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.
Reality is not yet matching rhetoric in moving from “billions to trillions” to finance the SDGs—how can we accelerate sustainable development finance?
To meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the world must ramp up development financing from billions to trillions of dollars. We must think beyond aid, to private finance, and unlocking developing countries’ own resources. The roles of financiers and developing country partners in mobilizing and allocating aid needs to change so that the international community can focus not only on country-by-country development, but also on pressing shared problems, such as climate change and the threat of pandemics.
At the same time that the world is looking to scale up development financing, the development financing system is becoming more complex. There are new donors, like China and India, with different development paradigms. And the emergence of new multilateral development agencies and national development banks add resources to the mix, but raise the question of whether new models of international cooperation are needed to maximize the leverage of scarce financing.
Our research focuses on five questions: How can the international financial system produce sufficient funding for development? How should it be allocated to help countries meet the SDGs and confront global challenges, such as climate change and pandemics? How can financing most effectively mobilize private capital, safeguard public monies, and keep debt levels sustainable? How can domestic resources be mobilized within developing countries? And how should existing institutions be changed to best cooperate?
Each year billions of dollars are spent on thousands of programs to improve health and education in the developing world but very few programs are rigorously evaluated to learn if they make a difference. A CGD proposal to fix this longstanding problem is gaining momentum.
The final report of the CGD Evaluation Gap Working Group released last week recommends the creation of a new, independent entity that would corral the good intentions of stakeholders to ensure an adequate supply of rigorous impact evaluations. The report, When Will We Ever Learn: Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation suggests that the proposed new organization would, for example:
Identify enduring questions
Promote strong standards
Provide an independent review process
Target assistance for design
Dedicate funds for impact evaluation
Since the report was launched on May 31, an international call to action supporting the report's recommendations has been signed by dozens of prominent individuals representing a diverse cross-section of the international development community.
In a keynote speech at the report launch, CGD director of programs Ruth Levine said that the working group was born in part out of her frustration at being asked to design, implement and advise on complex development programs in the health and education sectors, "with little more to go on than some theory, my own on-the-job experience, scattered and scant case reports in the literature, and the occasional advice from colleagues."
"In 1990, when I first started in development work, I was unable to find any systematic body of knowledge from the decades of experience implementing similar programs," said Levine, who served as co-chair of the working group. "The situation is not much better today. Billions of dollars are spent each year on well-intentioned social programs that are based on very weak evidence about what works."
The working group's recommendations were developed by studying what institutions are already doing, analyzing the behavior of bureaucracies in rich and developing countries, and consulting widely through a web-based survey and face-to-face consultations, including discussions in the San Francisco Bay Area, London, Mexico, Delhi and Cape Town.
"We also got a constant stream of e-mails from a lot of very annoyed people," Levine said. "Some are annoyed with us; most have been annoyed with the existence of a real blind spot in the development business." (Members of the working group, and an extensive list of the experts consulted are included in the final report.)
Following Levine's talk, working group co-chair William Savedoff, a senior partner at Social Insight, an independent consulting firm, presented the working group's key recommendations. Video of Levine and Savedoff’s remarks, slides from Savedoff’s presentation, and a transcript of the event, including a panel discussion with senior U.S. development officials are now available on the relevant CGD event page.
For further information, including a useful FAQ, see the CGD Evaluation Gap Initiative. To sign the Call to Action contact Joselyn DiPetta.
The Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), the latest phase of debt reduction for poor countries from the World Bank, the IMF, and the African Development Bank, will come close to full debt reduction for at least 19 and perhaps as many as 40 countries. Debt relief proponents see it as a momentous leap in the battle against global poverty. CGD research fellow Todd Moss argues that actual gains in poverty reduction will be modest and slow.
The Nigerian legislature’s decision last week to reject a constitutional amendment that would have permitted President Obsanjo to seek a third term is good news for Nigeria and the rest of the region, notwithstanding valid worries that a new president might attempt to rollback Obsanjo's reform program. CGD’s Scott Standley assesses the trade-offs.