In this blog, we map key trends and changes in the development landscape and highlight the implications of these changes for the future of ODA. These findings were presented at the Development Leaders Conference 2021, held earlier this month. All development agencies will need to ask themselves how to better address challenges that extend beyond national boundaries and how to respond to the increasing incidence of poverty and inequality at the national level. Both approaches are linked and can co-exist. But they require a re-think of roles, practices and capacities
CGD Policy Blogs
As the world confronts the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, resources to assist developing countries recover and make the transition to a green and equitable future are scarce—scarcer than before the pandemic, given donors’ own budgetary constraints and the slowdown in global GDP growth. If there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s that whatever public financing is available must be used well.
In this blog, we draw on our newly published Finance for International Development (FID) measure, using the most up-to-date data now available (from 2018) to give an idea of the baseline efforts of the G20. We hope ministers and officials will use this information in considering the level of their and others’ financial commitments (given their income levels) and encourage a step up from the laggards—most obviously Argentina, Australia, Canada, Italy, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.
There is a lot of money being spent on official development assistance (ODA). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) confirmed recently that countries provided over $160 billion in ODA in 2020. But ten years on from the global agreement reached in Busan, South Korea to improve the quality of how development cooperation is delivered, what do we know about how well provider countries and multilateral agencies spend that money?
Among the many disparities and inequities that COVID-19 has shone a light upon, the chasm in health outcomes between rich and poor countries is being particularly sharply highlighted. While Israel, the US, the UK, and a handful of high- and upper-middle income countries are charging forward with their vaccination programmes, many of the poorest are left behind—sometimes to rapidly soaring infection rates, as in India. Universal health—that is, a basic level of health and nutrition achieved globally—seems a distant prospect.
Few would argue that collaboration and collective efforts across the multilateral development banks (MDBs) are not urgently needed. Yet while the logic and need are obvious, the actual extent of collaboration between MDBs is limited. Our recent paper explores how this gap in the international financial architecture might usefully be filled. It addresses what a new cross-MDB governing body might do and what it might look like.
Redesigning Global Europe: The EU’s Neighbourhood, Development, and International Cooperation Instrument
EU member states and the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Development Committees finally approved the new Neighbourhood, Development, and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI)—Global Europe. The instrument, worth €79.5 billion over the period 2021-2027, marks a profound transformation of EU development policy and spending.
It’s been almost a year and a half since the High-Level Group of Wise Persons published its report, setting out options for consolidating and streamlining the European development finance architecture. That report generated a sparring match between the two European development banks—the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) —as to which was better placed to become the new European Climate and Sustainable Development Bank (ECSDB)