Turn on the news these days and you’re likely to be confronted with articles about worker shortages. Nurses, cooks, construction workers, accountants, care home employees, all seem to be in demand throughout high-income countries. Despite this need, these countries currently do very little to attract migrants with vocational skills, hoping that local workers, automation, and offshoring will reduce the need.
CGD Policy Blogs
The World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), the largest single source of concessional financing for development in lower-income countries, is under-utilized in the world’s fight against pandemics, and can deploy its resources and expertise to play a much more significant role in the COVID-19 response and beyond as part of its upcoming replenishment, known as IDA20.
This is the seventh in a series of blogs looking at regional aspects of future global demographic and migration patterns discussed in my paper Global Mobility: Confronting A World Workforce Imbalance. You can read other blogs in the series here.
Make Me a Match: We Want Your Ideas to Kick-Start Promising Global Health Innovations with Demand-Side Funding
Scientific and technological innovation has the potential to save lives, reduce global poverty, and help address the most pressing global challenges—but investments in R&D are mostly directed at lucrative, high-income markets versus the health problems that affect the global poor.
With the recent allocation of special drawing rights (SDRs)—a reserve asset issued by the IMF—to help countries weather the economic effects of the pandemic, the international discussion has shifted to ways to rechannel a portion of the SDRs that were allocated to high-income economies. The focus has been on the IMF itself as the channel for getting these resources from advanced countries to vulnerable low- and middle-income countries.
The phrase “giving with one hand while taking with the other” has never been more apt than when applied to the UK’s recent approach to aid.
Under current plans, the UK will intentionally reduce the total amount of aid it makes available to developing countries by increasing its contributions to an IMF lending pot–and take credit for doing so. Because of how they are measured, the UK contributions to the IMF will displace other aid more than one-for-one, so overall, aid will be reduced.
There is no economic reason to reduce aid to accommodate such loans. Arguments about the deficit are irrelevant given that loans of this nature do not count towards it.
Here, we set out how this would work, how Treasury claims that they are simply “following the rules” do not justify this move, and what the IMF can do to mitigate the impact of this perverse move.
This is the sixth in a series of blogs looking at regional aspects of future global demographic and migration patterns discussed in my paper Global Mobility: Confronting A World Workforce Imbalance. You can read other blogs in the series here.
Amidst the debate, fears, political polarization, and regrets surrounding globalization, we cannot ignore a central reality: much of it is not reversible or even resistable. As in other periods of human history where new connections are forged between geographies and civilizations—whether driven by empire building, technological change, regime change, or climate change-driven migration—Pandora’s Box, once opened, cannot be closed. We explore the major forces that will shape globalization in the future, and the policy and institutional changes needed globally and across a broad swath of countries.
As the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund kick off next week, the Bretton Woods institutions are mired in scandal. I want to set aside the broader political calculations and focus on the case at hand: the Doing Business scandal. Facts matter, and the credibility of the World Bank and IMF matters beyond current leadership. So let’s review what we actually know about the data manipulation, how it arose, and who may be to blame, starting at the very beginning.
In May, we examined the possibility of Southeast Asian countries working together to create a regional COVID-19 Vaccination Certification (CVC) system. How far have Southeast Asian countries come in their CVC efforts? What form can certificates take and how can their authenticity be verified, given the limitations in infrastructure and capacity? Will mutual recognition of CVCs be possible when the type of vaccines and their doses differ significantly across countries in the region? We explore these questions, summarizing the discussions of a recent webinar on this very topic.