To amplify the discussion on country ownership, we convened a panel of high-level policymakers from inside and outside the US government to talk about their experience applying the principle, reflect on its importance, and discuss challenges and trade-offs. Here are three key messages I heard from the expert panelists.
CGD Policy Blogs
Commitment to Development Index 2016: How Development-Friendly Are Your Country’s Policies? – Podcast with Owen Barder
Kudos to Finland in 2016 for ascending to the top spot in CGD’s annual Commitment to Development Index, our ranking of how a country’s policies help or hinder development. Other countries of note this year include France, New Zealand and Austria. We just published the latest rankings, and I discuss them, their implications, and the political landscape that could affect them in our latest CGD Podcast with Owen Barder, senior fellow and director of CGD Europe, which produces the Index.
I’m very pleased to announce the addition of Stephen T Isaacs to the Center for Global Development’s Board of Directors. Steve has been a leader in the biomedical field for over 30 years, founding companies that focus on developing novel, innovative immunotherapies and vaccines for cancer and infectious diseases. He is the Chairman, Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Aduro Biotech.
In contrast to Donald Trump’s election as US president, the UK’s Brexit campaign and subsequent government response have emphasised that the UK will be outward-looking, embrace free trade and build new economic relationships. UK Prime Minister Theresa May has set the ambition for the UK to be a “global leader on free trade.”
2016 Commitment to Development Index Rankings: How All Countries Can Do More to Protect Global Progress
Global policymaking is at risk, threatening the international liberal order which has, for all its faults and lacunae, served the world well since the second world war. There has never been a period of such rapid progress in the human condition. The policies and international cooperation that have brought all this about are not always easy. Our Commitment to Development Index, the 14th annual edition of which is published today, measures the progress of the world’s industrialised economies towards policies that contribute to make this world better for everyone.
This post takes a deeper dive into women’s specific situations, and in particular their socioeconomic levels, as an important factor for consideration when seeking to both improve and measure economic outcomes.
In the twelve months to June 2016, nearly 1.3 million Kenyan households were connected to the grid for the first time. This impressive feat pushed Kenya’s national electricity connectivity rate to 55 percent from just 27 percent in 2013, one of the fastest connection increases recorded in the region. These latest connections illustrate the Kenyan government’s commitment to a goal of achieving universal energy access by 2020.
We analyzed participant data from 12 gender-related events and 12 randomly-selected (but similarly-sized) non-gender-related events hosted by CGD, and the evidence is very clear: men aren’t showing up for gender equality.
OPIC and CDC are among the largest bilateral development finance institutions (DFIs). They are designed to use their funds to attract more private capital into developing markets through, for example, lending or insuring projects against political risk. CEOs Elizabeth Littlefield and Diana Noble discuss why the DFIs' business model is successful and how their institutions can do more.
When people hear that a foreign aid program is paying for results, they can think about it in two very different ways. Some people think that paying for results is a way to control recipients, making them more strictly accountable to the people or organizations that are paying them. Others think that paying for results is a way to give recipients more autonomy and encourage them to be accountable to their beneficiaries (in the case of service providers) or their constituents (in the case of governments). It turns out that both perspectives are right—depending on just how the program that pays for results is designed.