The High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers published its report this week, concluding that the international system should take deliberate steps to seize two big opportunities to improve humanitarian aid.
CGD Policy Blogs
No one said creating development impact bonds (DIB) was going to be easy, but that hasn’t stopped the development community from trying to get them off the ground. The Fred Hollows Foundation, based in Australia, has been hard at work on a DIB to address cataract blindness in Africa. As the Foundation attracts partners to help fund and implement a pilot of the cataract bond, Dr. Lachlan McDonald, the Foundation’s senior health economist, and Alex Rankin, their Global Lead for Policy, Advocacy & Research, shared some lessons learned so far. With Lachlan and Alex’s permission, we’re turning some of those lessons over to you – we hope they’re useful to others seeking to move ahead with their own DIB.
There’s a growing consensus that humanitarian cash transfers can help to bridge the widening gap between needs and resources, empowering people affected by disaster and using local markets to deliver the goods and services we previously thought only aid agencies could provide.
International development has reached a crucial moment in its evolution. Given the great progress in much of the world in the past decade or so, the paradigm of north-south development assistance is now outdated. All countries are engaged in contributing to global development, supporting sustainability and poverty reduction locally, nationally, regionally and globally.
“We know this is crazy ambitious,” Lant Pritchett says to introduce RISE: Research on Improving Systems of Education. He’s right. The RISE program plans to study education systems reform in five countries over six years; CGD directs the research agenda.
Owen Barder says World Humanitarian Day is an opportunity to honor humanitarian workers and organisations, but also an opportunity to think about how the world can do this better.
Give a man a fish, the old adage runs, and he’ll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will eat forever. Professor Chris Blattman doesn’t think we should do either. “We’re saying don’t give a man a fish. Don’t teach a man to fish. Give them the capital to decide, first of all, whether they want to be a fisherman or something else. And if they want to be a fisherman, they can use that capital to decide, do they need a rod, do they need someone to teach them how to fish.”
The Republican presidential primary debate season starts this Thursday evening (August 6). Although the discussion won’t center on global development policy or even foreign policy, if the questions from the 2012 debates are any indication, we should expect quite a few questions on foreign policy. This time, Rob Morello hopes to hear better answers.
Mapping the Worm Wars: What the Public Should Take Away from the Scientific Debate about Mass Deworming
It was a big deal when various media outlets declared last week that the evidence to support mass deworming had been “debunked.” The debate now is not about whether children sick with worms should get treated (everyone says yes), but whether the mass treatment of all kids — including those not known to be infected — is a cost-effective way to raise school attendance. The healthiest parts of the debate have been about the need for transparency, data sharing, and more replication in science. Here, we’re going to focus here on the narrower question of the evidence for mass deworming specifically, which is where some journalists have gotten things quite wrong.