Multimedia

CGD's weekly Podcast, event videos, whiteboard talks, slides, and more.

A chart of Health Commodity Market Size in 50 Low and Middle Income Countries, 2015

Health Commodity Market Size in 50 Low and Middle Income Countries, 2015

What can we say about the relative size and composition of health commodity markets across different countries? We took a stab at piecing together publicly available data sources to find an initial answer for low- and middle-income countries as part of the background work to inform the CGD Working Group on the Future of Global Health Procurement.

US assistance to DRM by agency and instrument, 2015, chart

US assistance to DRM by agency and instrument, 2015

In 2015, the United States delivered $37 million in DRM-focused assistance in 32 countries. USAID contributed the most, disbursing nearly $25 million, followed by MCC ($8.2 million), Treasury ($3.7 million), and the US Trade and Development Agency (a single $8,000 feasibility study in Pakistan).

Gender in Article IV Reports by Year

To date this might be seen more as crawling than walking the talk on gender: about 4/5 of Article IV discussions completed so far in 2017 still don’t specifically advocate for a reform, or program to promote women’s economic empowerment, despite it being a considerable issue in every country.

Chart of analytical validity and reliability by evaluation type

Analytical Validity and Reliability by Evaluation Type (N=37)

We randomly sampled 37 evaluations and applied a standardized assessment approach with two reviewers rating each evaluation. To answer questions about evaluation quality, we used three criteria from the evaluation literature: relevance, validity, and reliability. We constructed four aggregate scores (on a three-point scale) to correspond with these criteria. Overall, we found that most evaluations did not meet social science standards in terms of relevance, validity, and reliability; only a relatively small share of evaluations received a high score.

Chart of sampling validity and reliability by evaluation type

Sampling Validity and Reliability by Evaluation Type (N=37)

We randomly sampled 37 evaluations and applied a standardized assessment approach with two reviewers rating each evaluation. To answer questions about evaluation quality, we used three criteria from the evaluation literature: relevance, validity, and reliability. We constructed four aggregate scores (on a three-point scale) to correspond with these criteria. Overall, we found that most evaluations did not meet social science standards in terms of relevance, validity, and reliability; only a relatively small share of evaluations received a high score.

Summary Scores for Evaluation Quality (N=37)

We randomly sampled 37 evaluations and applied a standardized assessment approach with two reviewers rating each evaluation. To answer questions about evaluation quality, we used three criteria from the evaluation literature: relevance, validity, and reliability. We constructed four aggregate scores (on a three-point scale) to correspond with these criteria. Overall, we found that most evaluations did not meet social science standards in terms of relevance, validity, and reliability; only a relatively small share of evaluations received a high score.

Bilateral Economic Assistance, FY2016 to FY2018

Estimated Change in Total ODA Funding Level FY2016-FY2018

Given the false economies and the apparent prioritization of diplomatic and political objectives—what is the underlying strategic rationale here? At CGD we have been combing through the data to see what narrative emerges—and, in particular, which parts of the budget would sustain the most pain. This map shows the impact relative to all Official Development Assistance receipts to the countries.

Percent Change in the FY2016-2018 Budget

Percent Change in the FY2016 Budget to FY2018 Budget

Given the false economies and the apparent prioritization of diplomatic and political objectives—what is the underlying strategic rationale here? At CGD we have been combing through the data to see what narrative emerges—and, in particular, which parts of the budget would sustain the most pain. This map shows country-level cuts proportionally relative to FY2016 funding.

Absolute Difference from the FY2016 Budget to FY2018 Budget

Absolute Difference from the FY2016 Budget to FY2018 Budget

Given the false economies and the apparent prioritization of diplomatic and political objectives—what is the underlying strategic rationale here? At CGD we have been combing through the data to see what narrative emerges—and, in particular, which parts of the budget would sustain the most pain. This map shows the country-level cuts in absolute terms.

Pages

Type