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
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?
telling other G8 countries that Canada is willing to put about $1 billion toward maternal and child health — as long as other countries ante up too… The Canadian cash will likely target poor countries with the worst records of maternal and child mortality and malnutrition.
The news follows Canadian PM Stephen Harper’s January announcement that improving maternal and child health would be his country’s signature initiative.
In keeping with a women-centered approach to development, Hillary Clinton recently announced the Secretary’s International Fund for Women and Girls, “a State Department-led public-private partnership that aims to provide flexible, rapid, targeted and high-impact grants to NGOs working to meet critical needs of women and girls around the world.” The fund, managed by the Office of Global Women’s Issues (OGWI) intends to make women and girls a priority in everything from global health to climate change. It’s thrilling to see greater emphasis on women and girls, but in the absence of the long-awaited U.S. global development strategy, the announcement looks a lot like yet another new administration initiative to add to our fragmented aid system. Our hope is that there are clear plans for how the fund will prioritize women and girls across the wide range of U.S. development efforts—including the $63 billion Global Health Initiative (GHI)—to achieve broader foreign policy goals of global prosperity and security.
Aside from how the new fund fits in to the foreign assistance puzzle, there are a few other questions that potential investors will ask of the fund managers:
Why is the World Health Organization (WHO) facing a financial crisis at a time when international support for global health issues has never been higher? The answer to this question cannot be found in any of the documents circulated for the 2011 World Health Assembly this week, but most observers cite three contributing factors: donors question the WHO’s performance, new organizations dedicated to specific issues have assumed responsibility for large parts of the global health agenda, and the WHO lacks a vision for its role and specific priorities within this new multi-faceted global health community.
This week The New York Times Magazine is dedicated to a single theme: women. The main attraction of this special issue is a stirring essay by journalists Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, who write passionately about the great moral, national security and economic development imperatives of investing in the world’s women and girls. The “women’s crusade” they call for seems already to have begun. A few pages beyond, an interview with Secretary Clinton heralds the start of a “new gender agenda” at the highest reaches of the U.S. foreign policy. Also noted is the growing philanthropic attention to the cause of women and girls – a trend that will be further evidenced next month, when the issue headlines at the annual (Bill) Clinton Global Initiative meetings in NYC.