Center for Global Development

2 months ago | cgdev.org

It’s tough to ignore AI. There’s constant press about it, and everyone from USAID to the UN Secretary General has been putting forth positions on the topic. Beyond the high-level attention, a growing number of studies have highlighted AI's potential to impact key development outcomes. For example, randomized evaluations of AI tutors in Ghana and Nigeria have shown impressive results, with the Nigerian study reporting learning gains equivalent to nearly two years of typical education within just six weeks. However, the effects of AI are not universally positive. Beyond safety concerns, research is uncovering disparities in its impacts. In a randomized evaluation from Kenya, for instance, already successful entrepreneurs that used an AI-powered business coach experienced a 15 percent increase in profits or revenue, while already struggling entrepreneurs that used it saw a 10 percent decline. Given that AI’s impact on development is going to grow, it’s important to develop a better understanding of these risks and opportunities. That’s why CGD is excited to be a collaborator on an exciting new project, the AI for Global Development Accelerator, headed up by the Agency Fund, with OpenAI as another collaborator. The Accelerator’s mission is to fast-track the safe and effective development of AI applications that enhance human agency and drive meaningful development outcomes.

2 months ago | cgdev.org

Mexico and Canada have been on the frontline of the new global (dis)order, making their response a potential case study for how economies that are smaller and somewhat dependent on America navigate pressure from the US in this new era of economic coercion. After the 180 degrees reversal on the tariffs threat by Trump, what happens a month from now?

2 months ago | cgdev.org

A viral claim, spread and amplified by Elon Musk, suggests that only 10 percent of USAID money reaches its intended beneficiaries. This is a wildly incorrect and misleading interpretation of a different statistic—that 10 percent of USAID payments are made directly to organizations in the developing world. The remaining 90 percent includes all the goods and services that USAID, American companies, and faith-based organizations deliver in kind, from HIV drugs to emergency food aid, malaria bed nets, and treatment for acute malnutrition. And it is absolutely crucial to debunk this false claim because it is being used as part of the pretext to (illegally) dissolve USAID in its entirety.

Dec 23, 2024 | cgdev.org

Climate finance is a disaster. COP29 ended with a hotly-contested and almost universally-loathed agreement for rich countries to provide $300 billion each year to developing countries, to defray the costs of adapting to and mitigating the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Commentators from the developing world (and my colleagues) have been scathing in their assessment of the inadequacy of this deal. My colleague Charles Kenny has described the existing structure of climate finance as “the worst of all worlds”, that disadvantages the poorest countries. He argues that the greater legal and political standing for climate finance, compared to development finance and the tight-fisted attitude of rich countries means there is no good solution available. All of this has roots in one of the most pernicious errors that development and climate activists routinely make: the misapprehension that because two things are both good things for the world, and matter very much for poor countries they need to be tackled together, through the same mechanisms. But the stakes here are high. Both global poverty and development and climate change are too important for human welfare to accept that both will just be done badly for the foreseeable future.

Oct 29, 2024 | cgdev.org

China's financial contributions to tackling climate change in developing countries may be far greater than previously thought. Exploring how China’s recent contributions compare with the US in scale and composition, we find that, after including both countries’ contributions to multilateral organisations, the US provided more finance than China’s combined $3.8 billion per year in the period to 2021. Even so, the current UNFCCC approach of reporting climate finance solely on a face-value basis would flatter China’s contribution relative to most other providers, and the new goal should include a grant-equivalent measure to enhance accountability for relative fiscal effort.