Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 3 Years

10271. Who’s Responsible for Climate Change? New Evidence Based on Country-Level Estimates of Climate Debt

Author:
Benedict Clements, Sanjeev Gupta, and Jianhong Liu
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
In this paper, we introduce the concept of climate debt and provide country-level estimates through 2035 under a business-as-usual scenario. These estimates can help inform the debate on climate change by providing a clear view of which countries have (until the present) contributed the most to climate change, as well as the likely path for climate debt by country over the next 15 years. We then discuss the implications for carbon emissions if the G-20 countries and EU were to adopt either of the two policy options proposed in recent months: the first by President Biden for the US and the other by the EU for its member countries. The implications for fiscal policy are that beyond the need to keep public debt at sustainable levels, countries will also need to allocate funds for expected increases in pension and health spending associated with aging populations. As a result, there may be little room for new expenditures (such as green infrastructure or subsidies for clean energy) to reduce the growth of climate debt. Countries could turn to the revenue side, in particular greater taxation of energy with carbon taxes. This would have the advantage of reducing emissions while also helping countries to fund spending on green infrastructure.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Humanitarian Response, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10272. Mapping China’s Participation in Multilateral Development Institutions and Funds

Author:
Scott Morris, Rowan Rockafellow, and Sarah Rose
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
China has emerged as a leading participant in multilateral development organizations. In many ways, this is a welcome development. Today’s global challenges, including COVID-19 and climate change, require an international response and have prompted renewed calls for increased multilateral engagement by the major economy countries. This, combined with the recognition of multilateral institutions’ high standards for transparency and environmental safeguards, have led the United States at times to encourage China to step up its multilateral contributions. At the same time, countervailing voices focused on strategic competition increasingly view China’s multilateral participation with skepticism. When the People’s Republic of China joined the World Bank in 1980, it was allocated 12,000 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) shares, becoming the Bank’s sixth largest shareholder with 3.47 percent of the of the voting power. By 2013, decades of rapid economic growth had propelled China to its current position as the IBRD’s third largest shareholder, eclipsing France, Germany, and the United Kingdom with 5.03 percent of IBRD voting power. In many ways, China’s rise in stature at the IBRD mirrors its growth in influence across the multilateral development system. This is certainly true of China’s increasing voting share in the World Bank, IMF, and UN system, all of which tie financial contributions to economic size (see Figure 1). But China’s growing importance in the multilateral system is also the product of distinct policy choices made by the Chinese government. These policy choices go beyond the wealth-based financial contributions that dictate IBRD shareholding to include voluntary financing, borrowing, and commercial contracting. In concert, they make China a unique player in the multilateral system by virtue of to its simultaneous roles as a multilateral organization donor, shareholder, aid recipient, and commercial partner.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Multilateralism, and Participation
Political Geography:
China and Asia

10273. Mapping China’s Multilateralism: A Data Survey of China’s Participation in Multilateral Development Institutions and Funds

Author:
Scott Morris, Rowan Rockafellow, and Sarah Rose
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
A considerable body of recent research attempts to shed light on China’s bilateral aid and finance flows, but there have been fewer efforts focused on China’s participation in multilateral development channels. As a result, China’s role across the landscape of multilateral institutions and funds is poorly understood, even as China has emerged as a leading donor within many of these entities. Part of China’s increased multilateral engagement reflects its economic growth, with shareholding and assessed contributions based largely on economic size. But the government of China’s policy choices are also revealed, in part, through its patterns of voluntary funding, cooperation agreements, and influence through personnel instated in leadership positions. By collating data on China’s financial and non-financial engagement with multilateral development banks and other financial institutions, sector-based vertical funds, and the development entities of the United Nations, among others, this paper seeks to provide a clear picture of China’s role in the multilateral development system and the evolution of that role over the past decade. This assessment brings to light the weight of China’s voting power across the multilateral development banks, the extent to which Chinese firms benefit from procurement opportunities in multilateral institutions, and the degree to which China has achieved a singular position of being a large-scale donor and recipient in the multilateral system.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Hegemony, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
China and Asia

10274. Meeting the Global Health Challenge to Reduce Death and Disability from Alcohol, Tobacco, and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption with Corrective Taxes

Author:
Chris Lane and Vinayak Bhardwaj
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Behind the daily trauma of COVID-19 lies a larger and longer-lasting global health challenge resulting from the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages. Using a sample of 25 large advanced and emerging market economies accounting for three-quarters of global GDP, we show that about 60 million productive life years were lost every year in 2000, 2010, and 2019 from death and disability attributable to alcohol, tobacco, and diets high in sugar-sweetened beverages. Using the cost-of-illness framework, the economic value of these lost productive years in 2019 is approximately $2.1 trillion in our country sample (in 2017 purchasing power parity dollars [PPP$]). We show that over a 20-year period, a higher tax effort is associated with larger reductions in economic costs. We also show that total corrective taxes for all the products under investigation fall far short of the indirect costs of consumption in all countries. We conclude that all advanced economies and emerging markets could reap substantial macroeconomic benefits from better health by raising corrective taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by introducing corrective taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.
Topic:
Health, Disability, Tax Systems, Health Crisis, and Addiction
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10275. Navigating the Straits: Pull Financing for Climate and Development Outcomes

Author:
Ranil Dissanayake
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
An increasing share of official development assistance is being used for climate-related activities. This trend is continuing despite the lack of comprehensive cost-effectiveness evidence to guide spending decisions and continuing concerns that few applications are effective or efficient mechanisms for either climate or development outcomes. This represents both a waste of scarce resources and a missed opportunity. This paper proposes that a well-designed pull financing mechanism, which identifies specific problems for which it will pay a pre-specified price for solutions that can scale up, has the potential to navigate these problems. When they work, a pull instrument can solve problems at scale at low cost by incentivizing private innovators to produce a socially beneficial product that people want to buy and use. However, the design challenges associated with them are not trivial: firstly, the identification and selection of technologies or problems for which the pull financing facility would be a sufficiently large portion of the market to shift incentives for innovators or producers (for technologies that exist but have not been taken up widely yet); and secondly, the ability to design contracts that incentivize socially beneficial innovation that are bought and used. This paper sets out the case for pull financing for climate and development activities, the challenges that need to be addressed to do it well, criteria for judging potential applications of pull financing and an initial indication of some sectors to which pull financing may be applied.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Environment, and Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10276. Translating Results-Based Financing from Theory to Operational Reality: Lessons from the Practical Application of RBF at the European Commission

Author:
Rachel Silverman
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
esults-based financing (RBF) is one of several broad approaches to finance official development assistance (ODA) “that attempt[s] to connect at least a portion of payment to the verified achievement of results.” Despite some relatively high-profile programs and pilots—and broad interest and curiosity—RBF approaches have yet to penetrate the routine operations of large institutional grant- and contract-based funders, many of which are governed by complex bureaucracies, restrictive financial regulations, and deeply entrenched, risk-averse corporate cultures. The European Commission (EC) is one large and influential donor that has shown a long-standing interest in RBF approaches but is still in initial phases of implementation. Informed by a research partnership between the Center for Global Development (CGD) and EC Commission Directorate-General for International Partnerships (INTPA), this Policy Paper reflects on the experience and lessons learned in attempting to operationalize RBF at scale within a large funder of ODA, with important implications for the broader international development community. Starting at the macro level, it considers the institutional prerequisites for adoption of RBF within a donor agency—in this case, the European Commission/INTPA. It then zooms into the project-level design and negotiation process, including the choice of implementing partner (in this case a United Nations agency) and political and technical stumbling blocks. It concludes with a discussion of remaining challenges for broader use.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and Finance
Political Geography:
Europe

10277. How Do Humanitarian Donors Make Decisions, and What Is the Scope for Change?

Author:
Rose Worden and Patrick Saez
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
n this policy paper we review donor responses to a survey and interviews to probe the effects of the broader political and economic context in which donors operate, and identify internal constraints on humanitarian funding, planning, and making allocative decisions. We identify and highlight perceived and real constraints with which donors contend when making decisions on how to allocate limited resources. The way humanitarian donors fund is key to system-wide efficiency, effectiveness, and reforms in the humanitarian system. Donors face competing priorities when engaging in humanitarian response. They care about retaining control, must rely on limited information sources to inform decisions, and balance their approaches with other foreign policy objectives. Institutional legacies, trust, and visibility for their efforts also matter to donors. These factors have shaped how donors have approach their current commitments to Grand Bargain reforms as donors prepare to engage with the newest iteration of reform—the Grand Bargain 2.0.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Reform, Institutions, and Donors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10278. Are Development Finance Institutions Good Value for Money?

Author:
Paddy Carter
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Finance institutions take money from foreign aid budgets to invest in private enterprises. How much should they be given? We can make some progress on that question by looking at the return on investment in the form of higher real incomes for workers and customers, and comparing that to a cash transfer benchmark. There is considerable uncertainty, but what evidence we have suggests returns on investment are in a range that compares well to that benchmark. There is also a diversification argument that because we don’t know which of the things that aid can finance will ultimately prove most important for poverty eradication, aid allocation should hedge its bets. A low single digit percentage of aid allocated to increase the quantity and quality of private investment in low- and middle-income countries seems reasonable.
Topic:
Development, Foreign Aid, Finance, Investment, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10279. Valuing Climate Liabilities: Calculating the Cost of Countries’ Historical Damage from Carbon Emissions to Inform Future Climate Finance Commitments

Author:
Lee Robinson and Ian Mitchell
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
A central commitment of action on climate is the promise of “developed countries” to jointly mobilize $100 billion of climate finance per year by 2020 (and through to 2025), formalised at the UN climate change conference in 2010 (COP16). Five years later, the Paris Agreement reaffirmed this commitment and promised a new goal after 2025 “from a floor of USD 100 billion per year.” We propose an approach for calculating financial climate liabilities for each country based on their historical CO2 emissions, using the idea of an externality: a social cost that has not been borne by the agent whose actions produced it. The paper follows earlier work on calculating carbon debts (e.g., Kunnas, 2014) which we update with recent and authoritative research on carbon pricing methods. We also adjust for awareness, calculating the accruing of liabilities only from the time that countries knew that their emissions were harmful. We present several scenarios adjusting this and other assumptions. The main scenario produces a clearly quantified liability for each country and a total carbon liability to the world of $34 trillion, or $4,500 per capita. If this liability was used to set climate finance goals, it would suggest OECD countries would need to contribute $190 billion a year to 2100. The analysis also highlights that other industrialised countries, notably China and Russia, have also built-up substantial liabilities and should therefore also contribute to future climate finance goals.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Carbon Emissions, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10280. Some Unpleasant ODA Arithmetic

Author:
Ranil Dissanayake and Atousa Tahmasebi
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Official development assistance is supposed to be designed to prioritise the economic development and welfare of developing countries. The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee is a club of wealthy donor countries which collaborate to set rules and norms to this effect. However, digging into the official data submitted by donors to the OECD reveals some unpleasant truths. We use data on every funding line reported by donors to the OECD between 2006 and 2019 to investigate the pattern and distribution of commitments and disbursements of ODA to developing countries, and discover that ODA is targeted poorly within the group of eligible developing countries; that this group of eligible countries is gradually expanding to include more relatively wealthy places; that aggregate ODA flows are organized and structured sub-optimally; and that ODA responds more to arbitrary income classifications than it should. We suggest informational and incentive reforms in response. These findings also suggest limits to what realistic reform of ODA can achieve, and, consequently, the importance of non-aid development policy for outcomes in developing countries.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Foreign Aid, and Welfare
Political Geography:
Global Focus