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.
From the article:
The Trump administration continues chipping away at the multilateral institutions it derides as “globalist,” preparing to nominate as soon as Wednesday David Malpass, a World Bank critic, to become the next president of that very institution.
Malpass, currently the undersecretary for international affairs at the U.S. Treasury Department and a former chief economist at Bear Stearns investment bank, has faithfully echoed President Donald Trump’s denunciations of multilateralism run amok, taking aim at institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court.
“It’s the attitude people had 25 years ago, informed by a policy stance he had while working in the Reagan administration,” said Scott Morris, an Obama administration Treasury official who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. “He still sees the institution through that lens.”
Between his criticism of the bank’s practices and culture and his drive at Treasury to reduce U.S. financial contributions to the World Bank, “it’s hard to spin him as a friendly leader for the institution,” Morris said.
Others noted that, while China may not need the money made available by the World Bank, those loans can nudge Beijing in directions that are broadly beneficial. Many of the World Bank loans, noted Morris of the Center for Global Development, are directed at efforts to reduce carbon emissions in China, the world’s biggest polluter. “China doesn’t necessarily need the money, it’s more the incentives those loans create,” he said.
At the same time, the World Bank has worked with China on President Xi Jinping’s signature project, the $1 trillion or more Belt and Road infrastructure program, in order to boost financial transparency and improve the quality of the projects that Beijing is underwriting—an effort that Malpass has been critical of.
“Malpass will certainly affect the relationship with China—what role will his World Bank play?” Morris asked.
“He actually does want to shrink the institution and lend to fewer countries,” Morris said. “So where would they go for alternative sources of financing? China is at the top of the list.”
From the article:
President Trump’s pick to lead the World Bank could spark an unprecedented battle over the future of the multinational lender.
Trump is set to nominate Treasury Under Secretary David Malpass — a fierce critic of the World Bank — to serve as its next president, spurring concern within the development finance world.
“There is no case for Malpass on merit. The question now is whether other nations represented on the World Bank’s board of governors will let the Trump administration undermine a key global institution,” said Justin Sandefur, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.
Several leading development finance officials, including past candidates for the World Bank presidency, have already called on the board to oppose Malpass and break the tradition of American leaders.
Sandefur called Malpass “a Trump loyalist who has committed economic malpractice on a wide range of topics,” including in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis.
From the article:
NEW DELHI — The Democratic Republic of the Congo is currently facing the most severe Ebola outbreak in its history, with over 400 deaths confirmed since August, according to the World Health Organization. Much hope is pinned on a new vaccine — not yet licensed, but described by WHO as “safe and protective” — which has so far been used to immunize more than 60,000 people deemed most at risk of infection.
But one key group is denied access: Since the vaccine has not been tested for use during pregnancy, it is not being offered to pregnant women.
Carleigh Krubiner, a policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and one of the lead authors of a recent report on maternal immunization, noted that pregnant and breastfeeding women are often at greater risk of exposure to the virus, because of caregiving responsibilities and proximity with children. “There's significant fear that's been documented among women [in DRC] who are unable to receive the vaccine and know they're at disproportionate risk of exposure just given some of the social roles,” she told Devex.
Even as recently as the West Africa Ebola outbreak of 2014-2016, opportunities to “gather more robust data on pregnancy,” which could have helped to protect pregnant women the next time around, were missed, Krubiner said.
“There were recommendations to include pregnant women in those trials, especially given the risk-benefit calculus at the time, and ultimately for a whole host of reasons those recommendations were not taken up,” she said. “The cost of doing this research versus the cost of essentially denying women access to something that could be highly beneficial, there's really no comparison. We can't afford to leave this group unprotected.”
“The development community [as funders and advocates] really does hold a lot of power to reshape the agenda in a way that is much more inclusive to address the needs of pregnant women and their babies,” Krubiner said.
While a small but rising number of vaccines are now being developed specifically for use during pregnancy, pregnant women are still rarely included in the development of vaccines targeted at more general populations. But with increasing attention being paid to vaccine research for epidemics — through initiatives such as the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, a public-private coalition that aims to speed up vaccine research, and WHO’s blueprint for research and development — there is an opportunity for change, Krubiner said.
“There's a lot of effort right now to try and bring to market new and innovative vaccines so that the next time there is an outbreak of Lassa fever or Nipah virus or even Ebola we will have more tools at our disposal … All of those efforts that are happening now can be leveraged to proactively include pregnant women in the response,” she said.
“I think we have a moment right now to learn from our past failures and to really change, to shift the paradigm.”
From the article:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has sent food and medicine to Colombia’s border with Venezuela, U.S. officials said on Tuesday, although it is still unclear how the aid will get past the objections of President Nicolas Maduro, who has blocked shipments in the past.
One official with knowledge of the plans, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the aid will be prepositioned at the main Colombian-Venezuelan border crossing at Cucuta.
The U.S. officials said trucks carrying the aid, including high-protein foods, would arrive in Cucuta this week at the request of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, who last month declared himself to be the South American nation’s interim president.
With Maduro in control of Venezuela’s military and all the territory, getting aid in will be hard, said Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, who has led U.S. government responses to international disasters.
“If the goal here is to alleviate suffering, then you do need to be smart about dealing with the power structure that is in place,” Konyndyk said.
From the article:
President Donald Trump will select David Malpass, currently the undersecretary of treasury for international affairs, as the US nominee to lead the World Bank, the Washington Post and Politico have reported.
Justin Sandefur, an economist at the Center for Global Development, an influential think tank working on global poverty and development, put out a statement arguing that other World Bank stakeholders should attempt to block Trump’s pick. While the US has traditionally chosen the World Bank head, formally the position is selected through a vote of bank shareholders, and other countries could indeed band together to reject Malpass.
@JustinSandefur on the US's nominee for @WorldBank president - view Tweet here
W. Gyude Moore, the former minister of public works for Liberia (and thus someone with deep experience in one of the developing countries where the World Bank is most needed), compared nominating him to nominating an arsonist to be a fire chief.
“An incorrigible arsonist will now be our fire chief. Man spends his adult life denigrating multilateralism and now has the "pleasure" of running one of it's pillars. When does it end?" - view Tweet here
From the article:
Even before his nomination has been publicly confirmed, David Malpass, President Trump’s pick to run the World Bank, faces mounting attacks on his competence and support for the bank’s mission.
Malpass, undersecretary of the treasury for international affairs, is an outspoken critic of the bank and its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund. The president plans to nominate the former Wall Street economist to head the bank, a pillar of the global order that Trump opposes, as soon as Wednesday.
The appointment will likelytrigger another clash between Trump’s “America First” views and the decades-old consensus over management of the global economy. Since 1944, when international financial institutions were created near the end of World War II, the U.S. has selected the bank’s president while European countries have controlled the top IMF job.
“Trump poses a unique threat to the international system. He’s nominating somebody, not just of dubious qualifications, but somebody who is committed to undermining the multilateral mission of the bank,” said Justin Sandefur, a senior fellow at the center for Global Development.
From the article:
The search for a new leader for one of the most high-profile global organizations begins Thursday and seems likely to end again with selection of the US candidate.
The Washington-based World Bank has been led by an American ever since it was founded in the aftermath of World War II, while its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, has always been led by a European.
Growing emerging market countries have challenged this unwritten arrangement in recent years, demanding a more open, merit-based selection process, and a greater voice in the institutions themselves. But it is unlikely they can build sufficient opposition to the candidate put forward by US President Donald Trump, nor is Trump likely to cede a prominent position on the global stage.
Masood Ahmed, who had a long career at the World Bank and IMF, was more diplomatic, saying that a controversial candidate with well-known views would have a harder time getting support of the members.
Ahmed, president of the Center for Global Development in Washington, said "whoever it is, it's important that it is a person who can forge that consensus and get the confidence of all the shareholders."
But he warned the continued adherence to the decades-old hold on the leadership of the World Bank and IMF, rather than relying on a "truly merit-based" process, "ends up eroding a little further the legitimacy and credibility of the organization."
Picked up by France24
From the article:
WASHINGTON: Targeting farmers on the basis of landholding is unlikely to benefit a large section of the rural population in India and will create fiscal burden without solving the actual problem, an expert at an American think-tank has said.
"There is some evidence that targeting on the basis of landholding would not benefit a large section of the rural population who are equally if not more in distress. This might even backfire politically if the government is seen to be favouring the already well-off farmers," Mukherjee, a policy fellow at the Center for Global Development think-tank, told PTI in an interview.
"Both completely exclude the urban poor who are growing in number, but the political parties do not consider them to be influential vote banks. So to be clear, there is very little economic basis for these schemes - it should be seen for what they are: a political gimmick before the elections," Mukherjee said.
One of the main advantages of UBI is that it is universal - no targeting is necessary. India is replete with lessons of how difficult it is to target schemes to particular beneficiaries, leading to misallocation, corruption and leakage. Aadhaar and Jan Dhan would not be able to solve the targeting problem," he argued.
Mukherjee said that "half-baked policies" will do more harm than good, both in the short and the long term.
"They will create fiscal burden without solving the actual problem. Just think of farm loan waiver - how much damage it has done, but still politicians think it is the only way to get votes.
I sincerely hope the cash transfer program doesn't go the same way," he said.