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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 global economy, in terms of GDP per capita, grew by 32 percent between 1990 and 2010. This growth has helped lift more than a billion people worldwide out of poverty, nearly cutting in half the 1990 global poverty rate.
However, using the same yardstick for measuring poverty across the developing world—and defining poverty as earning $1.25 or less per person per day (adjusted for price differences across the world)—the number of Nigerians in poverty between 1992 and 2010 increased to 70 percent of the population, an increase of 22 percent from the rate in 1992. Clearly, global growth was not good for Nigeria’s most vulnerable citizens. The poor were not lifted by the rising tide; instead, they were left to sink.
As of 2010, 7 out of 10 Nigerians were considered poor. And according to a study from the Center for Global Development, most of the poor are from the north of the country, with more than two-thirds at risk of spending their lifetime in poverty. This is despite a rise in the country’s GDP per capita by about 19 percent and a decline in the level of inequality.
The challenge for the next government, therefore, is to generate more growth while at the same time dealing with inequality and reducing poverty. The challenge for the next government, therefore, is to generate more growth while at the same time dealing with inequality and reducing poverty.
Whoever wins the election should take two steps: First, since Nigeria is an oil-rich country, it should attempt to implement a proposal developed by Todd Moss and his colleagues at the Center for Global Development—using oil revenues to make direct cash transfers to the poor, counting such transfers as income, and subjecting them to taxation, a policy that would enhance accountability and reduce official corruption. Although the current government is running a cash transfer program of 5,000 naira (approximately $14) per month per household, this won’t bring relief because fewer than 1 per cent of poor people are benefiting and the amount isn’t enough to boost the welfare of the poor in an economy currently experiencing inflation. Without an increase and an expansion of the number of beneficiaries it won’t do much to reduce poverty.
From the article:
We want a proper contest
You are right that Donald Trump could have picked a less-qualified American than David Malpass to lead the World Bank, but you are wrong in thinking that the rest of the world should sigh with relief, hold its nose and accept him (“A qualified pass”, February 9th). Nominations for the job are open for another month. Until then, the shareholders, and The Economist, should keep an open mind. When all the candidates are known, the bank’s board can assess them against the qualifications it has agreed on, which does not include being the candidate nominated by America.
In the 21st century the World Bank will have a useful future only if it can evolve into a club of countries with the resources and legitimacy to tackle a growing list of shared challenges such as climate change, financial instability, the refugee crisis, pandemics and boosting investment to build prosperity. The informal bargain that lets America decide who should lead the bank was an anachronism even when it was struck more than 70 years ago. It should now be consigned to history, especially as the bank no longer depends on American financing. The Europeans may worry that they will therefore lose the right to nominate the head of the imf: good. Both institutions deserve better.
Centre for Global Development
From the article:
Bangladesh stands to become the worst-hit less developed countries (LDCs) in a "no-deal" March 29 Brexit outcome. That calculation, made by the Centre for Global Development (CGD), is built upon the European Union's "everything-but-arms" (EBA) trading scheme evaporating for Britain: unless Britain recreates its own LDC trade agreements, with LDC concessions, LDC losses would be staggering. Yet building them involves lengthy negotiations.
Up to 49 LDC exporters to the European Union (EU) receive duty-free and quota-free privileges for almost every product shipped. Since almost two-thirds of Bangladesh's RMG (ready-made garments) exports go to Europe, without Great Britain's (GB's) EBA benefits, Bangladesh stands to lose $4.0 billion, according to the CGD forecast. For a country borrowing heavily and relying increasingly on exports and remittances to pay for its ambitious (but critically needed) infrastructural megaprojects, that matters. With a Brexit deal, Bangladesh would remain largely unaffected.
Click here to read the blog post
From the article:
First daughter Ivanka Trump wants to help 50 million women around the world "realize their economic potential" by 2025.
Experts who work with women's issues in the global development community are hopeful about the new initiative – but raise questions about the timing of the announcement and the lack of specifics.
Nancy Lee, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and a former U.S. Treasury official, says the initiative could be truly transformative if it actually brings women's issues to the forefront of all development efforts – whether that means including women in the efforts of farmers to bring food to market or inviting them to be leaders in a peace-building efforts.
From the article:
The World Bank's mission is to lift countries out of extreme poverty. Few would say China fits that description these days. It's technically eligible for World Bank loans. But as NPR's Jason Beaubien reports, some people question whether China really needs the money.
JASON BEAUBIEN, BYLINE: China has cash reserves of some $3 trillion, yet continues to borrow significant amounts of money each year from the World Bank. Under the bank's rules, once a nation's per capita income tops $7,000, they're supposed to get weaned off the World Bank's subsidized loans. China passed that threshold in 2016.
BEAUBIEN: The World Bank has specific issues that it's trying to influence globally, and one of them is climate change.
SCOTT MORRIS: China's the world's largest polluter today, and the biggest single category of expenditures for the World Bank is in this area.
BEAUBIEN: That's Scott Morris, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and the lead author of a new report on World Bank lending to China. He found that 38 percent of loans to China over the last three years were focused on what the bank calls global public goods, issues that extend beyond China's borders such as climate change, smokestack emissions and other industrial pollution. The fear is that if the World Bank disengages, China will scale back some of these environmental efforts. Morris says China recently has also turned to the bank for money for a wide range of projects involving education, agriculture and roads. It borrowed $200 million for a port and shipping container logistics park on the Yangtze River. There was even a loan to support heritage-based sustainable tourism.
Click here to listen
From the article:
This week’s brief summarizes several reports and analyses on policy coherence and interlinkages across the SDG framework in Europe, Asia and Latin America. We also review thought leadership on other forms of means of implementation in Europe, focusing on the EU’s financial architecture and external investment.
The Center for Global Development published a policy paper titled, ‘The EU’s Financial Architecture for External Investment: Progress, Challenges, and Options.’ The authors describe the evolution of the European financial architecture, including blending strategies, guarantees, the External Investment Plan (EIP) launched in 2017, and a proposed investment framework. Noting that the EIP aims to increase the scale, impact and coherence of EU-supported external investment, the paper documents lessons learned during its first year of implementation. The authors call for “greater policy steer to investors;” increasing competition among institutions for investment support; setting clear guidance and fee structures; and standardizing contractual terms, among other recommendations.
From the article:
During his time in office, President Trump has named a climate-change skeptic and an energy lobbyist as the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, a foreclosure profiteer to head the Treasury, a low-wage employer to run the Labor Department, and a critic of public schools to manage the Department of Education. His Energy Secretary once argued that the department should be abolished, and his one-time leader of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has argued that the bureau should not exist.
Nor does Malpass represent a strong or reassuring policy vision for the world’s most important anti-poverty institution. “I care deeply about the mission and about breaking out of poverty and achieving growth, and I am sure the World Bank can succeed,” Malpass assured reporters last week, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. But in Congressional testimony, he said institutions like the bank are “not very efficient,” and are “often corrupt in their lending practices and they don’t get the benefit to the actual people in the countries.” He has argued that the institution should do less and be less, and looks likely to nudge it to do less and be less.
As a result, development experts and global economists have broadly criticized the pick. “I frankly view him as a bad candidate,” said Scott Morris of the Center on Global Development, the influential Washington think tank. “He has a track record, both in views that he’s expressed and policy as [Treasury] undersecretary, which is pretty clearly hostile to ambition in the World Bank.”
From the article:
As the United Kingdom (UK) heads towards a possible “no deal” Brexit, the uncertainty surrounding the terms of the UK’s imminent departure from the European Union (EU) is making waves as far away as Southeast Asia.
The German Development Institute, a think tank, recently estimated in a report that Cambodia could be one of the world’s biggest losers in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit. As many as 1.7 million people living in developing nations could descend into “extreme poverty” in the event, the think tank claimed.
According to a recent report by the Centre for Global Development (CGD), a think tank, the “best-case scenario” for developing nations is that the UK quickly amends its existing cross-border legislation before March 29 so that its tariffs and duties for poorer nations simply replicate those of the EU’s preferential trade deals, like the EBA scheme.
This is not too difficult, the report states, but as “Brexit congests the parliamentary business schedule severely” politicians might not find the necessary time to make these changes. “Under this worst-case scenario, following no-deal, developing countries would lose all preferential access to the UK and face much higher…tariff rates,” it added.
Yet the stark question is whether trade with the world’s poorest nations, including Cambodia, is actually high on the list of the UK government’s priories right now – or even on that list. In 2016, the UK’s bilateral trade with Southeast Asia was worth around $41.8 billion. Around 68% of that trade was done with just three countries: Singapore (36.1%), Thailand (17.1%) and Vietnam (14.9%). Trade with Cambodia might be important for Phnom Penh, but its negligible for London.