We need to move forward—or backward—in what we expect development finance institutions (DFIs) to do in terms of financing private sector development in the world’s poorest countries.
CGD Policy Blogs
SDGs. Billions to trillions. South-South development cooperation. Development finance. If these terms resonate with you (positively or negatively), and you’ve never heard of the International Development Finance Club (IDFC), you should rectify that. At least, that’s the conclusion we’ve drawn after a year-long study of the IDFC and its member institutions. This work has culminated in a new CGD report, The International Development Finance Club and the Sustainable Development Goals: Impact, Opportunities, and Challenges.
CGD senior fellow Scott Morris on how the International Development Finance Club institutions could increase their development impact, and, in light of the passage of the BUILD act earlier this year, how the new US Development Finance Corporation can get off to a good start.
What would it look like today if major multilateral finance institutions like the World Bank had never adopted the climate agenda as a binding constraint on their operations? Unfortunately, we have a real-world approximation of that hypothetical in the form of Chinese development finance. At least, that’s a conclusion I draw from an important new report from World Resources Institute (WRI) and Boston University, Moving the Green Belt and Road Initiative: From Words to Actions.
The IDFC represents a unique mix of bilateral agencies, national development banks, and regional development banks. As such, it holds promise for bringing new and productive collaborations to the SDG agenda that extend well beyond the work of the major multilateral development institutions. In a new brief, our efforts to map the scale and scope of IDFC members’ development financing through a membership survey and public databases provide some interesting takeaways:
The International Finance Corporation wants to increase support for both private sector-led development and fragile states. But how viable are these goals?
This week, CGD hosted a discussion with Philippe Le Houérou, the CEO of IFC, the private sector arm of the World Bank. He was enthusiastic about his institution’s role in leveraging private capital and getting from billions to trillions of dollars for development, but he also presented a nuanced and critical judgment about the limitations of the IFC model to date, pointing to a number of ways it needs to change.
Finance and development ministers gathered in Washington this weekend at the World Bank’s annual meetings have an ambitious agenda of topics to discuss. But the truth is, it is not nearly ambitious enough. A new CGD report by a high level commission of development and finance experts explains why and what should happen.
Depending on who you listen to, the World Bank has either just launched an unprecedented reach into the domestic political affairs of sovereign nations, or it has gutted the rules that have helped define its essential character as a global norm-setter. Both can’t be right, and most likely, neither is. To better understand the objectives of the bank's newly adopted “safeguards” regime, and why I’m somewhat encouraged by it, it’s worth looking more closely at the arguments of critics on both sides.
Coloring Outside the Lines: How CGD Helped the Asian Development Bank Unlock Billions More in Development Funds
This blog is part of a special series celebrating CGD’s 15th anniversary in 2016. All year, CGD experts will look back at work we’ve done that has had real-world impact, and forward to future research that we hope will help increase global prosperity.