Article
| 694 items found | Sort by: Title Date | |||
AIDS Billions and Health Systems: Q&A with Nandini Oomman | After Doha, What’s Next? Q&A with CGD’s Randall Soderquist< - 11/12/2008
AIDS Billions and Health Systems: Q&A with Nandini Oomman - 08/04/2008
Are the donors who spend billions of dollars on HIV/AIDS in developing countries missing opportunities to strengthen national health systems? To find out, CGD’s HIV/AIDS Monitor asked researchers in three countries with high levels of donor AIDS spending -- Mozambique, Uganda, and Zambia -- to assess the interaction between health systems and the three big AIDS donor programs: the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the World Bank’s Multi-County AIDS Program (MAP) in Africa, and the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria. The resulting report, Seizing the Opportunity on AIDS and Health Systems, is being released this week at the international AIDS conference in Mexico City. Nandini Oomman, director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor and the lead author of the report, explains the key findings in a Q&A. Read the Q&A, Download the Report, View the Video(s) and more After Doha, What’s Next? Q&A with CGD’s Randall Soderquist - 08/04/2008
The collapse of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations last week was a major setback for developing countries and rich countries alike. Policymakers are now trying to make sense of what went wrong and salvage what goodwill remains. Randall Soderquist, CGD’s new senior program associate for trade, says that developing countries stand to lose the most from last week’s events, as the fragmented regional and bilateral trade agreements that will likely succeed Doha will undermine their bargaining power. In a new Q&A, he explains Doha’s impact on poor countries, discusses shifting political attitudes toward trade, and offers recommendations on steps toward a new trade agenda. After Doha, What’s Next? Q&A with CGD’s Randall Soderquist - 08/04/2008
The collapse of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations last week was a major setback for developing countries and rich countries alike. Policymakers are now trying to make sense of what went wrong and salvage what goodwill remains. Randall Soderquist, CGD’s new senior program associate for trade, says that developing countries stand to lose the most from last week’s events, as the fragmented regional and bilateral trade agreements that will likely succeed Doha will undermine their bargaining power. In a new Q&A, he explains Doha’s impact on poor countries, discusses shifting political attitudes toward trade, and offers recommendations on steps toward a new trade agenda. Randall previously served as director for the Economic Policy Program and the Trade and Poverty Forum at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. His work there and his eight years working on trade issues on Capitol Hill bring a wealth of policy experience to CGD’s ongoing investigation of how rich-country trade policies can be improved to make it less difficult for poor people in the developing world to escape from poverty. Welcome Randall! Q: Is the Doha Round really “dead”? Has a global agreement just been put on hold? A: Some argue that it’s still possible to salvage the Doha Round, noting that the Uruguay Round that preceded it was put on hold for two years before it was completed and eventually signed in Marrakesh in 1994. But lots has changed since then. Before, developing countries sat on the margins, accepting the agenda offered by the so-called Quad (EU, U.S., Japan and Canada). Emerging economies like Brazil, China, and India had none of the influence they wield today. This shift in the WTO power structure and the emergence of what is in effect a multi-polar trading system make it really hard to reach a consensus. Then, too, the issues are more expansive and complex, but the WTO continued to approach this as a single undertaking—where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Finally, there is the changing political context in the rich countries: with growing anti-trade sentiment few politicians are willing to make trade a priority. With the upcoming elections in the United States and India and the appointment of a new Commission in the EU, there is simply not a whole lot of room to maneuver. Q: So what happens next? A: I suspect we will see some posturing by the key players about the need to lock in portions of the Doha Round agreement so that the talks can be revived later. Personally I think that’s unlikely. Instead I expect that the Doha Round will simply fade away as countries pursue specific sectoral and regional trade agreements that serve their individual economic interests. Q: So, is the idea of trade for development also off the table? A: Certainly not. There seems to be an understanding in the international trade community—public, private, and non-profit sectors alike—that poverty alleviation and economic opportunity need immediate attention. U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, for example, stated that some components of the package might be moved forward on a multilateral basis. She cited duty-free quota-free access on most products for the poorest countries, trade facilitation, and environmental goods and services. So development is clearly on her radar screen. The idea has been floated among her counterparts, and from what I can tell there have been discussion on the side about how to “harvest” what is ripe right now. But India has objected to this approach. Since it would require consensus among all WTO members, it is hard to imagine this happening in the context of the Doha Round. It is unfortunate that India—which has gained so much from market access for its exports through existing multilateral agreements—now appears to be standing in the way of developing countries who want to make similar progress. It is a very odd and disconcerting turn of events. Q: What will be the impact of Doha’s collapse on poor people in developing countries? A: The real impact of the collapse is unclear as there was so much that remained to be negotiated. But if the question is whether what was on the table would have provided significant economic benefits to those living in poverty, the short answer is no. Granted the U.S. offer would have forced some real constraints on subsidies available under the current farm legislation. Similarly, reforms that are being undertaken in the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy would have been locked in. And some benefits would have been derived from cuts to bound tariff rates. But most of the important issues for developing countries remained undecided. Subsidies on cotton; tariffs on bananas, textiles, and clothing (so-called “sensitive” products excluded from tariff reductions); preference erosion on key exports; and, of course, safeguards all remained unresolved, so it is difficult to calculate whether there would have been a net gain or a loss as a result of the agreement. Indeed, one of the most sensitive issues—anti-dumping—was not even mentioned. Nonetheless, developing countries had far better leverage to negotiate with rich countries as a group in a multilateral forum like that in Geneva than they do individually. The asymmetries they will face in a post-Doha world -- asymmetries in power and in negotiating capacity -- will not necessarily be conducive to economic development or poverty alleviation. Q: What should rich countries be doing with respect to trade policy to help developing countries in lieu of a multilateral deal? A: The next step requires innovative approaches that will allow developing countries to better integrate themselves into the global supply chain and, in this manner, obtain the investment they need to exploit trade opportunities and promote economic growth. This means taking a critical look at existing trade agreements and preference programs and examining what works and what doesn’t. In particular we should be looking for opportunities for poor countries to leapfrog past old industries and into new technologies of the future. Rich countries should work to coordinate the preferences they offer to developing countries to try to ensure that benefits obtained from one country are not squelched by another. Rich countries should also integrate their trade agreements, preference programs, and development assistance programs so that they reinforce each other. In short, there is quite a lot we can and should do, even without a Doha Round. Read More on the Collapse of the Doha Round on CGD’s Views from the Center Blog:
MCC Buzz Cut - 08/04/2008Senate appropriators recently slashed the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) funding from $1.5 billion in FY08 to $254 million for FY09. Senate appropriators argue the MCC has not spent the money it has or delivered enough results to warrant more funds in the face of pressing costs for security and humanitarian programs. CGD senior policy analyst Sheila Herrling says in a new MCA Monitor blog that the buzz cut from Senate appropriators is shortsighted and signals to developing countries that the U.S. doesn’t follow through on its aid commitments. She wonders about the implications of the move for the chances of reaching a grand bargain between Congress and the next administration to bring U.S. foreign assistance into the 21st century. Is Donor AIDS Money Strengthening Health Systems? New Study Finds Missed Opportunities - 08/04/2008Washington D.C.: Billions of dollars in donor money being spent in developing countries to fight HIV/AIDS can be much more effective if the big donor programs pay more attention to their effects on the health systems of host countries, according to a new report from the Center for Global Development (CGD). As Women Progress in Developing Nations, so do Those Countries' Economies (Christian Science Monitor) - 08/04/2008The Christian Science Monitor quotes Ruth Levine on the Girls Count report. HIV/AIDS Monitor (Interview) - 08/04/2008In this video, CGD senior program associate and director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor Nandini Oomman describes her recent finding from the Seizing the Opportunity on AIDS and Health Systems report and outline Monitors future goals. Media Coverage of CGD's Research on the Collapse of Global Trade Negotiations - 07/31/2008With the failure of the Doha Round of Trade Negotiations, the media continue to find CGD's ongoing trade research an expert source of analysis. CGD senior fellow Kimberly Ann Elliott and senior trade program associate Randall Soderquist lead CGD's research and are quoted in recent articles about global trade negotiations. NTPC Largest Power Plant Polluter, Says Study (Times of India) - 07/30/2008The Times of India features CGD's Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) database of over 50,000 power plants worldwide. House Democrats Introduce Liberian Aid Bill (The Hill) - 07/30/2008The Hill quotes CGD senior fellow Steve Radelet on the United States role in Liberia's reconstruction. The Wrong Way to Fight AIDS (International Herald Tribune) - 07/30/2008An International Herald Tribune op-ed quotes CGD senior fellow Mead Over's research on "Entitlements" to AIDS treatment. The Place Premium: Wage Differences for Identical Workers across the U.S. Border - 07/28/2008
Last Gasp for Doha? - 07/28/2008Trade ministers who have gathered at the World Trade Organization in Geneva to give one last push to delivering a Doha Round trade agreement face a world greatly changed since the talks were launched in 2001: shortages and soaring food prices instead of an agricultural glut. Developing countries have dismissed as meaningless a U.S. offer to lower the ceiling on trade distorting U.S. farm subsidies from $22 billion to $15 billion, because payments are currently below the proposed new ceiling. CGD senior fellow Kim Elliott argues for a longer view.
World Bank Caucus Launched on the Hill - 07/28/2008The U.S. Congress launched a new bipartisan Caucus for Congressional-World Bank Dialogue at a packed event on Capitol Hill July 16. The caucus, co-chaired by Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Betty McCollum (D-MN), provides a forum for members of Congress to engage the World Bank, parliamentarians and policy experts in discussions on poverty reduction, global development and trade. CGD senior associate for outreach and policy Sarah Jane Staats welcomes the increased attention to the World Bank and views the caucus as a first step towards cultivating more congressional champions for development. AIDS Funding Binds Longevity of Millions to U.S. (Washington Post) - 07/28/2008The Washington Post quotes CGD senior fellow Mead Over on the recently passed PEPFAR legislation and his concern regarding the potential implications of its open-ended commitment. The Great Funding Surge (Science Magazine) - 07/25/2008Science Magazine quotes CGD senior program associate and director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor Nandini Oomman on donor spending to fight HIV/AIDS in developing countries. Liberia's New Lap of Luxury (Washington Post) - 07/25/2008The Washington Post quotes CGD senior fellow Steve Radelet on the the role of investment in Liberia's reconstruction. Time Now for Donors to Help Liberia: Q&A with CGD board chairman Ed Scott - 07/22/2008
Edward W. Scott Jr., the founding chairman of the Board of the Center for Global Development, recently visited Liberia together with members of his family and a group that included CGD board member Belinda Stronach. It was Scott’s first visit but far from his first involvement with Liberia. In 2006, after listening to Liberia’s President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf outline the challenges she was facing in rebuilding the country following 14 years of civil war, Ed offered to provide her with some special assistance aiming to finance a need she would identify that most conventional donors would not support. After consulting with CGD senior fellow Steve Radelet -- who has been assisting President Sirleaf as an economic advisor since her election in late 2005 -- on options to be considered for this special assistance, he decided to sponsor a select group of highly trained young professionals to serve in Liberia for one year as special assistants to members of Liberia's Cabinet. The program is called the Scott Family Liberia Fellows program. Its first group included three Liberian expatriates and three young professionals of other nationalities. This first group of fellows began working in Monrovia in June 2007. The program is now in its second year and has grown to 16 Fellows with four additional sponsors (the Open Society Institute, the McCall MacBain Foundation, Humanity United, and the Nike Foundation). In advance of Liberia’s Independence Day on July 26, CGD director of communications and Lawrence MacDonald spoke with Ed Scott about his first visit to Liberia. Donors Should Step Up Support for Liberia: CGD Chairman Ed Scott - 07/21/2008
CGD chairman Edward W. Scott Jr. and board member Belinda Stronach recently visited Liberia, where Scott has sponsored a group of young professionals, the Scott Family Liberia Fellows, who serve as special assistants to the country’s top officials. In an interview ahead of Liberian Independence Day, Scott shares his impressions of the country’s potential and the many challenges to be faced in recovering from more than a decade of civil war, and he urges the U.S. and official donors to step up their support. Movie Views and Mainstream News - 07/21/2008In our continuing effort to expand the community of people interested in rich-world development policy CGD has launched two new services. The first, the Development Matters Meetup, merges our popular evening Meetups and the Development Matters event series and will focus on books, movies, and other popular culture treatments of development. CGD events manager Heather Haines, who curates the series, reports on the first Development Matters Meetup, which featured a new documentary film, The Neo African Americans. The second service is a weekly summary of news and commentary about rich-world policies and practices that affect poor people in developing countries. CGD media assistant Ben Edwards compiles the material and posts it each Friday to CGD’s Views from the Center blog. Learn more and read other recent postings on Views from the Center How to Get America’s Working Families behind the Next Cap-and-Trade Bill - 07/21/2008
Read the working paper and a blog posting Food Prices will Continue to Rise around the Globe (Politico) - 07/15/2008The Politico quotes CGD senior fellow Kim Elliott on the role of biofuels and other factors exacerbating the global food crisis. Stern Urges Action on Climate and Development in Third Annual Sabot Lecture - 07/14/2008Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, called for a new form of conditionality – with developing countries setting the conditions for rich countries this time around – in CGD’s third annual Richard H. Sabot Lecture. Speaking on “The Economics of a Global Deal on Climate Change,” Lord Stern asked whether the global community is willing to invest today to avoid a far-more costly tomorrow. And he called for market mechanisms to incorporate the social costs of carbon dioxide into the world economy. Lord Stern concluded with a sense of urgency, prodding rich world leaders to accept conditions set by developing countries for their cooperation in stabilizing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. CGD outreach and policy assistant Joel Meister summarizes the highlights of the lecture, providing links to video, transcript, photos, and a comment by CGD president Nancy Birdsall. World Bank Research Sparks Biofuel Food Fight - 07/14/2008
A veteran World Bank economist's finding that biofuels are a major cause of soaring world food prices is the latest volley in an on-going battle over controversial subsidies and incentives for gasoline and diesel made from food. The leaked draft paper by the World Bank's top agricultural economist, Don Mitchell, estimates that the growing use of food crops for fuel are to blame for as much as 75 percent of the huge rise in food prices since 2002. CGD senior fellow Kimberly Elliott cautions that this controversy should not distract us from the fact that support for the current generation of biofuels makes no sense regardless of their impact on food prices as they fail to meet their stated primary objectives: reducing dependence on imported oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. |
||||
