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.
President-elect Trump will come into office at a time when Americans are more dependent than ever on global cooperation. Today we revisit why effective US leadership on development matters and how it can be improved.
The next US president will face ongoing and emerging global health crises. The next administration must work to transform the US approach to global health and global health security to protect the health of Americans here at home and ensure the long-term sustainability of US-supported health gains abroad. So, what changes should the next US president and administration implement? Here are our six concrete recommendations.
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.
Yesterday at the White House Summit on Global Development, as President Obama outlined the programmatic successes of his administration’s global development policy (all genuine and worthy of acclaim), he didn’t even bother to mention the response to the global financial crisis that consumed his administration for much of its first year. Yet, when we consider just how perilous the economic conditions were for the United States and the world during that time, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the cause of global development was served at least as much by these efforts than by any single development initiative launched by an American president.
White House summits, which in recent years have addressed everything from African American LGBTQ Youth to Working Families, serve two main purposes: to make progress on a set of policy issues and to signal that the issues are a priority for the president. In this way, it’s encouraging to see the newly announced White House Summit on Global Development. More than a late term victory lap for President Obama’s global development policies and programs, I’m hopeful that this summit promotes approaches to development that will carry over into the next administration.
After two and a half great years as director of CGD’s Rethinking US Development Policy initiative, I’m handing over the reins to my colleague Scott Morris. Many of you will know Scott as a CGD Senior Fellow with deep experience from the Treasury and on Capitol Hill. He’s a thought leader on many US development issues, especially the multilateral development banks and international debt. Rethink could not be in better hands as we start thinking about a new ad
The last time Congress overhauled the US foreign assistance apparatus, John F. Kennedy was president. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) made some sweeping changes. There hasn’t been a wholesale reexamination of how US development programs are structured, administered, and coordinated. Exhibit A is the fact that over 20 US agencies currently deliver aid programs. As such, there is a compelling case for finally fixing a broken, fragmented, and underperforming system. Yet pushing for a new FAA is a really bad idea. Whoever takes the White House in 2017 should not fall into this trap.
The Republican presidential primary debate season starts this Thursday evening (August 6). Although the discussion won’t center on global development policy or even foreign policy, if the questions from the 2012 debates are any indication, we should expect quite a few questions on foreign policy. This time, Rob Morello hopes to hear better answers.
What does the 2016 election mean for America’s future position in the world? It’s likely too early to tell at this stage of the campaign cycle. Many of the early Republican contenders — such as Jeb Bush and Scott Walker — have been relatively quiet on foreign policy issues or have focused almost exclusively on Iran, Israel, and Russia. That’s to be expected at this point. Yet, other candidates — like Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham — are already outlining a more comprehensive vision for advancing American interests.