Despite Domestic Focus, the State of CGD State of the Union Bingo Remains Strong

January 26, 2011

This is a joint post with Kaci Farrell

Last night’s State of the Union address, like the mid-term elections, was not about foreign policy. Development aid was MIA, but President Obama’s remarks about the environment, trade, security, investment, technology, and migration—the six other areas measured in CGD’s Commitment to Development Index—allowed a handful of diligent guests to finally spell B-I-N-G-O!

Read More…

Comment »

What’s Hot and What’s Not in Global Development for 2011

December 20, 2010

Read More…

3 Comments »

On the Hill: Moss Says Nigeria Should Try Cash Transfers (and U.S. Should Support Multilateral Development Banks)

November 18, 2010

This is a joint post with Kaci Farrell.

During a House Financial Services subcommittee hearing on the global financial crisis and Nigeria’s financial reforms, CGD vice president for programs and senior fellow Todd Moss said Nigeria’s economic and political stability are inextricably linked to each other and to U.S. national interests. He urged members to support the African Development Bank and the World Bank and proposed a new idea: Nigeria should consider using oil revenues to finance cash transfers to citizens in the Niger Delta. Read More…

1 Comment »

Republican Victory, the Tea Party and U.S. Development Policy

November 3, 2010

The big news out of the U.S. midterm elections is the Republican victory and control of the House of Representatives. Thirty nine of the sixty new House Republicans align themselves with the Tea Party. One of the few things the pundits agree on is that there is no clear Tea Party foreign policy agenda, much less a unified view about whether and how to engage developing countries. While both the elections and the Tea Party candidates focused on domestic issues—largely the slow economic recovery—the new makeup of Congress and how the legislative branch responds to those concerns could have big implications for U.S. global development policy.

Read More…

6 Comments »

Introducing CGD’s New Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Director: Connie Veillette

September 17, 2010

Starting Monday, CGD will have a new director of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Initiative: Connie Veillette. Connie is well-known to many of our readers from her previous role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she worked alongside Senator Lugar and his colleagues as the principal minority committee staff for foreign assistance, aid reform and food security issues. Connie previously worked for the Congressional Research Service analyzing the foreign aid budget, aid reform, and Latin America policy issues. She also spent twenty years working for U.S. Representative Ralph Regula (R-OH) as appropriations committee staff, press secretary and ultimately chief of staff. Connie is an adjunct professor at George Washington University and has a Ph.D. in comparative foreign politics.

I’m delighted to welcome Connie aboard and look forward to having our own fully-staffed rethinking U.S. foreign assistance team!

1 Comment »

Birdsall Tells Congress Haiti Needs More than Aid—And More Flexibility from Congress Itself

March 19, 2010

The U.S. response in Haiti must be about more than aid, CGD president Nancy Birdsall told Congress this week. She urged members of Congress to push for better trade and migration policies—in addition to more flexibility with our assistance efforts—to help Haiti rebuild after the earthquake.

In her testimony before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, Birdsall outlined three principles and three priority actions for U.S. efforts in support of Haiti: Read More…

Comment »

Obama’s First Budget Request: Modest Increases but Strong Signaling for Development

February 3, 2010

President Obama’s first full budget request hit the streets Monday. Since then, Washington has been scrambling to decipher the numbers and what’s behind them. It’s important to note that we are dealing largely with top line numbers and many details won’t be available for several weeks, and that’s before the budget starts to go through Congress. But here’s what I see so far on the development side*: Read More…

2 Comments »

CGD State of the Union Bingo: Big on Fun, Little on Development Content

January 28, 2010

CGD’s seventh annual State of the Union bingo party last night, which had a nice shout out from the Washington Post’s Reliable Source and video coverage from Amy Cross at Medill News Service, had a record 230 unabashedly wonkish guests in attendance at the Exchange to watch the speech, ink dabbers in hand, eager to cross off key development terms on their CGD bingo cards. The speech focused heavily on domestic economic and political challenges. So it was an anxious wait until 9:58 p.m., nearly an hour into the speech, when the word “democracy” finally gave us a round of bingo winners, with Oxfam’s Paul O’Brien the first to claim victory. Read More…

Comment »

Secretary Clinton Pushes the Development Envelope in CGD Speech

January 7, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a major speech at CGD yesterday, calling development a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy alongside diplomacy and defense. Perhaps you’ve read the transcript or watched the video. It’s a long and detailed speech, so now you’re wondering: what are the big takeaways?

Among those present, I heard wide praise for the speech, in large part because the messenger matters. Nobody I spoke with could recall another sitting Secretary of State delivering the same caliber of speech focused solely on U.S. development policy. Secretary Clinton brings a long history of personal interest and knowledge of global development and has now demonstrated her willingness to use her bully pulpit to draw enormous attention to the issues. When she speaks, people listen. And it gets a fair amount of media coverage.

The speech also affirmed development policy is a priority for the Obama  administration and injected some new momentum into the conversation. Secretary Clinton called development “indispensible” and  a “strategic, economic and moral imperative—as central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy and defense.”

And just as the messenger matters, timing matters. Secretary Clinton delivered her speech yesterday, and today swore in USAID Administrator Raj Shah. These two events put behind us all the discussion of “when will they finally name a USAID administrator?” and in some ways signal a turning point. The administration now has confirmed new leadership at USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator.  Highly capable staff are also working on development at the State Department and the many other U.S. government agencies involved in development (Treasury, USDA, the U.S. Trade Representative, etc.). With the anticipated confirmation of a new head for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the administration will have a full team on board in early 2010.

In her remarks, Secretary Clinton acknowledged that a focus on development demands smarter policies and better results, saying we “have to be selective and strategic about where and how to get involved.” The speech itself covered everything from coordination of U.S. government agencies and among development policies (aid, trade, private investment, etc.), restoring USAID to the “premiere development agency in the world,” the role of women and girls in development, leveraging American technical know-how and innovation, almost every development sector and the role of NGOs and contractors. Many people left the room happy, satisfied that their issue was addressed. But the biggest challenge remains how to  “be selective and strategic” about our development investments. The point is, everybody agrees on the need for more focus; nobody agrees on what it is we should not do.

In fairness, there was only so much that Secretary Clinton could say ahead of the results of the Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy (PSD). The main impact of Secretary Clinton’s speech in my mind is that it pushes the development envelope. It raises the profile and attention to these issues, injects new momentum into the debate, and tees up this administration to make some significant changes to the development status quo. I’m hopeful that with a capable team of development leaders finally in place and two major review processes underway—the PSD and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review–we’ll soon hear some specifics about the steps the U.S. will take to really create a 21^st century development policy.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t say my favorite part of the speech was the focus on telling the development story to Americans;  not only what we do and how we do it, but that better development policy is a priority, even in these difficult times, because it is inextricably linked to our own national moral, economic and security interests.

As one audience member said to me after the speech, “Where do you go from here?” To that I say, Mr. President, CGD stands ready and willing to host your major U.S. global development speech this spring.

This is some of what I’ve heard and thought since hearing Secretary Clinton speak yesterday afternoon.  The floor is open. What do you think?

3 Comments »

What’s Hot and What’s Not in Global Development for 2010

December 21, 2009

Read More…

8 Comments »

U.S. Congress Takes Critical Step to Unlock $1 Trillion for Developing Countries Coping with Crisis

June 22, 2009

The U.S. House and Senate passed the $105.9 billion war supplemental last week, which includes $5 billion to secure $108 billion in additional lending by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Congress’s approval for increased IMF lending supports President Obama’s G20 commitments and paves the way to unlock the $1 trillion (mostly contributions from other high-income countries) for emerging and developing countries coping with the economic crisis. CGD president Nancy Birdsall recommended such a move first in mid-February (prior to the G20 summit) and more recently in testimony before two congressional committees. Read More…

Comment »

Birdsall Tells Worried House Subcommittee Why U.S. Support to IMF Makes Sense

June 15, 2009

In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade last week, CGD president Nancy Birdsall argued that support for the G-20 commitments to increase lending resources at the IMF is a critical part of ensuring U.S. recovery from the economic crisis and global prosperity and security. She was, however, confronted with a host of concerns about whether multilateral lending would go to governments like Iran, Sudan, and Syria, and with one member of Congress’s view that he “is a citizen of the United States, not the world.”

The hearing cast a broad net: “Foreign Policy Implications of U.S. Efforts to Address the International Financial Crisis: TARP, TALF and the G20 Plan.” Other witnesses included Kevin Kearns, president of the U.S. Business and Industry Council; Roger Robinson Jr., president and CEO of Conflict Securities Advisory Group; Damon Silvers, associate general counsel at the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; and Terry Miller, director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation.

Birdsall’s testimony focused on the G-20 plan and its implications for emerging and developing economies, as well as for the United States. As in previous testimony, Birdsall said that today’s global challenges—disease, human and food insecurity, climate change, and financial crises—do not respect borders; they threaten security globally and at home.

The G-20 leaders recognized the urgent challenge of ensuring that developing countries have the resources to cope with the global economic crisis—avoiding setbacks in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America that would not only undermine the fight against poverty and disease worldwide but would create the instability and associated security risks for everyone including here at home. I want to emphasize that what happens in developing countries—where more than 5 billion of the world’s 6 billion people live, and where about one-third of world GDP is now produced—matters for Americans’ security and for our economic recovery.

Birdsall also referred to a statement that Tim Adams, former Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs, made when they testified before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade last month. Adams said,

Failed states and extreme poverty breed unrest and instability and create the types of conditions that allow dictators, extremists and terrorists to thrive. In short, it is in our national security interest to ensure that financial and economic crises don’t destabilize fragile states.

Birdsall reminded the subcommittee that many of the recent recipients of International Monetary Fund (IMF) support (e.g. Mexico, Colombia, Poland, and Pakistan) are crucial players in the success or failure of our foreign policy and national security objectives.

Birdsall also argued that in addition to the national security and foreign policy implications of the G-20 plan, U.S. recovery from the economic crisis depends not only on the U.S. stimulus, but on sustaining demand abroad, including in emerging and developing-country markets. She explained to the subcommittee that in economic terms, emerging-market and developing economies have driven much of recent world growth:

In 2008, U.S. growth relied almost completely on our exports—about one-third of which went to China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and other emerging markets. An estimated 10 percent of U.S. jobs—about 12 million—depends directly on these exports. . . . Lower global growth, as in the Asian financial crisis, will cause U.S. growth, jobs, and exports to fall more sharply. Collapsing economies overseas will exacerbate the contracting economy at home. Stimulating the global economy is vital for our domestic recovery.

Birdsall urged members of the subcommittee to support the G-20 commitments currently moving through Congress, and in particular the proposed increase in lending resources for the IMF that have been attached to the war supplemental, but not yet voted on.

Congress, however, remains strongly divided over the IMF proposals. The witnesses at this particular hearing, including Birdsall, encountered the type of disdain normally reserved for administration officials defending their own policies, not private guests invited to provide expert opinion on the matters at hand. The range of issues—TARP, TALF, and G-20—gave the members a virtual grab-bag for political grandstanding. My sense is that several members of this particular subcommittee were grumpier than usual because they feel that President Obama’s G-20 commitments bypass Congress’s policymaking and oversight role. It is true that the House really hasn’t had a chance for substantive floor or committee debate on the issues and that this subcommittee lacks direct jurisdiction (or control) over the IMF or World Bank issues. And in the absence of strong outreach and education on the complexities of the IMF and G-20 proposals, the administration’s gamble of attaching the IMF funding to the war supplemental may be backfiring (see this article in the Financial Times). The unfortunate result, however, is that many members of Congress are taking aim at the G-20, and multilateral engagement more broadly, rather than criticizing a flawed process.

Bruised egos and flawed processes aside, there are several misconceptions expressed at the hearing that merit response.

1. Misconception:The administration’s IMF package is a $109 billion IMF bailout paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
   Reality: The proposal for the United States to provide $100 billion in additional lending for the IMF’s New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) emergency financing mechanism is not a cash outlay, but a line of credit (more like a revolving loan than an expenditure). The Congressional Research Service explains in their report: “In the case of the NAB, the U.S. would receive a promissory note from the IMF pledging to repay the loan with interest.” It further explains that the United States would receive back from the IMF a monetary instrument of equal value which it would add to its foreign exchange reserve. If the NAB is used by countries struggling to cope with the crisis, the U.S. line of credit would go to the IMF, not the country in need, and the loan would then be backed by the IMF’s substantial gold reserves (3,217 metric tons) which might just make it a safer bet than U.S. T-bills. In recognition of these complexities, the $100 billion outlay is scored as $5 billion on the budget; however, it is not an expenditure. And bear in mind that by scoring $5 billion on the budget, the United States would leverage a total of $500 billion in additional lending resources through similar contributions by other countries, and the IMF executive board, on which the United States effectively has a veto, will still have an opportunity to vote on (or veto) specific country requests. (For more on the budget scoring, see CBO’s blog and the FY09 conference report, starting on page 59.)
2. Misconception: The IMF routinely forces structural conditionality, cuts in social-sector spending, and wage bill ceilings on developing countries.
   Reality: The IMF today is not the IMF of old. Birdsall argued in her testimony that in response to the global economic crisis, the IMF has recognized the logic of supporting deficit spending during a downturn, and has encouraged and indeed urged countries to preserve or increase their spending on health, education, and the social safety net in general. She said fiscal targets have been loosened in 18 of 23 African countries with active IMF programs and, on average, fiscal deficits are widening by 2 percent of GDP. She also said the creation of a new precautionary facility (the Flexible Credit Line or FCL) that makes substantially more resources available more quickly on better terms, on request, to countries with an adequate record of good policies and sound management is another sign of positive change.
3. Misconception: The IMF gives buckets of money to odious regimes like Iran, Syria, and Zimbabwe, which runs counter to our U.S. foreign policy interests.
   Reality: The IMF hasn’t loaned to Iran since 1962, Syria since 1972, or Sudan since 1984. And future loans must be approved by the IMF executive board (see above!). More complicated is the role of the World Bank in some of these regions. A Daily Kos blog post by Kimberly Killen highlights these concerns, as did the subcommittee’s chairman Brad Sherman (D-CA), and argues that “little is being done in regards to which nations are granted loans.” But Killen said she supports aiding developing nations, and she argues for a modernized Foreign Assistance Act to help provide capital and assistance to transform developing countries. An Across the Aisle blog post takes a different view and says that while some World Bank programs may take place in these regions, they do not compromise our security interests. She argues that “preventing the World Bank and IMF from loaning to Iran won’t hurt the repressive regime or cripple the nuclear program. Instead, Iran will stop spending on disaster relief and clean water. If anything, denying the funds will only hurt the nascent democratic movement in Iran.” She argues the United States should support Obama’s promised increases for the international financial institutions while pressuring those institutions not to loan to our adversaries.

More troubling is the refrain of Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL) who told the witnesses that he is “a citizen of the United States and not of the world” (apparently a phrase used by Newt Gingrich) and criticized the G-20 communiqué for saying that prosperity is indivisible. Manzullo said “the United States wants to be profitable” and “apparently everything we have to do in this world is to make sure that every third world country and every country has the same prosperity that we do.” Absent from his statements was a recognition, as many of the witnesses tried to convey, that what happens in the rest of the world matters for our own economy and our safety (not to mention the subcommittee’s issues on trade, nonproliferation and terrorism, or some of the largest employers in Manzullo’s district like Hamilton Sundstrand and Ingersoll Machine Tools that happen to be export-dependent manufacturers).
It’s clear that the IMF legislation and the process by which it is moving through Congress is raising populist hackles on the right and the left. But it is also clear that people left, right, and center are prepared to stand with Birdsall and other thoughtful analysts of global finance in the awkward middle. The Washington Post editorial last week summed it up nicely:

These are old arguments; the fact that support for the IMF helps purchase a public good—global financial stability—gets less frequent mention. As the administration has argued, IMF support does not add to the projected budget deficit because it is more like a revolving loan than an expenditure. President Obama has correctly observed that “other countries are looking to the United States to deliver on our commitment”; Congress should not undermine him.

There are strong and compelling cases to be made on these issues, and it’s unfortunate that they are suffering under the weight of bailout fatigue, a panoply of other political hot-button issues, and a risky (but understandable) gamble from the administration on process with Congress. Here’s hoping the Obama administration and others can continue to work with members of Congress on explaining not only the IMF financing mechanisms to dispel concerns over an “IMF bailout,” but also continue to make the case that a more effective, legitimate, and better-resourced IMF is important for the United States’ own recovery from the economic crisis as well as national (and global) security, and that it is not the only mechanism that the United States can and should be using to help emerging and developing countries cope with the current crisis.

1 Comment »

Sen. Kerry Champions Development In Knock-Out Speech

May 26, 2009

Sen. John Kerry called for a grand new vision to put diplomacy and development alongside defense at the heart of America’s foreign policy in a knock-out speech at the Brookings Institution last week. Sen. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke of a new generation of global challenges—ethnic tension, religious extremism, financial crises, climate change and poverty—that require a dramatic overhaul of U.S. foreign policy to protect our common security and prosperity. In delivering the speech, Sen. Kerry puts himself at the forefront of a growing list of congressional champions and constituents eager for better, stronger U.S. global development policies and programs. Read More…

3 Comments »

$100 Billion for IMF Helps Americans, Birdsall Tells Congress

May 18, 2009

The U.S. should do more to support the International Monetary Fund and its efforts to stabilize the global economy, CGD president Nancy Birdsall and three other witnesses told the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade last week. Birdsall, former IMF research director Simon Johnson, director of the G-24 secretariat Amar Bhattacharya, and former Bush-administration Treasury official Tim Adams testified at the hearing on the implications of the G-20 Summit for low-income countries and the global economy. Their statements struck a surprisingly similar tone: stability in emerging and developing countries is critical to our own economic recovery and global security, and the IMF is an important means for helping these countries cope with the global economic crisis. Read More…

2 Comments »

One Hundred Days: Where is the USAID Administrator?

April 29, 2009

One hundred days into the Obama administration many in the development community are asking: where is the USAID administrator? Impatience is mounting for news of leadership on development policy and reform of U.S. foreign assistance. President Obama named his picks to lead defense and diplomacy—Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton—well before he took office. But despite the lofty rhetoric during the campaign and transition about using the full set of smart power tools—defense, diplomacy and development—a nomination for the top development job has yet to be made. Read More…

1 Comment »

CGD’s Steve Radelet Testifies on U.S. Assistance to Africa and Calls for Reform

April 27, 2009

The global economic crisis presents a challenge and an opportunity to do better with U.S. assistance to Africa said CGD senior fellow Steve Radelet in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health last week. Not surprisingly, doing better in Africa requires the same steps towards broad U.S. foreign assistance reform that Radelet and others have been urging for months. Meanwhile, testimony from Secretary of State Clinton, a new GAO report calling for foreign aid reform, and a promise from Rep. Berman to introduce legislation for a comprehensive U.S. development strategy indicate a lot of toe tapping, one step forward, and some missing partners in the U.S. foreign aid reform dance. Read More…

Comment »

Radelet, Lancaster, and Natsios Call for Autonomous Development Voice at Senate Hearing

April 6, 2009

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Development held a hearing last week on “USAID in the 21st Century: What Do We Need for the Task at Hand?” CGD senior fellow Steve Radelet, Georgetown professor and CGD visiting fellow Carol Lancaster and former USAID administrator Andrew Natsios testified and gave their answer: an autonomous U.S. development voice, strong leadership, and new legislation. Read More…

3 Comments »

Open Letter to the President and Congress on Global Development and Foreign Assistance Reform

March 23, 2009

An open letter to President Obama and congressional leaders on the importance of global development and foreign assistance reform was published in Politico last week on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) and signed by more than 150 influential individuals and organizations. The letter says, in part: Read More…

Comment »

Hey Jack Lew, Are You Ready for Some Football?

January 30, 2009

This is a joint post with Sheila Herrling
Dear Coach Lew,
Congratulations on your new position as deputy secretary of state where we understand you will be responsible for mobilizing and managing diplomacy and development resources, and reinvigorating those two “D’s” alongside defense in the administration’s new smart power agenda. Because of your demanding new role, we realize you might not get to properly enjoy the Super Bowl festivities this weekend, so we thought we’d bring a little Super Bowl pre-game analysis to the task ahead of you and your team.

Read More…

Comment »

WhiteHouse.gov Catching Up to Obama

January 26, 2009

Despite reports that incoming White House staff found their new digs in the technological dark ages the official White House website has undergone something of an Obama makeover (and in a clear sign that my computer is way behind the times, it still doesn’t recognize “Obama” in its outdated Microsoft spellchecker). I’m pleased to see the global development agenda moving forward on the new White House site, but would like to see more of both Obama’s presidential campaign promise and the Democratic Party Platform’s commitment to create a 21st century U.S. development agency as part of the broader U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy.

Read More…

Comment »

• Views from the Center features posts from Nancy Birdsall and her colleagues about innovative, practical policy responses to poverty and inequality in a globalizing world.

• Translator

  

• 

• Monthly Archives

  Select Month May 2012  (8) April 2012  (19) March 2012  (20) February 2012  (24) January 2012  (25) December 2011  (14) November 2011  (22) October 2011  (11) September 2011  (15) August 2011  (12) July 2011  (18) June 2011  (18) May 2011  (25) April 2011  (16) March 2011  (21) February 2011  (21) January 2011  (21) December 2010  (28) November 2010  (27) October 2010  (17) September 2010  (12) August 2010  (7) July 2010  (9) June 2010  (20) May 2010  (16) April 2010  (15) March 2010  (23) February 2010  (10) January 2010  (21) December 2009  (23) November 2009  (15) October 2009  (15) September 2009  (15) August 2009  (14) July 2009  (18) June 2009  (11) May 2009  (14) April 2009  (24) March 2009  (26) February 2009  (23) January 2009  (26) December 2008  (13) November 2008  (13) October 2008  (20) September 2008  (28) August 2008  (12) July 2008  (19) June 2008  (14) May 2008  (20) April 2008  (18) March 2008  (8) February 2008  (10) January 2008  (16) December 2007  (13) November 2007  (11) October 2007  (16) September 2007  (8) August 2007  (8) July 2007  (11) June 2007  (13) May 2007  (13) April 2007  (13) March 2007  (20) February 2007  (11) January 2007  (11) December 2006  (13) November 2006  (14) October 2006  (12) September 2006  (24) August 2006  (15) July 2006  (17) June 2006  (16) May 2006  (14) April 2006  (16) March 2006  (18) February 2006  (16) January 2006  (15) December 2005  (24) November 2005  (14) October 2005  (1) August 2005  (1) April 2005  (1) February 2005  (1) January 2005  (2) December 2004  (1) November 2004  (1) October 2004  (1) September 2004  (2) August 2004  (1) April 2004  (1) January 2004  (4) November 2003  (1) September 2003  (1) June 2003  (1) January 2003  (1) May 2002  (3)

• Categories

  Select Category 2008 Presidential Election Advocacy Africa African Development Bank Agriculture Aid Effectiveness Asia Bolivia Capitol Flows/Financial Crisis Cash on Delivery Aid CGD Initiatives Child Soldiers China Climate Change Commitment to Development Index Corruption Debt Relief Economic Development Economic Growth Education Environment Evaluation Evaluation Gap Faith and Development Financial Crisis Food & Agriculture Food Aid Food Crisis Foreign Aid Reform Fragile States G8 Global Development Global Education Global Health Global Health Policy Global Health Policy Research Network Global Warming Globalization Globalization and Inequality Governance/Democracy HIV/AIDS Human Rights Immigration Inequality International Financial Institutions International Monetary Fund Internet Latin America Liberia Microfinance Migration Migration and Development Migration and Disaster Recovery Migration and Labor Mobility Millennium Development Goals Millions Saved Modernizing U.S. Foreign Assistance News Oil Poverty Private Investment Regions Rural Development Security and Development Technology The Future of the World Bank Trade Transparency U.S. Foreign Aid Reform UNAIDS Leadership Transition Working Group Uncategorized United Nations Weak and Fragile States Women & Gender World Bank World Bank Clean Technology Fund World Trade Organization Zimbabwe

• Popular
• 

• Tags

  Africa Agriculture Aid Effectiveness Carbon Accounting Cash on Delivery Aid China Clean Technology Fund Climate Change Commitment to Development Index Copenhagen Corruption Debt Relief Democracy Evaluation Food Aid Food Crisis Foreign Aid Reform G-20 G8 Governance Governance/Democracy Haiti HIV/AIDS Human Rights IMF Inequality International Financial Institutions Liberia MCC Microfinance Migration Migration and Population Millennium Development Goals Oil On the Hill Pakistan Poverty Private Investment Regions Rural Development Security and Development Technology Trade U.S. Presidential Elections UN USAID World Bank World Trade Organization Zimbabwe

• Comments

  Erin on Why Don’t They Want What We Know They Need?: I think it’s important to note that people in developing countries often use the same...
  
  Bill Savedoff on Why Don’t They Want What We Know They Need?: Great thread here. I think a further humbling example comes from analyzing a tribe of...
  
  April Harding on EBRD Raises the Bar for International Appointments: Interesting and perhaps a bit unintuitive isn’t it that the secretness...
  
  Shawn Cunningham on Why Don’t They Want What We Know They Need?: Dear Charles, This is a great post. I wonder if another reason could be that...
  
  Christian Meyer on It’s not an IDA world anymore: Hi Jiesheng, the point that we are trying to make here is that disbursements to the current set...
  
  

• Blogroll

  • Africa Can End Poverty
  • AidData Blog
  • Building Africa Today
  • Chris Blattman's Blog
  • CIPE Blog
  • Crisis Talk - The World Bank Group
  • Crisscrossed
  • Dani Rodrik
  • Dispatches
  • Dot Earth
  • From Poverty to Power
  • Governance Focus
  • The Guardian Global Development
  • iMFdirect
  • International Economic Law and Policy Blog
  • The Kaufmann Governance Post
  • NextBillion.net
  • ODI WebLog
  • Owen abroad
  • PFM Blog
  • Poverty News Blog
  • Pulling for the Underdog
  • Trade Diversion
  • The Undercover Economist
  • World Economic Forum Weblog
  • World Resources institute Earthtrends

• Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes & Stitcher.