An American thinktank in London – development BS (blue-sky) session with the new CGD Europe

I attended the informal unveiling of Owen Barder (right) as CGD’s new Mr Europe last week. The Center for Global Development is a Owen Barder CGDtop US thinktank (plus some occasionally unhinged health people), and its boss and ubernetworker Nancy Birdsall flew in to cut the ribbon. It was all very pleasant – top notch sandwiches in a swanky old building that used to belong to MI6’s ‘Section 1’ that bugged the Soviets. We discovered this because they attempted to recruit Owen there in his student days. He says he rebuffed them, but it could just be a clever double bluff…….

Sandwiches munched, we sat round a table and did the Friday afternoon blue sky thing, chewing over potential roles and collaborations for CGD Europe. CGD’s niche is focussing on the roles and responsibilities of the rich and powerful (nations and increasingly, companies).

Some highlights:

Owen set out three areas of possible work: illicit financial flows, Brussels institutions and bridging the European-US divide on Climate Change.

Other topics discussed included rich country responsibility for the mayhem of the drugs trade, the need for a lot more work on inequality and redistribution (I even found myself defending the World Bank for the recent WDR…), and tackling land grabs.

Frances Stewart made a powerful pitch for reframing the debate in terms of common challenges (inequality, climate change, the destructive impact of the hyper-rich) rather than the ‘us-them’ framing of traditional development debates.

Andrew Rogerson drew a nice distinction between weakest link problems and posse problems. Weakest link problems are those that require unanimity for a solution (eg eradicating polio or any Eurozone parliament rejecting the Greek bailout and bringing the whole thing down), whereas posse problems mean a ‘coalition of the willing’ can make progress without unanimity (eg improving the quantity or quality of aid).

I tried to earn my sandwich by throwing in a few ideas:

Expanding into Europe right now looks pretty strange – rats jumping on board sinking ships etc – but maybe CGD could lead in thinking through the development impacts of a major Eurozone crash?

As NGOs we are increasingly banging up against enormous systemic issues that, to be honest, can seem a bit beyond us. Definancialization of the global economy; the compatibility or otherwise of growth and resource constraints – that kind of thing. Could CGD play a role in getting such paradigmatic discussions under way?

I’m not a big fan of the CGD’s flagship Commitment to Development Index, because it’s so top down (sages in Washington judging rich country governments). Why not introduce at least an element of bottom up – ask developing country governments to anonymously rank the rich countries for their performance on aid, trade, investment, multilateralism etc etc?

after-peer-reviewExploring ‘no regrets/black box’ solutions to problems that we don’t really understand. For example, can we devise a response to financial speculation that will work if it does indeed drive food price volatility, but won’t do any harm if our diagnosis is wrong, as some claim? See Ruth Kelly’s recent post on speculation, but I suspect there are many such issues, eg on climate change, where we don’t have the luxury of waiting til we fully understand the problem before having to take action.

I also pushed (rode?) a couple of hobby horses familiar to diligent readers of this blog

– making more of the lessons of history from now developed countries in terms of the kinds of policies and institutions (legal, social policy, redistribution, migration, urbanisation) they used when they were taking off

– Coming up with some MDGs for the top billion (if only to liven up what could be a truly awful data-head debate on what comes after the 2015 MDG deadline).

It feels very good (and natural) to have CGD in town. Looking forward to lots more sessions like this one (both the sandwiches and the ideas).

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Comments

4 Responses to “An American thinktank in London – development BS (blue-sky) session with the new CGD Europe”
  1. Maranda

    An Oxford City group is working with the German Climate Alliance. They’re quite keen on exploring the Millennium Consumption Goals. Would be interested to know what you think of these (if I haven’t already missed a post on that … in which case, apologies)

    Duncan: Interesting, and haven’t heard of these before, but there’s lots of talk of coming up with ‘sustainable development goals’ (SGDs) for the Rio + 20 summit next year – I guess there could be a lot of overlap there. Anything to read on the consumption goals proposal?

  2. I’m ok with Mr. Barder’s work. Trouble is, what does this mean for the Overseas Development Institute? Competition for ideas and fame or cooperation?

    Duncan: probably a bit of both (and I think both are welcome!), but CGD stresses that its focus is on the rich and powerful countries, whereas a lot of ODI’s work involves action within developing countries, role of the state etc

  3. Dominic Haslam

    Interesting BS Duncan (and I mean that nicely). But please, don’t get down on the post-2015 debate yet – its only just beginning and let’s at least hope for a positive process and outcome – even if experience and recent disheartening events in Copenhagen / worries about Rio+20 might argue otherwise.

    See http://beyond2015.org/ for example…

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.