CGD Policy Blogs
In a nearly unprecedented gesture for a sitting head of state, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf joined the Senate Foreign Relations African Affairs subcommittee hearing on “The Ebola Epidemic: The Keys to Success for the International Response” to provide a statement, as well as to answer questions.
The policy debate around whether foreign aid—now $138.5 billion a year—works has been polarized between the “Oh yes it does” camp and those who respond “Oh no it doesn’t.” (Christmas pantomime anyone?)
There is no denying that interest in Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) is steadily growing: with investments coming from big banks like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch and approximately 26 SIBs implemented in industrialized countries across the globe (see below for a more detailed listing), an evidence base is starting to accumulate on what works and what doesn’t.
Last September, we released a report on how the Global Fund could get more health for its money. In it, we offered concrete suggestions for improvements in several different value-for-money domains, all with an eye toward maximizing the health impact of every dollar spent.
In recent years, donors have been making greater use of performance-based payment approaches to fund development programs. The UK Department for International Development, using the broader term being used across the UK government, has added “Payment by Results” (PbR) to the development lexicon.
Just by saying the word “Rohingya” last week in Myanmar, President Obama entered the fray of a decades-long struggle for rights among the Muslim minority group in Myanmar.
In the big federal countries where global disease burden is concentrated, most public money for health isn’t ultimately spent by the national ministry of health, the traditional counterpart for global health funders and technical agencies.
The United States has enjoyed the privileged position of largest shareholder and donor at the World Bank and IMF since the institutions’ founding 70 years ago.
For the first time in its seven-decade-long history, World Bank staff staged a work stoppage earlier this month. Staff are unhappy about the “Change Process,” aka the ongoing internal reorganization that President Kim initiated on his arrival at the bank now more than two years ago.