The research organization Aid Data has been getting a lot of attention in the aid world of late with its survey of recipient country policymakers and practitioners and their views of the utility, influence and helpfulness during reform of various aid agencies. Suggests the press release: “According to nearly 6,750 policymakers and practitioners, the development partners that have the most influence on policy priorities in their low-income and middle-income countries are not large Western donors like the United States or UK. Instead it is large multilateral institutions like the World Bank, the GAVI Alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria." That conclusion is based on average worldwide agency scores from the survey.
CGD Policy Blogs
Recent research overturns the standard narrative about refugee crises: that addressing them mainly means curtailing the conflict and poverty that “push” migrants away from home and slashing the excessive generosity that “pull” them into other countries. Instead, pragmatic and self-interested policymakers should consider that they often waste resources when trying to reduce push factors, and they can spark an inhumane and inefficient race to the bottom by acting individually to reduce pull factors. Through broad international cooperation to get people out of camps and into the labor force, though, they can transform refugees from a burden into an investment.
Rigorous evaluations show giving poor people cash is a very effective policy. But polls show poor Tanzanians would rather have government services.
This is part II in our blog series about poll results from Tanzania on managing the country’s newfound natural gas wealth. Read part I on fuel subsidies and stay tuned for part III on transparency.
How can poor countries beat the resource curse? CGD research fellow Justin Sandefur returns to the Podcast hotseat to update us on a project that posed this question to ordinary people in Tanzania. CGD teamed up with REPOA to bring hundreds of Tanzanians to Dar es Salaam to debate what to do with that country’s newly-discovered natural gas deposits. This week, Justin is back to share the project’s results.
Experts worry letting ordinary citizens manage resource windfalls will lead to populism. We ran a randomized trial in deliberative democracy in Tanzania to find out.
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.
A couple years ago, Alan Krueger, then chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, made a big splash by highlighting a relationship he christened “The Great Gatsby Curve.” Simply put, data from multiple OECD countries showed that high income inequality was associated with less economic mobility.
A couple weeks ago we got to spend two days listening to an all-star line-up of education researchers present the current state of the art in “Research on Improving Systems of Education,” aka RISE. Here’s what we learned.
The global policy debate about education is in the midst of a major pivot, of the kind that happens maybe once every quarter-century, from a conversation about how to increase enrollment to one about learning.