Ideas to Action:

Independent research for global prosperity

Tag: International Financial Institutions

 

money from different countries

8 Ideas on Reforming the MDBs for the Eminent Persons Group

The Eminent Persons Group (EPG), tasked with making the system of international financial institutions fit for purpose in the 21st century, recently gave the G20 Finance Ministers a preliminary report on its work.The report is a bit long on generalities and short on specifics and, as my colleague Nancy Birdsall blogs, it mostly shies away from suggesting concrete adjustments in the way the multilateral development bank (MDB) system works now. Here are eight ideas that the EPG could propose that can be implemented in the next two years.

Inside the IFC's Portfolio: The IFC Responds

IFC Spokesman Frederick Jones has replied to our blog on the IFC’s risk appetite. First off, thanks to Fred and the IFC for replying. The Corporation has a unique role to play in global development finance and we’re keen for that role to grow, so we’re happy that the report has generated so much conversation about IFC’s portfolio, both within and outside IFC. And second, we commend IFC for its plans to do more in poor countries and those that are classified as fragile states—it is where the Corporation can have the most impact and where it is most needed.

A New Agenda for the MDBs: Five Practical Reforms

Today, the Center for Global Development, the Brookings Institution, and the Overseas Development Institute released The New Global Agenda and the Future of the MDB System, a report we jointly prepared as input to the deliberations of the G20-convened Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance. We argue that current global economic challenges require a rethink of the role that multilateral development banks (MDBs) can play in developing countries. Here are the top five areas where MDB reform is needed to help meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals:

Is the IFC Taking On Even Less Risk Than We Suggest? Our Readers Respond

Since the publication of our paper on the IFC’s project portfolio last week, we have received several helpful comments from readers. They plausibly suggest that the portfolio may be (even) less risky than we suggested, with even more space to pivot towards the low income countries where the IFC can make the most difference. But until the IFC publishes more information, we won’t really know.

Aid Transparency and Private Sector Subsidies at the IFC

Vijaya Ramachandran, Ben Leo, Jared Karlow and I have just published two papers looking at where and in what capacity the IFC, OPIC, and selected European development finance institutions (DFIs) are investing their money. The core of the papers is a dataset that Jared painstakingly put together by scraping public documentation about DFI projects. It wasn’t easy because DFIs are considerably behind many aid agencies in releasing usable data on their portfolios. And that lack of transparency presents a significant problem if those same DFIs spend aid money on subsidizing the private sector.

The International Finance Corporation’s Mission Is Facilitating Risky Investments—So Why Is It Taking on Less and Less Risk?

The IFC is designed to catalyze investments in countries that investors might consider too risky to invest in alone. But our recent analysis of IFC’s portfolio found that it is shying away from risky investments, raising serious questions about whether the IFC is focusing on the places where it can make the most difference.

Pages

Experts