With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
Cindy Huang is co-director of migration, displacement, and humanitarian policy and a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. She works on issues related to refugees and displacement, fragile and conflict-affected states, gender equality, and development effectiveness. Previously, Huang was deputy vice president for sector operations at the Millennium Challenge Corporation where she led the strategic direction and technical oversight of a $2 billion portfolio of social sector investments. She also served in the Obama Administration as director of policy of the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, and as senior advisor to the State Department’s counselor and chief of staff. In her latter role, Huang managed the interagency leadership team of Feed the Future, a presidential initiative launched by a $3.5 billion, three-year commitment to agricultural development and food security. Huang has also worked for Doctors Without Borders and the Human Development Center in Pakistan. She has a PhD in cultural anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley, an MPA from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, and a BA in Ethics, Politics and Economics from Yale University.
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 experts Michael Clemens and Cindy Huang discuss what they hope comes out of the New York summits.
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. Discussions there will inform policy work and debate designed to lead up to agreements in 2018.
The main questions: can the world agree on a coordinated plan to deal with the more than 21 million people who have fled their homes, many due to the Syrian conflict? And what ideas, elements, and policy innovations must be included in that plan in order to do better for those who have left their homes without overwhelming the countries they flock to?
CGD researchers are at the leading edge of this debate, working on different but connected aspects of this problem. For this podcast I am joined by Michael Clemens and Cindy Huang. Click below to hear what they hope comes out of the New York summits.
Senior fellow Clemens, CGD's expert on the economics of migration and labor mobility, recently published a major report called Shared Border, Shared Future (produced with an eminent Working Group led by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and former US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez) that lays out a win-win set of policy ideas for legal, temporary, regulated migration between Mexico and the US that protects workers in both countries.
Huang, who joined CGD as a policy fellow this year after six years in the Obama administration, leads a new study group with the International Rescue Committee on how to address the growing divide between humanitarian response and long-term development for people who are forcibly displaced, taking as its starting point the new reality that, when it comes to humanitarian emergencies today, more people are in need and for longer.
For refugees and internally displaced people, business-as-usual is no longer working. The “new normal” of displacement means that development and humanitarian actors urgently need to adapt their approach.
Record numbers of people are forcibly displaced worldwide over longer periods of time, fewer refugees are living in settled camps, and funding shortfalls are reaching all-time highs. The World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016 made important strides in highlighting ways to bridge the humanitarian-development divide. The summit’s outcomes, outlined in the Grand Bargain, reflect agreement on the need for humanitarian and development actors to commit to collective outcomes, identify each sector’s comparative advantages, and work over multi-year timeframes. But there are still large gaps between these high-level principles and actions on the ground.
These gaps are the impetus for a new CGD study group, convened in collaboration with the International Rescue Committee and co-chaired by Cindy Huang and Nazanin Ash. The group, launched in late August, brings together experts and current and former officials from governments, UN agencies, NGOs, and academia to explore what effective partnerships between host governments and development and humanitarian actors might look like. We are guided by a vision of displaced people having meaningful opportunities to not only survive, but thrive—including opportunities for education and legal work—in the context of policies and programs that also promote long-term growth and stability benefitting host communities and countries.
We hope to complement the many important efforts seeking solutions to these short- and long-term challenges by focusing on three critical opportunities.
The Global Policy Opportunity
Key stakeholders—including donor agencies, host governments, and implementing organizations—have expressed a commitment to grapple with these issues, and now is the time to offer concrete ideas to shape their policies and strategies.
For example, world leaders will issue a call for a global compact on refugees at the September 19 UN General Assembly’s high-level summit for refugees and migrants. The compact is expected to be adopted in 2018, with negotiations taking place over the next two years. This compact could have significant implications for system reform, and the study group aims to add value to these negotiations and related efforts by assessing essential questions such as: What types of evidence, innovation, and policy structures are needed to ensure refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) have the support they need to thrive? Who needs to be at the table for these discussions to ensure rhetoric translates into action?
The Critical Need to Address Education and Employment
The study group will focus on education and employment for displaced populations, particularly on improving access to quality schooling and legal work opportunities. Both sectors have emerged in the global discourse as areas of significant need, and as with tremendous scope to enable displaced populations and host communities to achieve self-reliance.
It is also timely to conduct a deep dive into these areas as new funding mechanisms, which were announced at this year’s WHS, are launched. The Education Cannot Wait fund seeks to provide quality education to children and youth in emergencies. And the World Bank has proposed a new Global Crisis Response Platform, along with a specific refugee fund within IDA, to better meet the needs of displaced populations and their host communities, which includes—but is not limited to—improved access to jobs and other livelihood opportunities.
In the coming months, we’ll be working on concrete policy recommendations as the design, structure, and financing modalities of these new facilities take shape.
Win-Win Deals for the International Community
A launching point for the study group’s work is the need to negotiate win-win deals that support displaced populations and their host communities, as Jim Kim and David Miliband discussed at a CGD event in May. As the study group process gets underway, we’re starting to lay out initial questions and ideas on how best to achieve such deals.
What basic policy considerations should be incorporated into new and existing country “compacts” to incentivize sustainable solutions, outcomes-driven partnerships and programs, cost-effectiveness, transparency and accountability for results? In the context of addressing the needs of displaced populations, what policy changes should be required before a compact is signed and during its implementation? How can actors encourage evidence-based approaches and prioritize innovation-to-scale models? How should compact models be tailored to different contexts and financial needs? Meeting the needs of the over 1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon (who represent close to a quarter of the country’s population) and 44,000 IDPs in Sri Lanka will require tailored approaches, but the underlying principles of related to the focus on outcomes, evidence, best use of resources and accountability should remain.
Addressing these issues won’t be easy, but there is tremendous opportunity to influence the way forward. Stay tuned over the coming months as we draw on our expert group to develop concrete ideas and policy recommendations.
The Obama administration has taken some important steps to put women’s economic empowerment at the center of US foreign and development policy, but there’s still plenty of work left to do. Researchers and advocates alike have made (and will continue to make) the case for why gender equality—and specifically women’s economic empowerment—are critical if we’re serious about achieving economic growth, eradicating extreme poverty, and improving the health, education, and well-being of people worldwide. Building on this evidence, this blog post turns to concrete ways that the next US administration can promote women’s economic empowerment—and in turn maximize the impact of its development agenda.
1. Give women’s economic empowerment its own dedicated budget.
The next US administration should allocate at least $1 billion in additional resources to advancing gender equality in developing countries, with a specific focus on improving women’s and girls’ economic opportunities and outcomes. (OECD data suggests that US foreign assistance with a principal objective of advancing gender equality is currently equal to around 0.008 percent of US GDP. An additional $1 billion would allow the United States to reach the OECD average of .013 percent.)
New funding should be invested in interventions that increase women’s access to financial services and modern agricultural and information technologies, local and global markets, and decent jobs and land rights, for example, as well as those that promote women’s access to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and those that ease girls’ transition from school to the workplace. Funding should be dedicated to (1) incentivizing public and private sector programs and institutions to work towards greater gender equality in their outputs and outcomes (including through results-based payments and other innovative financial tools) and (2) supporting programs specifically targeting women and girls.
2. Use ‘beyond-aid’ tools to improve conditions for women workers.
Traditional interventions seeking the economic empowerment of women often focus on vocational and business training programs and micro-loans, but these interventions do little to address the broader constraints facing women and girls looking to enter and rise within the workforce. To address these constraints, the next US administration should consider adopting new policies that improve the practices of US firms based abroad. (Check out Charles Kenny’s proposal for a law or executive order to combat ‘gender apartheid at work.’)
Free trade agreements and investment treaties also have the potential, if carefully developed and enforced, to assist women in securing high quality jobs, accessing global markets, and to make work safer and more secure. When negotiating these agreements, the next US administration should consider including terms and corresponding enforcement mechanisms that mitigate potential gender disparities. Current agreements’ labor provisions on nondiscrimination must also be properly enforced.
Finally, in any future reform of migration policies, the new administration should take into account the greater barriers faced by women migrants, as well as the considerable benefits of migration in improving gender norms in sending countries, when formulating policies on admissions preferences.
3. Make procurement channels gender-equal.
The Department of State, Department of Defense, USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) have the capacity to promote women’s economic empowerment through not only the projects and programs they finance, but also through the firms and employees they hire. Under the next administration, these agencies should institute positive incentives for contractors that hire women and sub-contract with women-owned firms. The next administration should also commit funds to supporting outreach and technical assistance for women entrepreneurs to build capacity and increase their access to procurement channels.
4. Improve the data on women’s economic empowerment.
The next US administration should invest in (and submit its own gender equality-related initiatives to) rigorous evaluations that can help tell us what works to economically empower women and girls in various contexts. In addition, the US Government should work to incorporate high-quality indicators focused on women’s and girls’ economic empowerment outcomes, and disaggregate results by age and sex. The next US administration should continue to collaborate with initiatives such as Data2X, UN agencies, and other data producers from the public and private sectors, as well as with domestic and foreign universities and women’s networks in the Global South to gather and use robust data for policy purposes.
The next US administration has an opportunity to improve its own approach to promoting women’s economic empowerment—through increased funding, improved trade and migration policies, reformed procurement channels, and better data. The United States also has the chance to use its leadership within international financial institutions such as the World Bank to encourage them to increase investments, adjust procurement channels, and contribute to data collection and dissemination efforts.
Women’s economic empowerment is increasingly recognized as critical to achieving development outcomes around the world. Informed by a roundtable discussion at the Center for Global Development (CGD) and additional suggestions from CGD researchers, this four-point memo aims to issue practical proposals for the next US administration, particularly aimed at economically empowering women and girls worldwide, as a building block toward the full realization of broader gender equality and women’s agency and empowerment. The recommendations build on those in CGD’s The White House and the World briefing book, as well as the CGD policy memo “A US Law or Executive Order to Combat Gender Apartheid in Discriminatory Countries” and ongoing work at CGD focused on women’s financial inclusion.
Like you, I have spent much of my life trying to help improve the lives of people in lower-income countries. I am aware, of course, of problems right here in the United States, including poverty, inequality, racism, malnutrition and more. But recently, I’ve felt compelled to pay greater attention to local challenges. From lead in the water in Flint to deadly encounters between police and black Americans to rising income inequality, there is plenty to tackle. While we all know context matters, I wonder if there’s more we could do to draw from a rich history of efforts to address difficult issues in developing countries around the world.
So I’m inviting you to help answer a question: what have we learned in global development that can be adapted and applied to pressing problems in the United States and other rich countries?
In addition to witnessing distressing trends at home, my interest was piqued by a call for proposals from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that asked, “Throughout its history, the United States has learned from great ideas from abroad, from bagels to democracy. Why not do the same for health?” The foundation was seeking approaches – not yet widely tested or implemented in the United States – to promote health equity and wellness and build connections across generations and sectors (including health, social services, and urban planning). This is a fitting topic given the United States, despite spending the most on health care per capita, has poorer outcomes than many other rich countries. For example, the maternal mortality rate in the United States is higher than in any other developed country. And while lower-income countries like Nepal and Vietnam have sharply reduced this risk, the rate of American women dying from pregnancy-related complications is rising.
Another area where we might learn from others is how to confront the legacy of slavery and address persistent racial discrimination and tensions. Over the past 30-plus years, there have been several dozen truth and reconciliation commissions around the world, with a concentration in Latin America and Africa. While they have taken different forms, their overarching purpose is to pursue restorative justice by providing an account of past abuses and supporting reconciliation through hearings, public education, commemoration, and engagement. Some experts have proposed a truth and reconciliation process in the United States. What have we learned from dozens of commissions (as well as two small-scale efforts in the United States) about how we could systematically address racial divisions and advance reconciliation?
Maybe there are opportunities to adapt solutions first started or scaled in the developing world: conditional cash transfers, community policing approaches, mobile health, and paying for outcomes. What are the most compelling global development innovations and evidence the next US president should consider applying in a domestic context? Are there initiatives and research projects exploring this that I should know about?
Please send any ideas or suggestions using the comment section below or send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
As President Obama joked earlier this week, the White House Summit on Global Development assembled “a lot of do-gooders in one room.” It was a daylong celebration of the Administration’s achievements across food security, global health, energy access, open government and more. There was much to applaud, including President Obama’s announcement that he had just signed into law the Global Food Security Act. Here are my three takeaways:
A lot of new initiatives have been successfully launched and implemented, but the bigger win is the elevation of development as a key pillar of foreign policy. The speakers highlighted a litany of U.S. policy and program achievements in the past seven-and-a-half years: 18 million children with better nutrition, progress toward bringing 30,000 megawatts of power to Africans, and 70-plus countries participating in the Open Government Partnership. These are important in and of themselves, but do not add up to policy influence when it matters most. When the national security team is debating issues – like where to put emphasis and resources in fighting violent extremism, preventing and responding to conflict, and combating climate change – development needs a seat at the table. It may not always be the prevailing voice, but it matters that the USAID Administrator “sits alongside generals in the Situation Room.” (It should be noted that despite vigorous advocacy, the USAID Administrator is not a permanent member of the National Security Council.) This Administration has advanced the view of development as a smart investment – indeed, as much more than just doing good. Development policymakers need to continue strengthening their case, bringing rigorous evidence and data to inform decisions that require tough trade-offs.
Development investments require strategic patience, and people are worried that is in short supply. Several panelists talked about the need to exercise strategic patience so our investments have a real chance of achieving systemic change and impact. Alix Zwane, CEO of the Global Innovation Fund, talked about the hard work of translating lab innovations into program results and then into fundamental changes in government service delivery systems. Too many countries, organizations and people give up somewhere in between. The President acknowledged this challenge of an age of instant gratification, quoting a plaque on his desk, “Hard things are hard.” The next Administration will need to decide the extent to which it builds on existing initiatives versus launching new ones. While it’s impossible to eliminate initiative fatigue altogether, there should be careful consideration of how to strike a balance that fosters new ideas and sustainable results.
Principles matter, a lot. As my colleague Scott Morris observed before the Summit, much of the President’s legacy relates more to the “how” than “what” of development. The Summit discussions reflected the principles set forth in his policy directive on development, including focusing on results, innovation, and partnership. On the latter, an impressive range of speakers – from a South African urban planner to a Ukrainian member of parliament to the CEO of an energy company – emphasized the critical role of the US in convening partners to take on major global challenges. There is still progress to be made to ensure partnerships are strategic and effective, but it is clear that building them is now part of the development DNA. It takes relentless focus on a handful of key principles to change culture, and the next Administration will hopefully continue and deepen this approach.
This was a well-earned victory lap for the Obama Administration. I hope there is another lower-key summit later this year to discuss mistakes made and lessons learned. That would be an appropriate complement to this week’s celebration that also reflects the Administration’s focus on results, evaluation, and learning.
How can we do better for the 60 million displaced people around the world? That was the focus of a major CGD event ahead of the World Humanitarian Summit featuring President Jim Kim of the World Bank and David Miliband, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. The lively conversation on refugees, displacement, and development covered many topics, including major changes in the humanitarian landscape, such as longer periods of displacement and fewer refugees living in settled camps, and what new tools and approaches are needed in response.
Here are my three key takeaways from the event:
Build an evidence base for emergency interventions
Both speakers highlighted the importance of building and following the evidence base. Miliband spoke about IRC’s commitment to make all of its programs evidence-based or evidence-generating, including emergency interventions. This is no small task given the lack of a common outcomes framework for humanitarian activities and lack of rigorous evaluations.
According to Miliband, there have been more than 2,000 impact evaluations or equivalent studies of development projects since 2006, but fewer than 100 have been conducted in humanitarian settings. Significant investments are needed to close this evaluation gap and strengthen the evidence base so the global community can identify what works and what is most cost-effective. When there is strong evidence that interventions deliver impact, as in the case of cash transfers, donors and implementers have to move beyond their biases. Kim recounted questioning his staff about the huge number of studies of cash transfers – and discovering that the reason was persistent misperceptions about giving cash to people living in poverty. According to Kim, even as development organizations have scaled up cash transfers, the percentage of humanitarian funds delivered as cash remains far too small.
Focus on people and tools, not sectors
With half of all refugees displaced for 10 years or more, there is a need to shift the balance between social and economic interventions. As Miliband remarked, there can’t be a sustainable social policy program for that length of time unless it has an economic component. Rather than view the world through a humanitarian or development lens, we should see people in humanitarian situations. Individuals and families need multiple tools and services to survive and find a path to self-reliance. Both Miliband and Kim called for greater collaboration between humanitarian and development actors to bring more comprehensive and coordinated analysis, tools, expertise, and financing to the table. Kim noted that the World Bank is engaging “with great humility” because of its lack of experience working with refugees. At the same time, he highlighted that the Bank is deploying familiar tools in familiar sectors to reach these new populations; for example, by creating job opportunities with the support of concessional financing and private sector partners.
Design win-win deals
Finally, Kim and Miliband described how to create win-win deals that offer hope and dignity to both refugee and host populations. In the case of Jordan, the World Bank and its partners brought more financing to the table to create special economic zones that will build infrastructure, attract private capital, and increase the country’s capacity to employ more Jordanians and refugees. It was in the context of this deal that the government agreed to make it easier for Syrian refugees to get work permits. But sustainable solutions are difficult to achieve.
Miliband reflected on a recent trip to the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, noting that the poverty rates outside the camp are higher than within. In such contexts, “the political challenge is to align short-term help for refugees with the medium-term help for the local or national economy and community.” Creating this new equation will require significant political will and partnership with low and middle-income host governments that host more than 80 percent of the world’s refugees.
I was delighted that CGD could host this important conversation with two development and humanitarian leaders, who shared their visions and practical ideas on how to bridge the humanitarian-development divide. The session inspired me to dig deeper into this issue and look for ways to help policymakers “move away from ideology and toward evidence,” as Kim called for, so that we as a global community can better deliver for people in such great need. Stay tuned!
CGD experts have penned memos on proposals to improve US development policy that we hope the next president will prioritize once in office. These are bipartisan ideas that could make a big difference for people in the developing world. The proposals come from our teams working on the US Development Policy Initiative, Global Health, and Gender.
Last week, CGD co-hosted an event with the International Rescue Committee (IRC) with a simple premise that contradicts much conventional wisdom: refugees are not a burden, but a development asset. That premise compels the question: what policies, financing, and partnerships are needed to realize the promise of mutual benefit?
Jordan is among the pioneering countries trying to flip the script. The country hosts more than a million Syrian refugees and is partnering with the World Bank, European Union, and others to recognize and support refugee rights, while expanding development gains for all. A key anchor for this effort is funding from the World Bank’s Global Concessional Financing Facility (GCFF), which provides lower-rate loans to middle-income countries to help meet the development needs of refugees and host communities. These loan subsidies are a recognition of the public good generated by the investments. By promoting refugee protection and well-being, Jordan is providing benefits beyond its borders, such as supporting regional stability and fulfilling international moral and legal obligations.
GCFF’s efforts to incentivize investments in global public goods come at a critical time. So we brought together some of the leading actors and thinkers in this space to discuss the successes and challenges in implementing this new approach. How we can build on GCFF’s innovation in differential pricing of loans to spur investment in other public goods, such as disaster preparedness and climate change mitigation and adaption? World Bank CEO Kristalina Georgieva, Jordanian Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Imad Fakhoury, CGD President Emeritus Nancy Birdsall, and International Rescue Committee President and CEO David Miliband engaged in a candid and lively discussion steered by Devex Editor in Chief Raj Kumar.
Our five key takeaways
We must keep our focus on displacement, even when the headlines stray. These new approaches will be ineffective if the international community loses focus as the 2015 wave of migrants to Europe recedes in memory. The fact remains that there are still over 20 million refugees around the world, and more than 40 million internally displaced people who could become tomorrow’s refugees. We need to stay focused to address the crux of the humanitarian-development divide: displacement is often protracted, and requires longer-term partnerships. The need for sustained effort is even more needed when it comes to prevention and preparedness.
We need to reshape our approach so that support follows need. In an era of global challenges, the level and type of response cannot be based on rigid classifications. As Georgieva noted, Syrians fleeing the war are as—or more—vulnerable than many in low-income countries. But before the creation of the GCFF, the World Bank did not have a way to offer concessional financing to Jordan to help meet the needs of Syrian refugees or cope with the shock of the crisis. Beyond the near-term fiscal cost of hosting refugees, Jordan has lost important trade and economic opportunities that could stall development gains for years to come. Funding and attention are frequently directed to places where responses fail. Minister Fakhoury emphasized the need for incentives that encourage the international community to offer support throughout the cycle of a crisis that matches the changing needs.
Developing appropriate incentives requires clarity on the desired outcomes. Having financing available to host countries is one challenge, but structuring implementation in a way that delivers tangible results is another. As we lay out in our new policy paper with the IRC and as highlighted by Miliband, incentives could have been better aligned with desired results in the Jordan Compact. A quota on refugee work permits does not necessarily translate to creating jobs for refugees and hosts. An emphasis on work permits has largely led to the formalization of existing jobs; while this has important benefits, greater attention to other measures (such as formalizing home-based businesses) may have done more to increase incomes and spur the local economy. A clear and shared definition of success can help ensure incentives and programs are pulling toward the same outcomes.
The GCFF changed the game by introducing a financial innovation to better meet needs. In 1960, the Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) brought new and groundbreaking innovation to how the global community did development assistance, creating a platform to lend to developing countries on favorable terms by leveraging multinational donor backing. As Birdsall noted, half a century later, the GCFF has potential to push the envelope further. The Bank has raised the level of ambition in responding to protracted displacement crises through the GCFF and a $2 billion IDA sub-window for low-income refugee-hosting countries—and is setting the example on how flexible financing can help tackle 21st century problems.
This innovation can and should be adapted and applied to a host of 21st century challenges. As we detail in the CGD-IRC policy brief, based on the initial funding provided through the GCFF, we have strong evidence that the model can enable a better and more sustainable approach to refugee crises. Building on proposals for the World Bank and other institutions to focus on global public goods, this innovation could be adapted to help respond other current and emerging challenges, such the need for low-carbon energy or pandemic preparedness. During the World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings this past Saturday, the Bank announced a capital package endorsement by shareholders, part of which encourages a boost to engagement around global public goods.
Minister Fakhoury perhaps captured the discussion best in one simple point: if we don’t get the financing right for refugee hosting countries, it will be impossible to get the moral responsibility right—for refugees and for host communities. The same could be said of other global challenges of our time.
Of the 21 million refugees around the world today, low- and middle-income countries host more than 80 percent. The strain of refugee flows can threaten stability in these countries, with regional and global consequences. But this is an eminently manageable challenge for the international community. A new report, the culmination of a joint CGD-IRC study group on forced displacement and development, suggests compacts—agreements between host countries and humanitarian and development actors—are a uniquely well-suited approach to address the refugee crisis. Join us for a discussion on how host countries, humanitarian and development agencies, the private sector, and civil society can forge new and stronger partnerships to better meet the needs of refugees and the communities where they seek refuge.
The Center for Global Development and Oxfam are hosting a discussion on the Politics of Pro-Worker Reforms with author Alice Evans. Alice will present her paper on the drivers of pro-worker reforms in Vietnam, including how rich countries can use the tools of trade and aid to support workers’ rights, social activism, and decent pay. Specifically, she examines the relative roles of the Better Work program and US demands for labor reform during negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in encouraging Vietnamese labor market reforms. The paper can be found here, and a blog summary here.
As we mark World Refugee Day, it is increasingly clear that there is a desperate need to fill the gap between short-term humanitarian response and long-term development need. Jordan’s Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Imad Fakhoury and CGD senior policy fellow Cindy Huang join the CGD podcast to discuss an innovative solution: refugee compacts.
With plans for a redesign of the State Department and United States Agency for International Development well under way, this is a critical moment for an informed discussion of the latest reforms proposals that will make US foreign assistance more effective and efficient. Please join us for a bipartisan debate featuring authors of four recent reports that outline options for reform and reorganization of US global development functions. The event will bring to light key areas of consensus and divergence among experts, and will aim to highlight emerging organizing principles for the future of US foreign assistance, potential structural changes to the US global development architecture, and opportunities for building momentum in a fluid political and legislative environment.