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.
HIV/AIDS, population and reproductive health, women's health, social science methods and public health research, India, South and Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa
Nandini Oomman was director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor at the Center for Global Development from March 2006 until December 2011. As director, Oomman led three research teams in Uganda, Mozambique, and Zambia to track the effectiveness of the three main aid responses to the epidemic: the Global Fund, the HIV/AIDS Africa MAP program of the World Bank, and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This collaborative initiative, the first of its kind at CGD, allowed country-based researchers to examine key issues in the design, delivery and management of these donor programs, and provided timely analyses to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of each initiative.
Oomman, N. & J. Gittelsohn. (2002) Qualitative Methods in Gynecological Morbidity Research, in Research Approaches to the Study of Reproductive tract Infections and Other Gynaecological Disorders (eds. Shireen J Jejeebhoy, Michael A Koenig and Christopher Elias). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
Oomman, N. (2000) Gynecological Morbidity in India: A Decade of Research on Reproductive Tract Infections (RTIs) and other Gynaecological Morbidity in India: What we know and what we don’t know, In Readings in Women’s Reproductive Health in India, (eds. R. Ramasubban, & S. Jejeebhoy). Centre for Social and Technological Change, Rawat Publications, Mumbai, India.
Oomman N, & B. Ganatra. (2002) Sex Selection: The Systematic Elimination of Girls Reproductive Health Matters, 10 (19): 184-188
I recently had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting between donor and high-level Ministry of Health representatives in an African country. In a white-washed public health center with high ceiling fans whirring the tension-filled air, I witnessed a scenario that sadly demonstrated that country ownership and the process of re-thinking global health partnerships is perhaps a long way off. The donors were irate that some money they had given to a common fund had been misappropriated, and they wanted to pull all of their money out. The ministry officials who had survived the scandal were frustrated. In their view, they had done well to identify and fire the accused--they felt that the ministry should get credit that their system works to catch corrupt officials. Not a new story, but one that got me thinking about how findings from the HIV/AIDS Monitor’s research in Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia could shed some light on the issue of country ownership in the context of new U.S. global health priorities.
The HIV/AIDS Monitor tracks the aid effectiveness of the three biggest financing mechanisms responding to the epidemic: the Global Fund, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the World Bank Africa MAP. Despite a common commitment to fighting the disease, each donor approaches the problem differently. New short profiles of the big three provide a snapshot of the global response to HIV/AIDS.
CGD's HIV/AIDS Monitor team has suggested in a policy memo addressed to the U.S. President-Elect and his Transition Team that the new administration move quickly to publicly release data from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Releasing funding and programmatic data which have already been collected at tax payer expense would make possible informed analysis on the impact of the billions of dollars that the U.S. spends to help developing countries address the pandemic, and thereby help to increase the impact of spending going forward.
At a recent CGD breakfast with Johnny West on his new book Karama! Journeys Through the Arab Spring, our colleague Mead Over asked how women would benefit from the Arab Spring. Though he speaks Arabic and has spent 20 years in the region, West didn’t have much to share about the role and prospects of women. As West explained, he had very few opportunities to interact with women. Unfortunately, this is a piece of a broader reality: even when women have played a huge role in protest movements, they are rarely represented in accounts of the revolution.
The much-anticipated Women Deliver 2010 conference opened with a rousing call for global action for women’s health. A star-studded line-up of health and development leaders committed themselves and urged others to do more to reduce child and maternal deaths. The rhetoric and passion sounds a lot like the calls we heard fifteen years ago that went unheeded. Today there is a second chance for the world to deliver for women. Will this time be different?