Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 10 Years

11. Breakthrough to Policy Use: Reinvigorating Impact Evaluation for Global Development

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Amanda Glassman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
In 2006, when a CGD working group published its report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, very few social programs benefitted from studies that could determine whether they actually make a difference. Since then, there has been tremendous progress in harnessing better evidence to inform public policy decision making, especially from impact evaluations of programs in low- and middle-income countries. Impact evaluation is a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program, making it uniquely well suited to inform decision making about resource allocation, program design, and scale up or drawdown. But the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda, underscoring the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data. Approximately 15 million more deaths took place in 2020 and 2021 than would have occurred in the absence of COVID-19, and cumulative economic losses from the pandemic are expected to reach 13.8 trillion. Given the potential real-world benefits, why have decision makers within governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence—including from impact evaluations—for better public policies? Looking ahead, how can the development community renew momentum and broaden bases of support for impact evaluation and the wider evidence agenda? In response to these questions and building on progress to date, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact. The working group aimed to develop a renewed agenda for investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for policy use. It brought together a diverse group of policymakers and experts to review recent progress and examine how to address remaining obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development, with a focus on impact evaluation. This brief summarizes the final report of the working group. The report collates resources and insights on progress in implementing and using impact evaluations for decision making and proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice, directed to the development community—government policymakers; other multilateral, bilateral, and philanthropic funders; researchers, and NGOs
Topic:
Development, Governance, Leadership, NGOs, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. Mainstreaming Evidence Use through Locally Led Development: Recommendations for USAID

Author:
Janeen Madan Keller, Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, and Ruth Levine
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
ince the 2006 release of the CGD report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, there have been nearly two decades of progress in generating and using evidence for public policy decisions and development programs. There has been a steady increase in the number of impact evaluations—a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program. Their ability to assess attribution makes impact evaluations uniquely well suited for decision making. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda and underscored the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. Across sectors, decision makers in governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs have not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence for better public policies. Numerous challenges limit evidence use. On the demand side, impact evaluations may lack relevance to policy decisions and fail to respond to decision makers’ priorities, timelines, and questions. On the supply side, decision makers often lack institutional incentives and funding to generate and act on relevant evidence. Current funding models compound these challenges by contributing to misaligned incentives between policymaker needs and academic researchers. In response to these challenges, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact to develop a renewed agenda for the next generation of investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for real-world decision making. The group brought together policymakers and experts to review the progress and obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development. Its final report highlights how far the field has come in addressing critiques about the scale, generalizability, and policy utility of impact evaluation, and offers recommendations to the development community on “what and how to fund to deliver on the promise of impact evaluation and bolster the broader evidence ecosystem.” The working group proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice: (1) design evaluations that start from the policy question and decision space; (2) harness technology for timely, lower-cost evidence; (3) advance locally grounded evidence-to-policy partnerships; (4) enact new incentives and structures to strengthen evidence use; and (5) invest in evidence leaders and communities. This brief details how USAID can mainstream evidence use across the agency. It is based on working group discussions, numerous consultations with experts including current and former USAID staff, and background research over the course of the project.
Topic:
Development, Local, USAID, and Foreign Assistance
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

13. Is Foreign Direct Investment Losing Clout in Development?

Author:
Axel Berger and Alexandros Ragoussis
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential “World Investment Report” has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect ex¬pecta¬tions of investment growth which, however, have repeated¬ly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to develop¬ing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade. Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume. This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out: First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign invest¬ment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total invest¬ment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expan¬sionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards. We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for develop¬ment. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across develop¬ing countries. To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to: 1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy. 2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks. 3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development. 4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of invest¬ment and inform decision-making. Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Foreign Direct Investment, and Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. Options for a Loss and Damage Financial Mechanism

Author:
Michael Franczak
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
As efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change fall short, discussions around loss and damage (L&D) resulting from climate change have gained urgency. These discussions pivot on questions around financing, which remains very limited. Going into the twenty-seventh UN Climate Change Conference (COP27), the call for a new L&D financial mechanism has been raised by developing countries. This paper provides a brief overview of the state of play of global negotiations on L&D and explores options for funding arrangements for addressing L&D in the context of the positions of the G77 and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). The paper considers options related to four key questions concerning a new mechanism for financing L&D: Where will it be located? A new L&D financial mechanism could be located within the climate regime. However, there could also be complementary mechanisms outside the climate regime. Who will pay for it? There are two broad options for funding: ask for public contributions from donors or impose new taxes. An L&D financial mechanism could adopt both approaches, though some taxes could negatively impact some of the very countries advocating for L&D. Who will control it? Any mechanism should be guided by the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility and should be new and additional; needs-based, adequate, and predictable; public and grant-based; guided by vulnerability criteria; and locally driven. What will it do? The fund should make clear how L&D is both distinct from and linked to mitigation and adaptation and should take special care to address critical gaps in financing for slow-onset and noneconomic losses.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, and Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. How renewable energy transitions impact power structures in local communities

Author:
Maria-Louise Clausen
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
International donors often see renewable energy transitions in fragile and conflict-affected states as a building block for peace and development. But donor-supported transitions to small-scale renewable energy generation can both mitigate and exacerbate local conflict dynamics and undermine the central state. In fragile and conflict-affected states, it is often difficult for the central authorities to protect large-scale energy infrastructure from attacks and sabotage, and thus guarantee long-term stability. Moreover, local communities often use fuel-driven generators to supplement the state-driven national grid, but national diesel supply lines are also vulnerable to disruptions. Consequently, international donors increasingly support small-scale renewable energy generation as a climate friendly alternative to centralised and state-led energy generation. Solar photovoltaic (PV) in particular has become a widely promoted, affordable and accessible technology for local energy generation.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Development, Water, Non State Actors, Governance, Inequality, Renewable Energy, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

16. The Role of Development Actors in Responding to Environment and Security Links

Author:
Karen Meijer and Katongo Seyuba
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
Despite growing interest among development actors to integrate links between the environment, climate, peace and security into their policies and activities, practical approaches to addressing environment-related security risks are lagging behind awareness at policy level. This policy brief provides insights into how donors can incentivize implementing organizations to further develop and apply these practical approaches. It recommends support that: (a) facilitates engagement between implementing organizations and local communities, and prioritizes local knowledge and solutions; (b) builds new partnerships between implementing organizations from both the environment or climate side and the security or peacebuilding side; (c) enables the sharing of good practices and lessons learned on how to address environment-related security risks at various levels; (d) promotes the inclusion and prioritization of environment–security links in country-level policies; and (e) is more flexible in implementation, as well as engages in long-term commitments and funding.
Topic:
Security, Development, Environment, Risk, and Donors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. Climate of cooperation: How the EU can help deliver a green grand bargain

Author:
Alex Clark, Susi Dennison, and Mats Engström
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
The global transition away from carbon will fundamentally alter the EU’s dependencies on energy, raw materials, and new technologies. The bloc needs to manage these dependencies while maintaining the fragile consensus between member states on the European Green Deal and fulfilling its ambitions for global climate leadership. The EU should help deliver a green grand bargain by making use of all its sources of economic, multilateral, and soft power. The bloc should reframe the international debate on energy security to focus on clean energy resources and efficiency, engaging in the market reforms needed to incentivise this shift. The EU should make every effort to reassure countries in the global south that the green transition will not leave them behind. The Global Gateway provides a strong framework for doing this – as would an EU Co-innovation and Green Tech Diffusion Fund. The EU also needs to place European sovereignty at the centre of its internal narrative on the European Green Deal. This could help win support for the agreement from member states that are concerned about the economic and social effects of the green transition.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Science and Technology, European Union, Partnerships, Multilateralism, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

18. ‘If you want to go far, go together’ Community engagement and infrastructure development in fragile settings

Author:
Guido Lanfranchi
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
In fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS), infrastructure development is a sharp double-edged sword: it can foster sustainable and inclusive development, but it can also exacerbate fragility and conflict. This brief argues that a substantial engagement of local communities has the potential to improve the conflict sensitivity of infrastructure efforts in FCAS. To ensure that these efforts have a positive impact on fragility dynamics, however, due attention should also be paid to the specific choices made in terms of project design and implementation. The brief offers a set of pragmatic considerations aimed at supporting practitioners navigating such choices. In addition, to ensure a proper tailoring of project choices to the specific context, practitioners should also rely extensively on conflict sensitivity analyses, monitoring the interaction between the project and the context’s underlying drivers of fragility throughout the whole project cycle. While so far CDD projects have mostly focused on small-scale infrastructure, efforts should be devoted to explore whether and how CDD approaches can be applied to larger infrastructure projects.
Topic:
Development, Infrastructure, Conflict, and Fragility
Political Geography:
Global Focus

19. Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LBQTI Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LBQTI funding data explores gaps and improvements over time and identifies opportunities to increase funding for LBQ, trans, and intersex communities and movements. The brief also identifies top LBTQI funders and shares good practice examples of government and multilateral funders integrating LBQTI issues into their gender equality development programming.
Topic:
Development, LGBT+, Equality, Philanthropy, Funding, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

20. Diving Deeper: Under the surface of Intermediary Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of Intermediary funding data compares data on different types of intermediaries in order to provide greater understanding to the field about how, where, and to whom intermediaries are distributing resources. The brief also examines how government, multilateral, and private foundation funders partner with intermediaries to support global LGBTI rights and development.
Topic:
Development, Human Rights, LGBT+, Data, Philanthropy, and Funding
Political Geography:
Global Focus