Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 3 Years

601. Leveraging Knowledge Generation for Policy Impact: Recommendations for the World Bank

Author:
Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Since the 2006 release of the CGD report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, there have been nearly two decades of progress in generating and using evidence for public policy decisions and development programs. There has been a steady increase in the number of impact evaluations—a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program. Their ability to assess attribution makes impact evaluations uniquely well suited for decision making. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda and underscored the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. Across sectors, decision makers in governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs have not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence for better public policies. Numerous challenges limit evidence use. On the demand side, impact evaluations may lack relevance to policy decisions and fail to respond to decision makers’ priorities, timelines, and questions. On the supply side, decision makers often lack institutional incentives and funding to generate and act on relevant evidence. Current funding models compound these challenges by contributing to misaligned incentives between policymaker needs and academic researchers. In response to these challenges, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact to develop a renewed agenda for the next generation of investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for real-world decision making. The group brought together policymakers and experts to review the progress and obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development. Its final report highlights how far the field has come in addressing critiques about the scale, generalizability, and policy utility of impact evaluation, and offers recommendations to the development community on “what and how to fund to deliver on the promise of impact evaluation and bolster the broader evidence ecosystem.” The working group proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice: (1) design evaluations that start from the policy question and decision space; (2) harness technology for timely, lower-cost evidence; (3) advance locally grounded evidence-to-policy partnerships; (4) enact new incentives and structures to strengthen evidence use; and (5) invest in evidence leaders and communities.
Topic:
International Cooperation, World Bank, Finance, and Banking
Political Geography:
Global Focus

602. Mainstreaming Evidence Use through Locally Led Development: Recommendations for USAID

Author:
Janeen Madan Keller, Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, and Ruth Levine
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
ince the 2006 release of the CGD report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, there have been nearly two decades of progress in generating and using evidence for public policy decisions and development programs. There has been a steady increase in the number of impact evaluations—a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program. Their ability to assess attribution makes impact evaluations uniquely well suited for decision making. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda and underscored the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. Across sectors, decision makers in governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs have not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence for better public policies. Numerous challenges limit evidence use. On the demand side, impact evaluations may lack relevance to policy decisions and fail to respond to decision makers’ priorities, timelines, and questions. On the supply side, decision makers often lack institutional incentives and funding to generate and act on relevant evidence. Current funding models compound these challenges by contributing to misaligned incentives between policymaker needs and academic researchers. In response to these challenges, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact to develop a renewed agenda for the next generation of investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for real-world decision making. The group brought together policymakers and experts to review the progress and obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development. Its final report highlights how far the field has come in addressing critiques about the scale, generalizability, and policy utility of impact evaluation, and offers recommendations to the development community on “what and how to fund to deliver on the promise of impact evaluation and bolster the broader evidence ecosystem.” The working group proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice: (1) design evaluations that start from the policy question and decision space; (2) harness technology for timely, lower-cost evidence; (3) advance locally grounded evidence-to-policy partnerships; (4) enact new incentives and structures to strengthen evidence use; and (5) invest in evidence leaders and communities. This brief details how USAID can mainstream evidence use across the agency. It is based on working group discussions, numerous consultations with experts including current and former USAID staff, and background research over the course of the project.
Topic:
Development, Local, USAID, and Foreign Assistance
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

603. A Package of Reforms for Financing Pandemic Preparedness and Response for the G7

Author:
Amanda Glassman and Eleni Smitham
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
COVID-19 has shown the detrimental consequences of insufficient and fragmented financing for outbreak preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR). As the world seeks to recover from the current COVID-19 pandemic, and to mitigate recovery needs for future health crises, more must be done to accelerate global efforts to ensure rapid, adequate funding and governance for global health security, which has been under-resourced and under-prioritized. The rationale for reforming and replenishing the global health architecture to prepare for the next pandemic is clear: to protect health, human lives, and economic well-being.[1] Without dedicated and accelerated investment—in scaled up surveillance, strengthened national health systems, enhanced research and development of medical countermeasures, and more—we will continue to face more frequent and more complex epidemics and pandemics in the years ahead, and be less prepared to stop them.[2] Without the capacity to surge financing to respond at-scale to infectious disease outbreaks, we risk a repeat of the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Last July, the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP) on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, mandated by the Italian Presidency of the G20, released the report A Global Deal for Our Pandemic Age, laying out policies and investments needed to reduce vulnerabilities to future pandemics.[3] Likewise, in 2021, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response[4] described the shortcomings of the existing architecture and suggested similar policies for the future, including greater assessed contributions for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the need for dedicated financing to prevent and prepare for the next COVID-19 variant and pandemic risk. The Global Preparedness and Monitoring Board’s periodic reports went in this same direction[5] , as did earlier assessments following Ebola, SARS and MERS outbreaks though recommendations often went without implementation.[6] These reports and the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic itself have again made clear that existing mechanisms for financing pandemic preparedness and response are not fit-for-purpose, nor at the sufficient speed and scale needed to ensure global health security. Current financing for pandemic preparedness is small, fragmented, and concentrated in the health sector.[7] Different organizations across the global health and international financial institution architecture hold different comparative advantages in mobilizing and deploying monies and need to be fully financed to do what they are best suited to do. However, no institution (that is adequately funded, credible, and capable) is currently mandated to or accountable for ensuring pandemic preparedness, resulting in financing and accountability gaps, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where Global Health Security Action Plans too often go un-costed and unfunded.[8] Further, new regional organizations and groupings are leaders in their own development, and must be a central part of a new global health security architecture—the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Forum for the Progress and Development of South America (PROSUR), among others, are examples. Adequate reforms and robust replenishments of global health organizations new and old are needed to ensure stronger global health security and pandemic preparedness now and in the future. External funders should take a comprehensive view of the major global health initiatives and consider how a range of reforms, when combined, have the potential to respond more coherently and efficiently to the financing demands related to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, other macro risks that affect public spending on health, and in the face of future health threats. There are reasons for optimism. Unlike the experience during previous pandemic threats, COVID-19 has finally seen the International Monetary Fund become more aware and vocal on the need to address both COVID-19 and future pandemic risks as “systemic risk(s) to the global economy, not just the development […] of a particular country.”[9] Finance, health and development policymakers are increasingly coming together in different fora and recognizing the need to invest across sectors and to connect the international financial architecture with health initiatives in ways that will deliver better outcomes.[10]
Topic:
Reform, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

604. The Future of the European Financial Architecture for Development

Author:
Mikaela Gavas
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
In “The European Financial Architecture for Development: evolution or revolution,” Mikaela Gavas sets out the current European Development finance landscape, explaining the key players involved and highlights the challenges with the current systems, and underlines the importance of the EU and its various instruments.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Governance, European Union, and European Parliament
Political Geography:
Europe

605. A Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness

Author:
Amanda Glassman, Eleni Smitham, and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The COVID-19 crisis has served as a painful demonstration that no country is fully prepared for a pandemic and that the existing global health architecture remains ill-equipped to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR). The rationale for preventing and containing pandemics is self-evident: the price of preparedness is a fraction of the cost of responding to catastrophic outbreaks, both in terms of human and economic well-being.[1] In the aftermath of the 2003 SARS outbreak, 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak, experts called for scaling up sustainable financing to ensure the world was better prepared to face that next global health threat. But even amid efforts to better understand and measure preparedness gaps,[2] little action was taken to mobilize financing and incentivize investments in strengthening detection, prevention, and response capabilities. As global health threats evolve, countries’ capacity to prepare for and respond to disease outbreaks is increasingly a global imperative. Now is the time to take concrete steps toward establishing sustained financing for pandemic PPR to help bring an end to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, combat future health security threats, and break the costly cycle of neglect.
Topic:
Security, Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

606. Responding to Afghanistan’s Humanitarian Crisis: The Potential Role of Digital Payments

Author:
Michael Pisa
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis continues to worsen, with the World Food Programme (WFP) reporting that 22.8 million people—more than half the country’s population—are projected to be acutely food insecure in 2022, including 8.7 million at risk of famine-like conditions.[1] Even before the Taliban took over the country on August 15, 2021, Afghanistan’s economy was buckling under the weight of the country’s worst drought in decades, a deteriorating security situation, and the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] Financial flows into Afghanistan collapsed immediately after the Taliban takeover, as foreign aid was cut, private sector activity fell sharply, and foreign banks and money service providers (collectively: “financial service providers” or FSPs) refused to process payments into the country for fear of inadvertently violating sanctions and anti-money laundering and the countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulations. The exceptional nature of the situation hampers efforts to resume normal financial flows to Afghanistan. Never before has an organization designated as a terrorist group by the United States assumed control of an entire jurisdiction.[3] The United States and other countries responded to this novel circumstance by freezing the country’s foreign exchange reserves held abroad; keeping in place sanctions that criminalize most transactions with the Taliban; and denying official recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate head of the Afghan state, which has prevented the Afghan central bank (Da Afghanistan Bank or DAB) from maintaining correspondent accounts with foreign banks. Cumulatively, these measures have limited access to US dollars in the Afghan economy, leaving Afghans unable to pay for the food, fuel, and imported intermediate inputs their economy relies on.
Topic:
Security, Economy, Humanitarian Crisis, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and Middle East

607. ABCs of the IFIs: Understanding IDA20

Author:
Jocilyn Estes and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
With the COVID-19 pandemic hitting government balance sheets especially hard in low-income countries, the World Bank’s shareholders—including the United States—agreed to an advance replenishment of its grant and low-interest loan window, the International Development Association (IDA). By holding a pledging session one year early, donors sought to ensure IDA, which serves the world’s poorest countries, would have the resources to provide financing where it was needed most. In December 2021, following the final meeting of the 20th replenishment of IDA (IDA20), the World Bank announced a $93 billion replenishment package, leveraging $23.5 billion in contributions from 48 high- and middle-income countries. The United States reclaimed its position as IDA’s top donor, pledging $3.5 billion over three years to support pandemic response and an economic rebound in the world’s poorest countries. The United States has long had a vested interest in the World Bank, and in IDA in particular, working to ensure it is well run and resourced appropriately, and that its policy agenda reflects US interests. The US Congress plays a pivotal role in overseeing US engagement with the institution—managed by the Treasury Department—and providing funding to enable the US to meet its commitments. Due to the acceleration of IDA19, the US has two IDA installments due this year. The president’s fiscal year 2023 (FY23) budget request includes funding for a final payment to deliver on its IDA19 commitment and a partial first installment toward the latest US pledge to IDA.
Topic:
Development, Multilateralism, Sustainability, and Banking
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

608. Recommendations for US-Africa Space Cooperation and Development

Author:
Rose Croshier
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The United States, a leader in space exploration and innovation, has a unique opportunity to establish enduring diplomatic, commercial, and security ties with African nations through space cooperation—with the potential to yield substantial development benefits. The U.S. space sector is robust, an area of comparative strength vis-à-vis Europe, Russia, and China. By driving space cooperation, the U.S. can reinforce the rules-based order as articulated in international agreements like the Artemis Accords. Expanded space capabilities can also support the achievement of several of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which range from improving data-driven governance to closing the global digital gap. U.S. policymakers have an opportunity to implement a collaborative approach with emerging African space actors both to grow a peaceful and law-abiding community in space and to benefit from Africa's contributions to the global space ecosystem. Space capability can also serve a crucial infrastructure role, yielding similar benefits to “traditional” infrastructure—including facilitating access to 5G connectivity through low orbit satellites and addressing clean water and food security needs through remote sensing and satellite communications.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Space, and Territory
Political Geography:
Africa, North America, and United States of America

609. Governing the Global Commons: Challenges and Opportunities for US-Japan Cooperation

Author:
Kristi Govella, John Bradford, Kyoko Hatakeyama, Saadia M. Pekkanen, Setsuko Aoki, James Lewis, and Motohiro Tsuchiya
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The global commons—domains beyond the sovereign jurisdiction of any single state but to which all states have access—are essential to the stability and prosperity of the international order. In addition to the high seas, outer space, the atmosphere, and Antarctica, which are defined as global commons by international law, analysts have also suggested that other domains such as cyberspace may also qualify as potential commons. These domains provide essential public goods such as trade routes, transportation and communication networks, fish stocks, satellite imagery, global positioning, and e-commerce infrastructure that benefit countries around the world. To successfully manage the resources of the global commons and ensure open access to their spaces, effective governance structures must exist to accommodate and integrate the interests and responsibilities of state and non-state actors. Consequently, states have tried to come to agreements in each domain about how to enable broad access, avoid conflict, and enable cooperation. Over time, these discussions have resulted in the creation for each domain of a “regime,” a set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge (see Box 1). These regimes can take shape in the form of international law, national law, local regulations, private standards, and institutional bodies. They differ dramatically in maturity and complexity: the governance regime of the oceans has developed over the course of centuries, while the rules and norms of cyberspace have only had a few decades to coalesce. However, all these regimes attempt to solve similar dilemmas surrounding shared access and resources.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, Democracy, Economy, Trade, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
East Asia, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

610. NATO and Societal Resilience: All Hands on Deck in an Age of War

Author:
Edward Hunter Christie and Kristine Berzina
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Prior to 2022, NATO and the European Union were already moving toward more comprehensive approaches to resilience. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine heightens the need for such work, with a sharper focus on scenarios of armed attack. In view of decisions taken at NATO’s recent Madrid summit and the evolution of EU legislation, all alliance members will benefit from close liaison work and reciprocal briefings between relevant NATO and European Commission officials as well as through the NATO Resilience Committee and the European Critical Entities Resilience Group. Three new functions should be added to the NATO baseline requirements: payment systems, psychological defense, and continuity of data and infrastructure software. The forthcoming membership of Finland and Sweden will provide NATO with particularly valuable national best practices, notably in terms of coherence, robustness, quality of cooperation across government and society, and engagement with the population.
Topic:
NATO, Resilience, Society, Russia-Ukraine War, and Defense Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe