Some development fundamentalists think that aid should never be spent directly in the national interest. At the other extreme, some people—apparently including the UK Treasury—believe all development cooperation should be directly win-win. Both these polar opposites are dangerously wrong: the truth is in-between.
CGD Policy Blogs
Too often, migration debates focus on what the effects of immigration are: Do migrants take jobs and drive down wages of native workers? Are refugees a drain on public services, taking advantage of social welfare? Facing this challenge means asking a different and more fruitful question: how different policy choices can produce positive outcomes and avoid negative ones.
While donor countries have poured significant resources into branding aid—emblazing a donor’s flag or aid agency logo on everything from food aid to bridges—the benefits of branding are iffy at best and counterproductive at worst. Studies of its impact tend to pay little attention to how branding affects the relationship between recipient governments and their publics, but evidence shows that it can have corrosive systemic impacts.
The US is going to use aid to shape migration. That’s at least how the president’s remarks seem to have laid it out at an immigration roundtable last month, when he announced his White House is “working on a plan to deduct a lot of aid” from countries whose nationals arrive at the US border. “[W]e may not just give them aid at all.”
The United States will be changing how it admits foreign farm workers. Done right, this presents a big opportunity to meet clear goals of the current administration: to reduce unauthorized migration and create US jobs. Three core tenets to keep in mind: non-seasonal work, visa portability, and bilateral cooperation.
Three weeks ago, the European Commission published its initial proposal for the EU’s budget from 2021 to 2027. The headlines? Overall spending would rise despite the loss of the UK, and development spending and ‘external action’ could see increases. But both agriculture and regional spending would be cut. This blog post is the first in a series analyzing the Commission’s proposals for its “long-term budget” and looks specifically at the agriculture budget and its global development impact.
With few systematic studies of its impact on program beneficiaries, the debate on Aadhaar has, so far, seen more heat than light, but this is changing. The State of Aadhaar Report looks into many dimensions, including beneficiaries’ views of the new digital delivery systems, and the impact of the new approach—which combines financial inclusion (Jan Dhan accounts) Aadhaar, and mobiles (the so-called JAM trinity)—as well as financial inclusion and digital payments.
The Center for Global Development is pleased to announce the launch of its new website! The modernized site brings you more of the same great research and analysis, with a renewed focus on how CGD’s research relates to current events and global development debates—and with a sleek updated design of course.
Basel III & Unintended Consequences for Emerging Markets and Developing Economies - Part 5: Effects on Capital Market Development and the Real Economy
While the immediate and direct effects of implementing Basel III regulatory reforms in emerging markets and development economies (EMDEs) are in these countries’ banking systems, there might also be effects beyond them on other segments of the financial system. In this blog post, I will focus on two specific areas of concern—risk management and capital market development, and spill-overs from banking structural reforms in advanced countries.
Is it time to ring the alarm bell on a declining US commitment to global health security? For most of the past year, I would have said no. But after the last few weeks, I’m starting to think so. And the simultaneous news of a new Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo underscores the stakes at play here.