local traders. “It is their skill with using nets that is believed to give the Waghers their name,” Bangalore-based author Srinath Perur wrote in 2016. It derives, he explained, “from the exclamation wah and gher, meaning ‘well laid out’ or ‘well surrounded’ in Kutchi,” which is widely spoken in that region of Gujarat state.
In recent decades, this centuries-old way of life has been increasingly threatened by industrial development projects along the coast. These include the Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project, a gigantic, 4,150-megawatt coal-fired power plant that was financed in part with a $450 million loan from the International Finance Corporation, or IFC, an arm of the World Bank. Since reaching full generation capacity in 2013, the Tata Mundra plant has provided power to 16 million people in five states. Unfortunately, it has also created a host of problems for the Waghers, who complain that discharges of hot water from the plant’s outfall channel have altered the nearby marine habitat and reduced fish stocks. The groundwater is no longer fit to drink. Coal dust and ash from the plant sickens the villagers and contaminates fish that have been laid out to dry. “The joy has gone away,” Budha Ismail Jam, a local Wagher fisherman who lives near the plant, told The Nation magazine last year.
The IFC argued that international development banks should receive absolute immunity based on the IOIA, partly because their activities are inherently commercial, so applying restrictive immunity would subject them to an onslaught of foreign-plaintiff litigation and divert resources from their important missions. That was also the primary concern of eight former secretaries of the treasury and secretaries of state, who filed an amicus brief in support of the IFC.
But the court found those worries to be exaggerated, noting that in reality, many international organizations, including the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, specify absolute immunity from any kind of judicial proceedings in their charters. The IFC does not, but the court argued that “it is not clear that the lending activity of all development banks qualifies as commercial activity.” Even if it does, potential plaintiffs must meet other standards laid out in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, including that the activity has a “sufficient nexus to the United States.” Development experts and international legal scholars agree that the IFC’s case was unduly alarmist. “This ruling has opened the door a little bit,” says Vijaya Ramachandran, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. But, she adds, “we don’t really know whether this is going to lead to a flood of lawsuits.”
A key indicator for other prospective plaintiffs will be the outcome of the Tata Mundra case, which will now go back to lower courts for further litigation. Whether courts agree that a loan to the Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Plant project has “sufficient nexus to the United States” is unclear, but lawyers for Earthrights International, the advocacy group that represented the Indian plaintiffs, believe they have a good chance of success. At least one other case, involving farmers in Honduras who say that an IFC-supported company used death squads to terrorize them and dispossess them of their land, is likely to move forward as a result of last month’s ruling.
While the legal uncertainties are being worked out, observers like Ramachandran say that the IFC and other lenders should take this case as a wake-up call to completely revamp their accountability mechanisms so that they become binding in similar cases going forward. “That currently doesn’t exist, and I think that is the reason the IFC is in this mess,” she says. In practice, that would mean creating an internal ombudsman that can force project management personnel to take corrective actions instead of merely issuing reports.
A strengthened internal accountability mechanism would provide an easier avenue to redress grievances by adversely affected communities, many of whom do not have the resources to pursue legal action in the U.S. But Ramachandran stresses that it is also in the interest of the IFC, which does not want to be in the position of frequently litigating cases in U.S. courts. “Given this ruling, they are probably thinking about it,” she says. “The organization wants to get this right, so I do think they will undertake some steps to carry out reforms.”