Ideas to Action:

Independent research for global prosperity

CGD Policy Blogs

 

Development in 2016 – CGD Podcast

In 2016 on the CGD Podcast, we have discussed some of development's biggest questions: How do we pay for development? How do we measure the sustainable development goals (SDGs)? What should we do about refugees and migrants? And is there life yet in the notion of globalism? The links to all the full podcasts featured and the work they reference are below, but in this edition, we bring you highlights of some of those conversations.

What World Leaders Should Know about Refugees and Migration – Podcast with Michael Clemens and Cindy Huang

The plight, peril, and potential of refugees and displaced people has been near the top of the political agenda around the world for many months, culminating in two large summits of world leaders during the UN General Assembly in New York. CGD researchers are at the leading edge of this debate, working on different but connected aspects of this problem. Michael Clemens and Cindy Huang discuss what they hope comes out of the New York summits.

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. 

The Aid Fungibility Debate and Medical Journal Peer Review

The Lancet just published a letter I wrote questioning an influential study in its pages that concluded that most or all foreign aid for health goes into non-health uses. The letter follows up on concerns I expressed in this space in April 2010. Why the 2.5-year lag? Only this past January did the Seattle-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) share the data set and computer code that it used to generate the published findings. And only with those in hand could I check my concerns and describe them to others with credibility. (I'm grateful to the kind people at IHME who gave me the data and code, but don't want to let the institution per se off the hook.)

Confusingly, in May the Public Library of Science published another critique of the same article. I questioned that reanalysis, and it was eventually retracted.

Here, I sketch my argument, comment on the reply from Chunling Lu and Christopher Murray, then call out the Lancet for a certain lack of transparency, as well as for sometimes bringing more reputation than rigor to policy-relevant social science research.

The Value of 0.7% - New Analysis by a New Rethink Analyst

The Rethink team has a new addition - research assistant Jake Grover - who joins us from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jake will be teaming with Casey Dunning to support Rethink's continuing analysis of U.S. aid programs and all things reform-related. Jake has provided the following answer to the question of just what 0.7% would look like for the U.S. aid budget.

Pages