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
In two new papers published today, we document some uncomfortable facts about how official development assistance (ODA) is distributed across countries at different income levels and levels of poverty—even among members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), and how poorly informed senior and mid-ranking donor officials are about this.
The DAC should consider whether alternative ways of measuring loans would strike a better balance between accurately measuring donor effort and incentivising lending to poorer countries, or if the latter is an appropriate objective for statistical rules.
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?
In a paper and blog, the authors examine the distribution of aid among countries at different income levels and focus on the aid going to middle-income countries (MICs).
Ministers are gathering at the UN this week to discuss the financing needs to meet the Global Goals—with the challenge that resources will clearly fall short, not least because most high-income countries are still failing to meet their financial commitments. We reviewed the pathways taken by the countries that agreed to the UN 0.7 percent target on overseas development assistance as a share of national income, and find that—perhaps unsurprisingly—aid as a share of the economy rises with per capita income.
To better understand CDC’s unique experience with equity, including how it helps the London-based agency achieve development impact—and with an eye toward lessons for the USDFC—we posed a series of questions to CDC’s Chief Operating Officer, Colin Buckley.
I’ve been given two kinds of arguments in support of not borrowing for social sector projects. The first is about their ability to repay the borrowing by generating enough foreign exchange. And the second is skepticism about the productivity of government spending in these areas. Let me take each in turn.