Blogs

Development Channel

The Development Channel highlights big debates, promising approaches, and new research and thinkers addressing opportunity and exclusion in the global economy.

Latest Post

Mossack Fonseca law firm sign is pictured in Panama City, April 4, 2016.
Mossack Fonseca law firm sign is pictured in Panama City, April 4, 2016. Carlos Jasso/Reuters

Corruption Brief Series: How Anonymous Shell Companies Finance Insurgents, Criminals, and Dictators

The latest paper in the Corruption Brief series from the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy program at the Council on Foreign Relations was published this month. In the brief, Dr. Jodi Vittori, senior policy advisor at Global Witness, addresses the myriad problems posed by anonymous shell companies – corporate entities with few or no employees and no substantive business, which offer a convenient way to privately move money through the international financial system.

Read More
Americas
This Week in Markets and Democracy: Energy Subsidies, Human Rights in Supply Chains, and Poland’s Democracy Rollback
Oil Prices Plummet—Will Subsidies Follow? As crude prices fall below $30 a barrel, oil-producing states face mounting fiscal challenges. Saudi Arabia’s 2015 deficit neared $100 billion, roughly 15 percent of gross domestic product (GDP);Venezuela’s reached 14 percent; and Algeria expects foreign reserves to fall by $30 billion in the coming year to cover its looming fiscal gap. Across commodity-dependent nations finance ministers are looking to cut budgets. Energy subsidies are an obvious target, as these expensive and inefficient payments distort markets and undermine development. In December, Saudi Arabia reduced fuel subsidies and prices went up 50 percent. Algeria promised to cut energy subsidies (though in the short term, they are rising). Even in Venezuela, where citizens pay less for gas than water, rumors are the government is considering a hike. The hesitation? Price increases during recessions don’t go over well; in Venezuela, the unpopular move helped bring Hugo Chavez to power. Companies Accountable for Rights Violations Globally The United States is increasingly holding multinational companies liable for human rights abuses in other countries. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a verdict that found Nestlé guilty of aiding and abetting child slavery by knowingly purchasing cocoa from Ivory Coast suppliers that use child labor (Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland were also accused in the original case). Where Nestlé lagged, Intel is leading—announcing that it expects to entirely eliminate conflict minerals from sourcing and production this year. It is one company of many companies working to comply with Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requiring them to disclose the use of “conflict minerals” to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Poland’s Democracy in Doubt Democracy is faltering within the European Union (EU). In Poland, long considered Eastern Europe’s democratic anchor, the right-wing Law and Justice Party (PiS) used its absolute majority to replace five judges on Poland’s constitutional court and mandated a two-thirds majority to overturn legislation, in defiance of a judicial challenge and thousands of protestors. The PiS then moved to “legally” curtail rights. President Andrzej Duda signed a law enabling his government to dismiss and replace state radio and television executives, inciting rumors that he may nationalize the media. Yet unlike many other governments that supress freedom of expression and dissent, Poland may face sanctions. The European Commission responded by launching an investigation into whether the new legislation violates the EU’s rule of law framework and democratic norms. Hungary, which managed to avoid EU sanctions for its own authoritarian shift, promises to block any action.
Americas
Trade, Anticorruption, and Elections at the Start of 2016
As a new year begins, trade is slower, the drive against corruption continues, and electoral struggles shape fragile democracies. Here are three issues the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy (CSMD) program will be following in 2016: International Trade Slows After two decades of trade growing twice as fast as GDP, the two are now even at best. With government spending largely stagnant and consumption fragile, this decline further diminishes prospects for economic growth. To revive this vital element of GDP, policymakers and economists often turn to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), one of the most effective tools to boost international commerce. Yet these will face challenges in 2016. The recently-signed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) still requires ratification by its twelve member countries. In the United States, despite fast-track legislation and vocal support from business leaders, opposition in both parties will likely push the TPP vote to a “lame duck” session in November. Meanwhile the China-led Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), a TPP alternative, failed to gain traction at the recent APEC meeting, and the U.S. and European Union’s Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) remains stalled over regulatory disagreements and European political opposition. As for multilaterals, members left the most recent World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round of negotiations without renewing its mandate, though they did promise to eliminate agricultural export subsidies. Policymakers will likely have to find other tools to promote global growth in 2016. Corruption Prosecutions Continue Anticorruption efforts triumphed in many places in 2015. Guatemalan prosecutors brought down President Otto Pérez Molina and Vice President Roxana Baldetti for their roles in a customs fraud scheme. Brazilian prosecutors indicted or convicted eighty business leaders and politicians, including a sitting senator, in the widening Petrobras scandal. In Nigeria, new President Muhammadu Buhari (who campaigned heavily on anticorruption) began investigations into billions of missing defense and oil funds, leading to fraud and money laundering charges against former national security advisor Sambo Dasuki and the UK arrest of former oil minister Diezani Alison-Madueke. And a U.S.-led investigation into FIFA uncovered a culture of “rampant, systemic and deep-rooted” corruption in soccer’s governing body, resulting in the indictment of thirty officials and forcing out its powerful president, Sepp Blatter. The international momentum looks to keep pace in 2016. Nigeria’s anticorruption crusade persists, as its Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) marked the new year by bringing charges against another former national security advisor, accused of diverting $1.5 million in defense funds from the fight against Boko Haram. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is signaling that FIFA was just the start, ramping up its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) staff and plans for high-profile prosecutions. Elections in Fragile Democracies Presidential runoff votes in the Central African Republic (CAR) and Haiti appear headed in opposite directions, highlighting the often-present tensions between stability and democratic legitimacy in fragile states. In CAR, opposition candidates rescinded previous fraud allegations and now support a runoff election scheduled for January 31, paving the way for a democratic transition after years of religious violence. In Haiti, Jude Célestin, the runner-up in a disputed presidential vote, announced he will not participate in an already-delayed runoff. Célestin joins other opposition candidates in questioning the capacity of Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) to administer a free and fair vote on January 24, after an independent commission uncovered evidence of first-round fraud and irregularities. With increasing doubts about an upcoming vote’s credibility, the Obama Administration stressed the importance of a peaceful transfer of power before a February 7 constitutional deadline. Ultimately, in CAR and Haiti’s elections—as well as those to come in 2016— citizens rather than foreign observers will need to accept the results of any outcome.
Development
This Week in Markets and Democracy: Modi’s Reform Agenda, the WTO, and 2015 UN Development Report
Modi’s Reforms at Odds A senior official in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is pushing a corruption probe that threatens to derail his own party’s Goods and Services Tax (GST). A linchpin of Modi’s economic platform, the reform would replace numerous local and state taxes with a single nation-wide tax. The government expects GST to boost government revenue, attract foreign investment, and add up to two percent to GDP. With the corruption case’s targets—opposition Congress Party leaders Sonia and Rahul Gandhi—denouncing the investigation as politically motivated, the fallout will likely halt Modi’s tax reform in India’s opposition-led upper house. As the Gandhi case advances, the GST may not, putting Modi’s ambitious pro-business and anticorruption agendas at odds. Does the WTO Still Matter? This week’s failure to advance the Doha Round of trade talks further diminishes the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) clout in setting global trading rules. Stuck for over a decade on issues of market access for poor countries and sharing globalization’s gains more equally, the United States and others have already refocused their energies on bilateral and regional trade agreements (RTAs)—completing nearly two hundred such deals during fourteen years of Doha negotiations, most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman made the shift official this week, publicly calling for WTO members to move beyond Doha. Where the WTO’s strength remains is in trade dispute resolution as businesses and nations still turn to it for arbitration. Last week alone, the WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico against U.S. meat labeling with up to $1 billion in damages, and the United States lodged a formal complaint against China for discriminatory aircraft pricing—reflecting the WTO’s evolution from setting the rules to enforcing them. New United Nations Development Report The 2015 Human Development Index (HDI) released this week reflects on the report’s twenty-five year history, with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) finding that living standards improved for two billion people as dozens of countries climbed the development ladder. Measuring income, life expectancy, and education across 188 countries, Norway leads and Niger lags in the HDI, while Rwanda and China are most improved overall since 1990. Focused on “work for human development,” this year’s report argues for employment’s broader value, offering not only economic but development gains. It also illuminates the still major challenges—the 21 million people in forced labor, 74 million unemployed youth, and the threat to whole categories of workers from technological change.
  • Development
    Will Setting Goals End Hunger? What’s Next for the SDGs...
    Emerging Voices highlights new research, thinking, and approaches to development challenges from contributing scholars and practitioners. This post is from Dean Karlan, professor of economics at Yale University, president and founder of Innovations for Poverty Action, and founder of ImpactMatters, a newly-launched organization that helps nonprofits use and create evidence to assess their impact. Earlier this fall the United Nations (UN) ratified the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a new agenda for helping the poor around the world by 2030. Their ratification comes fifteen years after the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), more than doubling the number of global commitments from eight to seventeen and breaking them down further into 169 targets. The goals include ambitious and noble aspirations, from ending global poverty “in all its forms everywhere” (SDG 1) to ending hunger (SDG 2). But, do the goals matter? Since last summer when the UN released a report on how the MDGs fared, debate has ensued about whether setting defined goals made countries more likely to achieve them. More precisely, did aiming at the MDGs lead politicians and donors to allocate more resources to poverty-fighting, thus leading to improved outcomes? As we turn to the SDGs, here is what we know about how goals may help or hurt, and a modest proposal for applying it. Behavioral economists and psychologists have shown that goal setting can help individuals lose weight, finish annoying work tasks, exercise regularly, save more, and so on. Politicians, being people too, may need a set of goals to help them focus on and invest scarce resources in social problems. Research also shows that while goals help, setting too many of them can deter progress and limit motivation. If one pledges to lose weight, stop drinking coffee, read more books for pleasure, and ignore work e-mails on the weekend—all at the same time—something is going to give. The 169 SDG targets (most likely added to placate various UN constituencies) mean a lot more goal setting than the MDGs. Can politicians and development experts keep track of all these commitments? Unrealistic goals can also be a problem—not only do they not get met, but they may fail to motivate. We know that signing up for a marathon is not the best way to make good on a New Year’s resolution to get into shape. The same goes for pledging to end all global poverty instead of merely reducing it. So when it comes to whether the SDGs matter, I have a proposal to find out: randomize the way the 169 targets are assigned. Many development economists (myself included) have done rigorous studies on goal setting at the household and individual level. In the Philippines, we set up randomized control trials (RCTs) to test whether offering people a commitment “goal savings” account helped them to save more money, and encourage them to spend more of it on large, durable goods. It did. In Uganda, a study we did found that offering children a commitment “goal savings” account led to higher expenditures on school supplies and improved test scores. Why not apply the same rigor to test what motivates the world’s politicians to reduce poverty and inequality? We can allocate each UN member country a number of targets on which to focus, and then track progress over time to learn whether those with particular targets did better on a specific goal than countries without them. Of course, this would be logistically impossible, and would make for a badly-designed randomized trial (with the “control” goals already known). Though my proposal is tongue-in-cheek, it highlights the challenge of measuring the new SDGs. Some ask: how are we going to know if any improvement was made because of the goals? That may be the wrong question. Instead, we should ask whether a particular policy is a good or bad idea. Because while the SDGs motivate us towards aspirational outcomes, they do not tell us what to do. Learning what policies actually work is a much more useful basis for a study, and where we should focus our attention.
  • Americas
    This Week in Markets and Democracy: International Anticorruption Day, Corruption in Ukraine, and Elections in Venezuela
    International Anticorruption Day December 9 marked the United Nations’ thirteenth annual International Anticorruption Day, offering a chance to reflect on global anticorruption efforts this year—from successful antigraft cases to ongoing challenges fighting high-level theft. In commemoration, here’s what we’ve been reading: Transparency International surveyed perceptions of corruption in sub-Saharan Africa. Fifty-eight percent of citizens believe corruption is on the rise. Nearly one in four admitted to paying a bribe in the past year, many to police or in courts. The report calls for greater government efforts to end impunity, as well as more transparency from the private sector. The World Bank’s Ravi Kumar charts how corruption affects business globally. Surveys with over thirteen thousand companies in East Asia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa reveal that “gifts” are often expected for everything from construction deals to operating licenses, while over 50 percent of companies in the Middle East identify corruption as a major constraint. Political scientists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that tackling corruption isn’t enough to combat global poverty.  They say bribery and graft are just symptoms of the larger problem of weak economic and political institutions that undermine inclusive growth. Finally, for an overview of  bribery cases around the world, the Mintz Group maps data on the total penalties assessed for FCPA violations by country. Nigeria has paid the most since 1977, with a majority of cases in the oil industry. Ukraine’s Corruption Risks Setbacks Corruption may undermine Ukraine’s fragile economic recovery just as it exits an eighteen-month recession. A set of ambitious reforms, backed by $17.5 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), enabled an October credit rating upgrade and looks to slightly revive GDP growth in 2016. But as CFR’s Rob Khan highlights, stalled progress on corruption and rule of law threatens IMF support and the larger recovery. And a brewing political confrontation risks further setbacks. Parliament remains at an impasse over the 2016 budget and mounting corruption scandals, including a Minister of Parliament forced out over bribery allegations.  During his visit to Kiev this week, Vice President Joe Biden warned that Ukraine must end impunity for oligarchs and step up a judiciary overhaul, even as he announced an additional $190 million in U.S. assistance for needed reforms. What’s Next for Venezuela? Venezuela’s opposition Democratic Unity coalition won 112 of the 167 National Assembly seats in last week’s legislative elections, the first time they will control congress since Chavez’s rise to power in 1999. The supermajority gives the opposition the power to remove central bank directors, Supreme Court (STJ) judges, cabinet members, and even President Nicolás Maduro himself through a referendum starting in April. With this new power comes responsibility for the deep economic and other malaises Venezuela faces. And Maduro could still undercut their base—many worry the lame duck congress will devolve more powers to the executive branch and further stack the judiciary.