You are here
Home »
Bio
Cynthia Rathinasamy was the program coordinator for CGD’s Migration and Development Team, supporting the work of senior fellow Michael Clemens. She also supported Arvind Subramanian’s work on the India Initiative. Rathinasamy holds a Master in Public Policy from the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and a B.A. in political science from Penn State University. Previous professional experience includes working as a consultant for Booz Allen Hamilton and interning for the U.S. Department of State and International Solutions Group.
Media Contact
Holly Shulman
hshulman@cgdev.org
September 16, 2016
Blog Post
Cindy Huang et al.
Related Post: Refugee and Migration Summits: Three Opportunities for Progress
Podcast: What World Leaders Should Know about Refugees and Migration
For refugees and internally displaced people, business-as-usual is no longer working. The “new normal” of displacement means that development and humanitarian actors urgently need to adapt their approach.
Record numbers of people are forcibly displaced worldwide over longer periods of time, fewer refugees are living in settled camps, and funding shortfalls are reaching all-time highs. The World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016 made important strides in highlighting ways to bridge the humanitarian-development divide. The summit’s outcomes, outlined in the Grand Bargain, reflect agreement on the need for humanitarian and development actors to commit to collective outcomes, identify each sector’s comparative advantages, and work over multi-year timeframes. But there are still large gaps between these high-level principles and actions on the ground.
These gaps are the impetus for a new CGD study group, convened in collaboration with the International Rescue Committee and co-chaired by Cindy Huang and Nazanin Ash. The group, launched in late August, brings together experts and current and former officials from governments, UN agencies, NGOs, and academia to explore what effective partnerships between host governments and development and humanitarian actors might look like. We are guided by a vision of displaced people having meaningful opportunities to not only survive, but thrive—including opportunities for education and legal work—in the context of policies and programs that also promote long-term growth and stability benefitting host communities and countries.
We hope to complement the many important efforts seeking solutions to these short- and long-term challenges by focusing on three critical opportunities.
The Global Policy OpportunityKey stakeholders—including donor agencies, host governments, and implementing organizations—have expressed a commitment to grapple with these issues, and now is the time to offer concrete ideas to shape their policies and strategies.
For example, world leaders will issue a call for a global compact on refugees at the September 19 UN General Assembly’s high-level summit for refugees and migrants. The compact is expected to be adopted in 2018, with negotiations taking place over the next two years. This compact could have significant implications for system reform, and the study group aims to add value to these negotiations and related efforts by assessing essential questions such as: What types of evidence, innovation, and policy structures are needed to ensure refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) have the support they need to thrive? Who needs to be at the table for these discussions to ensure rhetoric translates into action?
The Critical Need to Address Education and EmploymentThe study group will focus on education and employment for displaced populations, particularly on improving access to quality schooling and legal work opportunities. Both sectors have emerged in the global discourse as areas of significant need, and as with tremendous scope to enable displaced populations and host communities to achieve self-reliance.
It is also timely to conduct a deep dive into these areas as new funding mechanisms, which were announced at this year’s WHS, are launched. The Education Cannot Wait fund seeks to provide quality education to children and youth in emergencies. And the World Bank has proposed a new Global Crisis Response Platform, along with a specific refugee fund within IDA, to better meet the needs of displaced populations and their host communities, which includes—but is not limited to—improved access to jobs and other livelihood opportunities.
In the coming months, we’ll be working on concrete policy recommendations as the design, structure, and financing modalities of these new facilities take shape.
Win-Win Deals for the International CommunityA launching point for the study group’s work is the need to negotiate win-win deals that support displaced populations and their host communities, as Jim Kim and David Miliband discussed at a CGD event in May. As the study group process gets underway, we’re starting to lay out initial questions and ideas on how best to achieve such deals.
What basic policy considerations should be incorporated into new and existing country “compacts” to incentivize sustainable solutions, outcomes-driven partnerships and programs, cost-effectiveness, transparency and accountability for results? In the context of addressing the needs of displaced populations, what policy changes should be required before a compact is signed and during its implementation? How can actors encourage evidence-based approaches and prioritize innovation-to-scale models? How should compact models be tailored to different contexts and financial needs? Meeting the needs of the over 1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon (who represent close to a quarter of the country’s population) and 44,000 IDPs in Sri Lanka will require tailored approaches, but the underlying principles of related to the focus on outcomes, evidence, best use of resources and accountability should remain.
Addressing these issues won’t be easy, but there is tremendous opportunity to influence the way forward. Stay tuned over the coming months as we draw on our expert group to develop concrete ideas and policy recommendations.
May 13, 2016
Blog Post
The World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on May 23 and 24th is taking place amidst major shifts in the humanitarian landscape. Displacement is increasingly protracted, with more than 80 percent of refugee crises lasting 10 years or more, and with people more often living in urban areas than settled camps. While there has been extensive media coverage of the asylum crisis in Europe, 4.2 million of the approximate 4.8 million registered Syrian refugees are living in three neighboring states – Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. And, as a consequence of 20-plus years of conflict, there are nearly a million Somali refugees in the Horn of Africa. Indeed, the vast majority of the 15 million refugees worldwide still need pathways to self-reliance through access to public services and opportunities for legal work, often in countries with strained systems and high unemployment rates.
The upcoming Summit will provide an important opportunity to discuss the significant financing gap ($15.5 billion per year according to one report) and important issues like transparency and effectiveness. But it will be a missed opportunity unless leaders agree upon concrete plans to address the new realities of displacement. Here are three areas where we’d like to see some progress.
Improve coordination and division of labor between humanitarian and development efforts.Refugees want to provide for their families and find pathways to self-reliance. Finding these solutions will require both a division of labor and greater coordination between humanitarian and development efforts. A recent study found that livelihoods programs for refugees were predominately run by humanitarian actors, and lacked adequate market linkages, scale, time horizons, and technical support. Rather than stretch humanitarian capacity even further, such programs should leverage existing development policy frameworks, programming, and expertise.
Improved planning and coordination is also required at the city and national levels. For example, when refugees living in urban areas lack clean water, the refugee response must be integrated with broader plans for the city and national water systems. And, to educate hundreds of thousands of children dispersed throughout cities, local systems need more resources and support. Where possible, host countries and donors should integrate refugee services into their national and subnational development plans. At a minimum, humanitarian and development actors should work with host countries to conduct joint needs assessments and planning exercises.
Expand development financing and policy engagement.The World Bank has provided $200 million in financing to Jordan and Lebanon at low rates usually reserved for the poorest countries and launched a New Financing Initiative to Support the MENA Region, partnering with the United Nations and Islamic Development Bank Group. These are important steps given the magnitude of the Syrian crisis, but there is a risk that special initiatives may obscure the need for systemic change. The crisis presents an opportunity to consider how best to channel existing and new financing to meet the longer-term needs of refugees and their host communities around the world.
Further, it will be critical that financing discussions do not overshadow technical and political discussions about changes in laws, policies and regulations that must be part of more sustainable solutions, such as work permits and access to financial services for refugees as well as sector reforms. There should also be increased flexibility in the use of funds, including more cash assistance to refugees. When supplies and services are available in the market, providing cash reduces inefficiencies and overhead and gives refugees choices about meeting the needs of their family. One evaluation of a cash transfer program in Lebanon found that every dollar spent generated more than $2 in local market activity – a notable developmental impact. While we focus on refugees here, many of these measures could help the 38.2 million internally displaced persons as well.
Share responsibility more between host nations and the global community – and think creatively!New financing and more effective, coordinated approaches in host nations do not reduce the international community’s obligation to welcome more refugees. Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Palestine, and Jordan host more than 50 percent of all refugees worldwide. Without a broader agreement on shared responsibility, host nations will have little reason to change their own approaches and instead continue to rely on international appeals and short-term responses. A new agreement must include faster processing and greater resettlement numbers, and not only expanded offers of temporary protection.
We also need more creative methods for facilitating resettlement and helping countries’ realize the economic boon that refugees can bring. For example, CGD colleagues Theo Talbot, Hannah Postel, and Owen Barder have suggested the creation of a humanitarian investment fund. Under this scheme, each refugee would have an endowment that is given to host countries to offset temporary resettlement costs, and then in return, host countries would provide refugees the right to work and access to public services. Expanded private sponsorship models could assist in supplementing government-led financing. And CGD Senior Fellow Michael Clemens’ innovative Global Skill Partnerships proposal, which calls for agreements between employers and/or governments and training centers in countries of origin, could be applied to refugees.
Like most global conferences, the World Humanitarian Summit will not meet the expectations of all of its stakeholders. Médecins Sans Frontières announced it will not participate, citing the Summit’s focus on incorporating “humanitarian assistance into a broader development and resilience agenda” instead of vital access and protection issues. Their critique will be justified if talk of development, reducing risk, and ending need becomes a way to double count efforts or avoid confronting serious violations of international humanitarian law and refugee rights. But if the Summit can concretely advance development-oriented solutions as one critical component of responding to today’s humanitarian landscape, it will have made an important contribution.
August 13, 2015
Blog Post
Spoiler alert: this is not a blog post about #DumpTrump. However, the 2016 U.S. presidential election – and last week’s Republican debate – demonstrates an increasing focus on U.S. immigration policy and reform. While many candidates are sticking to the oft-repeated refrain of ‘border security first,’ some have taken unexpected stands. We’ve been struck that the positions expressed so far don’t fall neatly along the traditional political bifurcation of “left” and “right.” There are sensible and non-sensible proposals from all sides.
Bernie Sanders has been one of the most surprising: his opposition to increased temporary, seasonal migration is a natural fit with some of the more conservative members of the GOP. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush’s support for strengthening legal migration pathways echoes recent White House policy statements.
Four perspectives have stood out to us; while most candidates have commented on immigration policy, few have expanded beyond the typical rhetoric.
Hillary Clinton
Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been criticized in the past for her changeable views on immigration; however, she has lately taken a strong stance on immigration reform. In May, Clinton promised that she would not only uphold, but also expand, President Obama’s recent executive orders protecting an additional 4.3 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. Further expansion of these controversial actions would be bold, given the legal difficulties they have encountered to date. However, Clinton has not provided very many specifics on what such reform would look like.
John Kasich
Governor John Kasich of Ohio has advocated for ‘legal status’ for undocumented immigrants (although he hasn’t definitively espoused the need for full citizenship). He’s also stated that there is a need to expand the current U.S. temporary guest worker program, although he hasn’t offered specifics on how this might work.
Marco Rubio
Since leading a failed attempt at comprehensive immigration reform in 2013, Senator Rubio has supported increased border security and interior enforcement efforts. He sets himself apart from his fellow GOP candidates in this field with his support for a path to citizenship .
Bernie Sanders
Senator Bernie Sanders supports full citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S., but does not support increased guest worker migration for economic reasons. He argues that increased numbers of immigrants would increase total labor supply, thereby lowering the demand for American workers, and depressing wages for current U.S. citizens and residents. This is disappointing, as several studies prove that this assertion is incorrect.
The candidates have one major thing in common: they largely ignore the development benefits of migration. Though it would be too much to expect non-domestic immigration concerns to take center stage in a presidential campaign, we do hope the candidates will not ignore the enormous potential gains from migration. If well regulated, migration can be a triple-win for all parties involved: migrants, sending countries, and receiving countries. For example, a Mexican migrant worker in the U.S. can make up to three times what he or she could at home. This in turn causes a huge welfare benefit for families in the country of origin, contributing to the domestic economy through increased spending on education, property, healthcare, and more. Additionally, the benefit to the U.S. is huge – immigrants help create U.S.-based jobs and increase demand for consumer products. It’s hard to argue with that.
Our migration work at CGD includes three high-level suggestions for candidates to consider as part of CGD’s new White House and the World series of low-cost, practical policy proposals to promote growth and reduce poverty abroad. One of these policy recommendations specifically aims to reform one of the thorniest aspects of U.S. immigration policy: large flows of undocumented, low-skilled immigrants.
These proposals might also help address one of the biggest challenges migrants face: the current broken visa system. Massive visa backlogs force potential migrants to consider highly dangerous irregular routes, as Marco Rubio alluded to during the Republican debate. Additionally, labor rights advocates have rightly argued that being tied to one employer under the H1 and H2 visa systems is restrictive. The U.S. government and future President need to address these challenges, among many others.
Current calls for immigration reform are taking place in a highly divisive and turbulent political landscape. Serious efforts at comprehensive immigration reform have failed twice in the last decade, while President Obama’s controversial executive actions sparked widespread ire in the Republican Party and have been stalled in federal court. The potential for bipartisan cooperation may have been exhausted in the short term. Therefore, it will be especially interesting to see who is willing to stand up to reform on the campaign trail – especially if it means diverging from the party line.
May 13, 2016
Blog Post
The World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on May 23 and 24th is taking place amidst major shifts in the humanitarian landscape. Displacement is increasingly protracted, with more than 80 percent of refugee crises lasting 10 years or more, and with people more often living in urban areas than settled camps. While there has been extensive media coverage of the asylum crisis in Europe, 4.2 million of the approximate 4.8 million registered Syrian refugees are living in three neighboring states – Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. And, as a consequence of 20-plus years of conflict, there are nearly a million Somali refugees in the Horn of Africa. Indeed, the vast majority of the 15 million refugees worldwide still need pathways to self-reliance through access to public services and opportunities for legal work, often in countries with strained systems and high unemployment rates.
The upcoming Summit will provide an important opportunity to discuss the significant financing gap ($15.5 billion per year according to one report) and important issues like transparency and effectiveness. But it will be a missed opportunity unless leaders agree upon concrete plans to address the new realities of displacement. Here are three areas where we’d like to see some progress.
Improve coordination and division of labor between humanitarian and development efforts.Refugees want to provide for their families and find pathways to self-reliance. Finding these solutions will require both a division of labor and greater coordination between humanitarian and development efforts. A recent study found that livelihoods programs for refugees were predominately run by humanitarian actors, and lacked adequate market linkages, scale, time horizons, and technical support. Rather than stretch humanitarian capacity even further, such programs should leverage existing development policy frameworks, programming, and expertise.
Improved planning and coordination is also required at the city and national levels. For example, when refugees living in urban areas lack clean water, the refugee response must be integrated with broader plans for the city and national water systems. And, to educate hundreds of thousands of children dispersed throughout cities, local systems need more resources and support. Where possible, host countries and donors should integrate refugee services into their national and subnational development plans. At a minimum, humanitarian and development actors should work with host countries to conduct joint needs assessments and planning exercises.
Expand development financing and policy engagement.The World Bank has provided $200 million in financing to Jordan and Lebanon at low rates usually reserved for the poorest countries and launched a New Financing Initiative to Support the MENA Region, partnering with the United Nations and Islamic Development Bank Group. These are important steps given the magnitude of the Syrian crisis, but there is a risk that special initiatives may obscure the need for systemic change. The crisis presents an opportunity to consider how best to channel existing and new financing to meet the longer-term needs of refugees and their host communities around the world.
Further, it will be critical that financing discussions do not overshadow technical and political discussions about changes in laws, policies and regulations that must be part of more sustainable solutions, such as work permits and access to financial services for refugees as well as sector reforms. There should also be increased flexibility in the use of funds, including more cash assistance to refugees. When supplies and services are available in the market, providing cash reduces inefficiencies and overhead and gives refugees choices about meeting the needs of their family. One evaluation of a cash transfer program in Lebanon found that every dollar spent generated more than $2 in local market activity – a notable developmental impact. While we focus on refugees here, many of these measures could help the 38.2 million internally displaced persons as well.
Share responsibility more between host nations and the global community – and think creatively!New financing and more effective, coordinated approaches in host nations do not reduce the international community’s obligation to welcome more refugees. Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Palestine, and Jordan host more than 50 percent of all refugees worldwide. Without a broader agreement on shared responsibility, host nations will have little reason to change their own approaches and instead continue to rely on international appeals and short-term responses. A new agreement must include faster processing and greater resettlement numbers, and not only expanded offers of temporary protection.
We also need more creative methods for facilitating resettlement and helping countries’ realize the economic boon that refugees can bring. For example, CGD colleagues Theo Talbot, Hannah Postel, and Owen Barder have suggested the creation of a humanitarian investment fund. Under this scheme, each refugee would have an endowment that is given to host countries to offset temporary resettlement costs, and then in return, host countries would provide refugees the right to work and access to public services. Expanded private sponsorship models could assist in supplementing government-led financing. And CGD Senior Fellow Michael Clemens’ innovative Global Skill Partnerships proposal, which calls for agreements between employers and/or governments and training centers in countries of origin, could be applied to refugees.
Like most global conferences, the World Humanitarian Summit will not meet the expectations of all of its stakeholders. Médecins Sans Frontières announced it will not participate, citing the Summit’s focus on incorporating “humanitarian assistance into a broader development and resilience agenda” instead of vital access and protection issues. Their critique will be justified if talk of development, reducing risk, and ending need becomes a way to double count efforts or avoid confronting serious violations of international humanitarian law and refugee rights. But if the Summit can concretely advance development-oriented solutions as one critical component of responding to today’s humanitarian landscape, it will have made an important contribution.
August 13, 2015
Blog Post
Spoiler alert: this is not a blog post about #DumpTrump. However, the 2016 U.S. presidential election – and last week’s Republican debate – demonstrates an increasing focus on U.S. immigration policy and reform. While many candidates are sticking to the oft-repeated refrain of ‘border security first,’ some have taken unexpected stands. We’ve been struck that the positions expressed so far don’t fall neatly along the traditional political bifurcation of “left” and “right.” There are sensible and non-sensible proposals from all sides.
Bernie Sanders has been one of the most surprising: his opposition to increased temporary, seasonal migration is a natural fit with some of the more conservative members of the GOP. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush’s support for strengthening legal migration pathways echoes recent White House policy statements.
Four perspectives have stood out to us; while most candidates have commented on immigration policy, few have expanded beyond the typical rhetoric.
Hillary Clinton
Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been criticized in the past for her changeable views on immigration; however, she has lately taken a strong stance on immigration reform. In May, Clinton promised that she would not only uphold, but also expand, President Obama’s recent executive orders protecting an additional 4.3 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. Further expansion of these controversial actions would be bold, given the legal difficulties they have encountered to date. However, Clinton has not provided very many specifics on what such reform would look like.
John Kasich
Governor John Kasich of Ohio has advocated for ‘legal status’ for undocumented immigrants (although he hasn’t definitively espoused the need for full citizenship). He’s also stated that there is a need to expand the current U.S. temporary guest worker program, although he hasn’t offered specifics on how this might work.
Marco Rubio
Since leading a failed attempt at comprehensive immigration reform in 2013, Senator Rubio has supported increased border security and interior enforcement efforts. He sets himself apart from his fellow GOP candidates in this field with his support for a path to citizenship .
Bernie Sanders
Senator Bernie Sanders supports full citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S., but does not support increased guest worker migration for economic reasons. He argues that increased numbers of immigrants would increase total labor supply, thereby lowering the demand for American workers, and depressing wages for current U.S. citizens and residents. This is disappointing, as several studies prove that this assertion is incorrect.
The candidates have one major thing in common: they largely ignore the development benefits of migration. Though it would be too much to expect non-domestic immigration concerns to take center stage in a presidential campaign, we do hope the candidates will not ignore the enormous potential gains from migration. If well regulated, migration can be a triple-win for all parties involved: migrants, sending countries, and receiving countries. For example, a Mexican migrant worker in the U.S. can make up to three times what he or she could at home. This in turn causes a huge welfare benefit for families in the country of origin, contributing to the domestic economy through increased spending on education, property, healthcare, and more. Additionally, the benefit to the U.S. is huge – immigrants help create U.S.-based jobs and increase demand for consumer products. It’s hard to argue with that.
Our migration work at CGD includes three high-level suggestions for candidates to consider as part of CGD’s new White House and the World series of low-cost, practical policy proposals to promote growth and reduce poverty abroad. One of these policy recommendations specifically aims to reform one of the thorniest aspects of U.S. immigration policy: large flows of undocumented, low-skilled immigrants.
These proposals might also help address one of the biggest challenges migrants face: the current broken visa system. Massive visa backlogs force potential migrants to consider highly dangerous irregular routes, as Marco Rubio alluded to during the Republican debate. Additionally, labor rights advocates have rightly argued that being tied to one employer under the H1 and H2 visa systems is restrictive. The U.S. government and future President need to address these challenges, among many others.
Current calls for immigration reform are taking place in a highly divisive and turbulent political landscape. Serious efforts at comprehensive immigration reform have failed twice in the last decade, while President Obama’s controversial executive actions sparked widespread ire in the Republican Party and have been stalled in federal court. The potential for bipartisan cooperation may have been exhausted in the short term. Therefore, it will be especially interesting to see who is willing to stand up to reform on the campaign trail – especially if it means diverging from the party line.
September 16, 2016
Blog Post
Cindy Huang et al.
Related Post: Refugee and Migration Summits: Three Opportunities for Progress
Podcast: What World Leaders Should Know about Refugees and Migration
For refugees and internally displaced people, business-as-usual is no longer working. The “new normal” of displacement means that development and humanitarian actors urgently need to adapt their approach.
Record numbers of people are forcibly displaced worldwide over longer periods of time, fewer refugees are living in settled camps, and funding shortfalls are reaching all-time highs. The World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016 made important strides in highlighting ways to bridge the humanitarian-development divide. The summit’s outcomes, outlined in the Grand Bargain, reflect agreement on the need for humanitarian and development actors to commit to collective outcomes, identify each sector’s comparative advantages, and work over multi-year timeframes. But there are still large gaps between these high-level principles and actions on the ground.
These gaps are the impetus for a new CGD study group, convened in collaboration with the International Rescue Committee and co-chaired by Cindy Huang and Nazanin Ash. The group, launched in late August, brings together experts and current and former officials from governments, UN agencies, NGOs, and academia to explore what effective partnerships between host governments and development and humanitarian actors might look like. We are guided by a vision of displaced people having meaningful opportunities to not only survive, but thrive—including opportunities for education and legal work—in the context of policies and programs that also promote long-term growth and stability benefitting host communities and countries.
We hope to complement the many important efforts seeking solutions to these short- and long-term challenges by focusing on three critical opportunities.
The Global Policy OpportunityKey stakeholders—including donor agencies, host governments, and implementing organizations—have expressed a commitment to grapple with these issues, and now is the time to offer concrete ideas to shape their policies and strategies.
For example, world leaders will issue a call for a global compact on refugees at the September 19 UN General Assembly’s high-level summit for refugees and migrants. The compact is expected to be adopted in 2018, with negotiations taking place over the next two years. This compact could have significant implications for system reform, and the study group aims to add value to these negotiations and related efforts by assessing essential questions such as: What types of evidence, innovation, and policy structures are needed to ensure refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) have the support they need to thrive? Who needs to be at the table for these discussions to ensure rhetoric translates into action?
The Critical Need to Address Education and EmploymentThe study group will focus on education and employment for displaced populations, particularly on improving access to quality schooling and legal work opportunities. Both sectors have emerged in the global discourse as areas of significant need, and as with tremendous scope to enable displaced populations and host communities to achieve self-reliance.
It is also timely to conduct a deep dive into these areas as new funding mechanisms, which were announced at this year’s WHS, are launched. The Education Cannot Wait fund seeks to provide quality education to children and youth in emergencies. And the World Bank has proposed a new Global Crisis Response Platform, along with a specific refugee fund within IDA, to better meet the needs of displaced populations and their host communities, which includes—but is not limited to—improved access to jobs and other livelihood opportunities.
In the coming months, we’ll be working on concrete policy recommendations as the design, structure, and financing modalities of these new facilities take shape.
Win-Win Deals for the International CommunityA launching point for the study group’s work is the need to negotiate win-win deals that support displaced populations and their host communities, as Jim Kim and David Miliband discussed at a CGD event in May. As the study group process gets underway, we’re starting to lay out initial questions and ideas on how best to achieve such deals.
What basic policy considerations should be incorporated into new and existing country “compacts” to incentivize sustainable solutions, outcomes-driven partnerships and programs, cost-effectiveness, transparency and accountability for results? In the context of addressing the needs of displaced populations, what policy changes should be required before a compact is signed and during its implementation? How can actors encourage evidence-based approaches and prioritize innovation-to-scale models? How should compact models be tailored to different contexts and financial needs? Meeting the needs of the over 1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon (who represent close to a quarter of the country’s population) and 44,000 IDPs in Sri Lanka will require tailored approaches, but the underlying principles of related to the focus on outcomes, evidence, best use of resources and accountability should remain.
Addressing these issues won’t be easy, but there is tremendous opportunity to influence the way forward. Stay tuned over the coming months as we draw on our expert group to develop concrete ideas and policy recommendations.
There is no content currently that matches this filter.
Commentary Menu