In warning APEC leaders last week of China’s “constricting belt” and “one-way road,” Vice President Mike Pence provided the clearest signal yet that the US approach to foreign assistance will be shaped, if not determined, by competition with China. In the context of the administration’s trade war with China, this may not come as much of a surprise. But when it comes to the conduct of foreign assistance, it marks a striking turn away from the bipartisan approach to aid since the end of the Cold War—an approach defined around cooperation and one aimed at curbing the bad practices that arise when donors compete for the allegiance of aid recipients.
CGD Policy Blogs
Next week in Zambia, donors to the World Bank’s financing window for low-income countries, the International Development Association (IDA), meet to discuss IDA’s future. This “mid-term review” is both a stocktaking session and a teeing up of the next round of fundraising for the world’s largest concessional lending fund. Formal negotiations will commence next year, but the meetings in Zambia set the scene for those negotiations.
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.
In most developing countries, China's role as a creditor is modest—but in eight of the most debt vulnerable countries, Chinese lending is significant and growing fast.
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:
Why should countries invest in human capital? As emerging technologies impact economies and societies, how can we ensure that the most vulnerable are protected? Who will step up to finance the SDGs? Next week’s Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF will convene 13,000 global policymakers, private sector executives, academics, and civil society members in Bali, Indonesia as they work to address these questions and more.
The Trump administration is worried about the role of Chinese finance in spreading Marxism around the developing world. But it’s Chico Marx, not Karl, that they should be focused on.
On September 19, the Center for Global Development will convene representatives from the leading multilateral development funds, their donors and recipients, and independent experts to discuss the next round of negotiations that will determine how much money these funds will have available in the years ahead and how they will spend it.
Scott Morris investigates why that might be—and makes the case for a stronger response.
The International Finance Corporation wants to increase support for both private sector-led development and fragile states. But how viable are these goals?