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.
Policymakers and pundits are still scrambling to decipher what the results of the U.S. midterm elections mean for the U.S.’s role in the world. Caught in the middle of this is the question of global trade.
President Bush called last week’s midterm election results “a thumpin’” as the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate. Since then, Republicans and Democrats have been promising to work in a “bipartisan way for all Americans.” But what does it mean for global development that the Republicans hold the presidency while the Democrats control the House and Senate?
* This is a joint post from Sheila Herrling and Sarah Jane Hise.
In a meeting hosted by InterAction on Tuesday, staff of the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance (OFA) provided an updated foreign assistance framework, as last reported by Sheila and me. There are some nice additions since the last round, including several recommendations from a working group of experts in development, diplomacy and defense organized by the Aspen Institute Global Interdependence Initiative. Most notably:
the addition of a category for global/regional issues;
clarification of the category “other USG agency contributions” over which Tobias would have coordinating but not budgetary authority; and
changing one of the basket titles from “reforming countries” to “restrictive countries,” to avoid the eyebrow-raising that the former titled inspired.