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.
Once I was an outsider to the murky debate over the meaning of the influential Pitt & Khandker study of the impact of microcredit on poverty in Bangladesh (the debate being between Jonathan Morduch and Mark Pitt). Struggling to understand its practical implications, I found myself drawn into it and eventually became an insider.
Holden Karnofsky of GiveWell was in roughly the same position as I started in---and just responded in his own analytical style, which is probably a lot wiser and more efficient than mine. Instead of immersing himself in the methodological issues, he takes a step back and draws some good lessons:
Strive to understand the details of a study before counting it as evidence. Many “headline claims” in studies rely on heavy doses of assumption and extrapolation. This is more true for some studies than for others.
If a study’s assumptions, extrapolations and calculations are too complex to be easily understood, this is a strike against the study. Complexity leaves more room for errors and judgment calls, and means it’s less likely that meaningful critiques have had the chance to emerge. Note that before the 2009 response to the study discussed here was ever published, GiveWell took it with a grain of salt due to its complexity (see quote above). Randomized controlled trials tend to be relatively easy to understand; this is a point in their favor.
If a study does not disclose the full details of its data and calculations, this is another strike against it - and this phenomenon is more common than one might think.
Context is key. We often see charities or their supporters citing a single study as “proof” of a strong statement (about, for example, the effectiveness of a program). We try not to do this - we generally create broad overviews of the evidence on a given topic and source our statements to these.
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
Recently CGD hosted the Second Annual Birdsall House Conference on Women, which focused on beyond-aid approaches for women’s economic empowerment, with particular emphasis on private sector engagement. CGD experts have written about how international organizations and national agencies should examine and correct gender biases in the design and delivery of their strategies for financial inclusion. But while public sector interventions are crucial for promoting women’s economic empowerment, the panelists pointed out that the private sector is in many ways better equipped to provide opportunities for women to grow their businesses, investments, and incomes. Here’s our takeaway.
On Monday, Grant Shapps, the UK's Minister of State at the Department for International Development, kicked off DFID’s Energy Africa campaign at an event hosted by the Shell Foundation designed to help his team figure out how the UK government can invest its political clout and an initial £30 million ($46 million) to tackle rural energy poverty in Africa. Given solar’s limitations and these risks, how can we make sure that Energy Africa fulfils Minister Shapps’s ambitious brief?