Advocacy for Improved or Increased U.S. Foreign Aid

This is a writeup of a shallow investigation, a brief look at an area that we use to decide how to prioritize further research.

In a nutshell

What is the problem? U.S. development assistance achieves less for beneficiaries than it conceptually could, due both to relatively poor cost-effectiveness and to limited funding.

Who is already working on it? There are a variety of organizations working to improve or increase U.S. development assistance, with support from a number of foundations. We would guess that total philanthropic funding for this field is in the ballpark of $100 million/year.

What could a new philanthropist do? A philanthropist could support a wide variety of advocacy efforts, ranging from grassroots organizing to lobbying to think tank research, aiming for more or better foreign aid. We do not have a good sense of the track record of or likely returns to these activities.

What is the problem?

Official development assistance from the United States achieves less benefit for beneficiaries than it conceptually could. 1 Opportunities for improvement could take the form of fiscally neutral improvements in the effectiveness of aid delivery (quality), or more aid (quantity). Quality improvements could be important in humanitarian terms, as the U.S. is the single largest provider of bilateral development aid, giving roughly $30 billion/year. 2 We would guess that increasing the quantity of altruistically motivated (as opposed to merely self-interested) official development aid would be welfare-improving from a global perspective because we believe that altruistically motivated aid is likely to have larger net positive effects in recipient countries than costs for sending countries. However, we do not believe there is rigorous evidence on the impact of altruistically motivated government aid, and some prominent development scholars disagree that more official aid is likely to be strongly welfare-improving. 3 Were the U.S. to provide the same level of aid proportional to GNI as the United Kingdom, aid spending would rise to ~$90 billion/year. 4

Who is already working on it?

The advocacy group ONE, which predominantly but not exclusively focuses on the U.S., appears to be the largest advocate for more and better foreign aid, with a (global) annual budget of roughly $30 million.
5 Other groups that do considerable advocacy or lobbying in favor of foreign aid programs include:

  • RESULTS (2011 501c3 spending: ~$9 million; 501c4 spending: ~$200,000) 6
  • Bread for the World (2011 501c3 spending: ~$9 million; 501c4 spending: ~$4 million) 7
  • Friends of the Global Fight (2011 501c3 spending: ~$2 million) 8
  • US Global Leadership Coalition (2011 501c3 spending: ~$4 million; 501c4 spending: ~$1 million) 9
  • Large international NGOs like Oxfam and CARE that conduct some advocacy efforts in the U.S. and other high-income countries. We aren’t sure what portion of their funding goes to advocacy efforts. 10

There are also a number of organizations that advocate for international aid on specific issues, such as a particular disease. We have not tried to systematically survey such organizations. A number of U.S. think tanks also work on issues around foreign aid, including: 11

  • Center for Global Development
  • Brookings Institution
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

We believe the Center for Global Development, which focuses solely on development issues and has an annual budget of roughly $10 million, does more work on foreign aid than Brookings or CSIS does, but we have not seen figures that would allow us to make this comparison. 12 Major philanthropic support for advocacy and research related to foreign aid comes from the Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation, which have each made sizable grants to both ONE and CGD. 13 We have not systematically searched for other foundation efforts in this area. In addition to funding advocacy groups such as ONE, we also believe that the Gates Foundation has played a role in directing aid agency funds through its role in the creation of and support for vehicles like the Global Fund and GAVI.14

Not counting the Gates Foundation’s contributions to the Global Fund or GAVI, we would guess that total philanthropic funding for this field is in the ballpark of, but probably less than, $100 million/year.

What could a new philanthropist do?

Advocacy to improve or increase U.S. foreign aid could take a number of forms, including:

  • Think tank-style research and outreach (e.g. the Center for Global Development) 15
  • Improving the amount or kind of media coverage of development or aid issues
  • Media-savvy mass outreach and lobbying efforts (e.g. ONE) 16
  • Grassroots organizing (e.g. RESULTS) 17
  • Co-funding an international aid organization to attract funding from governments (e.g. the Gates Foundation’s funding for GAVI and the Global Fund)18

Specific philanthropic opportunities might range from general support for one or more of these approaches or organizations (e.g. funding RESULTS’ expansion to additional districts where it is not currently represented) 19 to specific programmatic support for work on a particular proposed reform (e.g. think tank work on additional funding for electricity infrastructure in Africa, grassroots organizing to support the Global Fund replenishment). 20

What has the track record of past advocacy efforts been?

We have heard or read about a number of claimed foreign advocacy success stories, though we are not aware of any cases of policy changes that are unambiguously attributable to efforts on behalf of advocacy organizations. A very incomplete list of some fairly recent claimed successes by foreign aid advocacy groups includes:

  • Efforts by ONE and the Center for Global Development to shape President Obama’s recent Power Africa initiative. 21 (The Power Africa initiative includes more than $7 billion in financial commitments over several years, though the large majority of the commitments take the form of loans rather than grants). 22
  • Re-authorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a multi-billion dollar aid program, in 2008. 23
  • Multi-billion dollar U.S. commitments to the Global Fund and GAVI Alliance. 24
  • Significant advanced market commitments from Canada for new vaccines. 25
  • A major 2006 debt-relief deal for Nigeria. 26

We have not investigated any of these claimed successes in sufficient depth to feel confident that the advocacy groups involved played a causal role, but the returns on investment if these represent true cases of advocacy impact would likely be very large.

Questions for further investigation

Our research in this area has been relatively limited, and many important questions remain unanswered by our investigation. Amongst other topics, further research on this cause might address:

  • In which cases can claimed success stories be confidently attributed to the efforts of one or more advocacy groups?
  • How would additional funding translate into additional advocacy efforts? To what extent is funding the bottleneck to advocacy success on foreign aid issues?
  • How do the likely returns to advocacy efforts in the U.S. compare to likely returns in other high-income countries?
  • Would it be better to focus on other policy issues in high-income countries instead of improving or increasing foreign aid? Should a philanthropist focus on other policy issues in low-income countries instead of focusing on aid?

Our process

We decided to investigate this area because we believe that advocacy to improve or augment U.S. foreign aid could conceptually have high returns relative to direct service efforts like our top charities. We spoke to three individuals with knowledge of the field, including:

We also conducted some limited desk research on the size of some of the organizations involved in advocacy related to U.S. foreign aid.

Sources

Document Source
Birdsall and Kharas 2010 Source (archive)
Bread for the World 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
Bread for the World 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
CARE Advocacy Source (archive)
Center for Global Development 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
Center for Global Development Homepage Source (archive)
Center for Global Development: Evaluation of Impact Source (archive)
Easterly and Williamson 2011 Source (archive)
Fact sheet: Power Africa Source (archive)
Friends of the Global Fight 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
Gates Foundation grant to the Center for Global Development Source (archive)
Gates Foundation grant to the Global Fund Source (archive)
Gates Foundation grant to the One Campaign Source (archive)
Hewlett Foundation grant to the One Campaign Source (archive)
Hewlett Foundation match for gifts to the Center for Global Development Source (archive)
Knack, Rogers, and Eubank 2011 Source (archive)
Nossal 2003 Source (archive)
Notes from a conversation with Ben Leo on September 3, 2013 Source
Notes from a conversation with John Fawcett on September 3, 2013 Source
OECD 2012 Source (archive)
ONE ACTION 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990 Summary Source (archive)
ONE Homepage Source (archive)
ONE IRS Form 990 2011 Source (archive)
Oxfam America Advocacy Fund Source (archive)
RESULTS 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
RESULTS 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990 Summary Source (archive)
RESULTS Homepage Source (archive)
State and USAID - FY 2013 Budget Fact Sheet Source (archive)
The One Campaign 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
US Global Leadership Coalition 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
US Global Leadership Coalition 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990 Source (archive)
  • 1. We believe this to be a nearly universal view in development circles, but are not aware of an authoritative source that could reliably measure aid effectiveness. The U.S. has performed poorly on existing efforts to rate the quality of aid. See, for instance:
    • Easterly and Williamson 2011: “The United States has the highest administrative costs of the bilaterals, plausibly reflecting the much-noted phenomenon that Congress has imposed many earmarks and other multiple and conflicting mandates on USAID.” pg 1935. “Despite decades of criticism, the largest bilateral, the United States, still ties a quarter of its aid.” pg 1939. “The worst bilateral agency is Hellenic Aid run by Greece’s Development Cooperation Agency. Greece is not nearly as transparent as the other agencies. It does not report on the number of staff or its salaries and benefits, even after several rounds of emails requesting this information. Hellenic Aid scores poorly on selectivity dispersing 87% to corrupt coun- tries and less than 12% to low income countries. Greece also disburses a large portion of aid through ineffective channels, tying 62% and allocating 27% of aid to technical assistance. Greece is not the only bilateral agency performing poorly. The bottom eight agencies among our main list of donors are all bilateral donors: the United States, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Finland, and Greece. Remember that this poor performance relative to the average is all the more striking since the average behavior is itself unsatisfactory by minimum standards. The US does badly because of poor performance on selectivity and ineffective channels—the foreign policy needs of the US superpower and the lobbies for particular aid channels seem to dominate the politics of American aid.” pg 1946.
    • Birdsall and Kharas 2010: “Is the United States special? As a funder of development aid, yes. The United States is the single largest donor, among all bilateral and mul- tilateral funders, with gross disbursements of $24.8 billion in 2008. It is one of the oldest donors; its principal aid agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was created in 1961, under the banner of John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress. A predecessor agency called the International Cooperation Ad- ministration was established in 1954. From the creation and support for the Bretton Woods institutions, to the protection of sea lanes to undergird the liberal trading system and the leadership of NATO and other security institutions, it is not surprising that development aid in the United States has had multiple domestic sponsors, multiple objectives (commercial, security, diplomatic, and development), and over time multiple problems. Perhaps history explains the low U.S. scores on aid quality. Among the 31 bilateral and multilateral funders included in our country analysis, the United States is in the bottom third on all four dimensions of aid quality, and second lowest on fostering institutions (see text in section on country results above). Though the United States spends much of its total aid resources in just a few countries (Afghanistan, Egypt), it does poorly in part because it is a very small player in a large pool of aid-recipient countries—reducing the overall efficiency of the aid system and adding to the reporting and other administrative burdens of recipients. Its long tail of small programs across the world possibly reflects diplomatic objectives at the expense of the development effectiveness of its aid spending. At the same time, it should be said that the United States is a major contributor to humanitarian assistance worldwide. This QuODA assessment is about development assistance; the low scores of the United States on many indicators are not an indictment of all U.S. foreign assistance.” pg 33.
    • “The “overall” score in Table 3 is calculated as the un- weighted average of the four standardized sub-indexes. 15 With this weighting, the top five donors in terms of overall rank are the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, the IMF, Denmark, and Ireland, while the bottom five are Portugal, the Czech Republic, Korea, Greece, and Turkey. Large donors that earn relatively low overall scores include the United States (ranked 33) and the United Nations agencies (30).” Knack, Rogers, and Eubank 2011 pg. 1914
  • 2. According to the OECD, the U.S. gave $30.8 billion of Official Development Assistance in 2012, more than any other bilateral funder. OECD 2012
  • 3. For instance, William Easterly, author of The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good, and Angus Deaton, author of The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality, have questioned the effectiveness of government aid as currently spent.
  • 4. The US currently gives about $30 billion in aid per year, 0.19% of the US’s GNI. The UK gives 0.56% of its GNI in aid. If the US gave 0.56% of its GNI as aid, it would give about $30 billion * (0.56%/0.19%) = $88 billion. OECD 2012. Some other European countries, such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden provide higher proportions of their GNI as aid.
  • 5.
    • “ONE is the clear leader in the advocacy space, both nationally and globally. It grew very fast for a number of years and has plateaued recently, with a budget size of roughly $30 million dollars and around 160 staff. The policy team has about 20 staff and is grouped into thematic areas.” Notes from a conversation with Ben Leo on September 3, 2013
    • Of budget items given a geographical focus on pages 48-51 of ONE IRS Form 990 2011, $8.7 million was spent on U.S. efforts, compared to $6.5 million on Europe an $1.6 million on Africa. Another ~$6 million was spent on projects without a specific geographic focus.
    • ONE also spent ~$2 million on 501c4 efforts in 2011 ONE ACTION 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990 Summary
  • 6. RESULTS 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990, RESULTS 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990 Summary
  • 7. Bread for the World 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990, Bread for the World 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990
  • 8. Friends of the Global Fight 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990
  • 9. US Global Leadership Coalition 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990, US Global Leadership Coalition 501(c)(4) IRS Form 990
  • 10. Oxfam America Advocacy Fund, CARE Advocacy
  • 11. “CGD and ONE are unique in Washington, DC in that they cut across the field of development policy broadly. International Budget Partnership, which focuses on international budget transparency, and Publish What You Pay, which focuses on aid transparency, are interesting niche players in the transparency space, which is a growing area. The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Brookings Institution do interesting work in the foreign aid space as well.” Notes from a conversation with Ben Leo on September 3, 2013
  • 12. Center for Global Development 501(c)(3) IRS Form 990
  • 13. Gates Foundation grant to the One Campaign, Gates Foundation grant to the Center for Global Development, Hewlett Foundation match for gifts to the Center for Global Development, Hewlett Foundation grant to the One Campaign
  • 14.
    • “1998 proved to be an important year for global immunization. In March, the President of The World Bank Mr James D Wolfensohn convened a ‘World Bank Summit’ in an attempt to bring to the table all parties interested in revivifying EPI and getting universal childhood immunization back on track. He got the support of the new, dynamic Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, and also the Executive Director of UNICEF, Ms Carol Bellamy, as well as keen enthusiasm from the leaders of the academic community and a reasonable degree of support from the pharmaceutical industry, with the caution that size- able funds would be needed if the dreams were to be turned into realities. A great deal of work was done to plan for a second Summit which was duly held in Bellagio, Italy, under my chairmanship in March 1999. In the meantime, however, a major new dynamic entered the field in the shape of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In December of that year they announced a grant of US$100 million for the Children’s Vaccine Program but this was only the beginning. As the months rolled by the generosity of the Foundation kept astounding the world community. There were major research initiatives in malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhoeal diseases, measles, hookworm and meningococcal vaccines. There was a strong contribution to both polio eradication and AIDS research. All of this together totalled approximately three- quarters of a billion dollars, but the most dramatic grant was towards the establishment of a Global Children’s Vaccine Fund, with another three-quarters of a billion dollars, thus total grants being US$1.5 billion. This generosity really provided the underpinning of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) which was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2000.1 In the meantime, the Vaccine Fund has received other grants and pledges and stands at well over US$1 billion.” Nossal 2003 pg. 21
    • “Signaling that stopping the transmission of AIDS is the foundation’s top global health priority, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced that it will commit $100 million to the Global Fund for AIDS and Health. The foundation used the occasion to call on other organizations and governments around the world also to support the new fund. The foundation is making this commitment over a multi-year period for innovative HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.” Gates Foundation grant to the Global Fund
  • 15. Center for Global Development Homepage
  • 16. ONE Homepage
  • 17. RESULTS Homepage
  • 18.
    • “1998 proved to be an important year for global immunization. In March, the President of The World Bank Mr James D Wolfensohn convened a ‘World Bank Summit’ in an attempt to bring to the table all parties interested in revivifying EPI and getting universal childhood immunization back on track. He got the support of the new, dynamic Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, and also the Executive Director of UNICEF, Ms Carol Bellamy, as well as keen enthusiasm from the leaders of the academic community and a reasonable degree of support from the pharmaceutical industry, with the caution that size- able funds would be needed if the dreams were to be turned into realities. A great deal of work was done to plan for a second Summit which was duly held in Bellagio, Italy, under my chairmanship in March 1999. In the meantime, however, a major new dynamic entered the field in the shape of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In December of that year they announced a grant of US$100 million for the Children’s Vaccine Program but this was only the beginning. As the months rolled by the generosity of the Foundation kept astounding the world community. There were major research initiatives in malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhoeal diseases, mea- sles, hookworm and meningococcal vaccines. There was a strong contribution to both polio eradication and AIDS research. All of this together totalled approximately three- quarters of a billion dollars, but the most dramatic grant was towards the establishment of a Global Children’s Vaccine Fund, with another three-quarters of a billion dollars, thus total grants being US$1.5 billion. This generosity really provided the underpinning of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) which was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2000.1 In the meantime, the Vaccine Fund has received other grants and pledges and stands at well over US$1 billion.” Nossal 2003, pg. 21
    • “Signaling that stopping the transmission of AIDS is the foundation’s top global health priority, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced that it will commit $100 million to the Global Fund for AIDS and Health. The foundation used the occasion to call on other organizations and governments around the world also to support the new fund. The foundation is making this commitment over a multi-year period for innovative HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.” Gates Foundation grant to the Global Fund
  • 19. “RESULTS seeks to expand its work to cover more geographies and more members of Congress,. It currently has a presence in around 40 states. In small states, citizens can have a disproportionately large impact because they are more likely to have contact with their representative and senators. It is also important to cover the districts of the significant decision makers in Congress. RESULTS is currently not well-represented in all small states, and so it believes that expanding in the optimal areas is more important than simply increasing its number of grassroots members.” Notes from a conversation with John Fawcett on September 3, 2013
  • 20.
    • “The impetus for what became Power Africa came about when Michael Froman – who is now US Trade Representative, but at the time was President Obama’s principal economic advisor at the National Security Council – took a trip to Africa with Gayle Smith, Obama’s chief development advisor. They met with businesses, donors, and agencies and found that what was restricting opportunities and holding back African economies’ ability to compete in the global marketplace was a lack of affordable, reliable power and a lack of transport infrastructure. After that trip, Michael Froman launched a 9-month inter-agency process to think about possible actions the US government could take. ONE and CGD shared ideas, some of which were adopted. Simultaneously, ONE and CGD worked to create sustainable bipartisan support for the proposals on Capitol Hill. Because energy and infrastructure issues require long-term policy, it is important that the political support remains steady over the long run, so lots of spadework is necessary to make sure that legislators feel invested in the policy.” Notes from a conversation with Ben Leo on September 3, 2013
    • “When choosing issues, RESULTS puts an emphasis on global health, education, and microfinance and related issues, and is oriented towards interventions which will have a disproportionate impact on the poorest – not just the bottom quintile, but the bottom quintile of the bottom quintile. Staff look for areas where no one is doing advocacy, or where RESULTS could complement existing advocacy. Any potential issue area has to be “campaignable,” i.e. interesting and attractive to grassroots campaigners, with the possibility of an impactful policy change (as a result, RESULTS does not engage the private sector as an advocacy target because there is no possibility for public policy change). RESULTS prioritizes issues based on the current policy environment. For example, near the end of this year there will be a replenishment conference for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which will be an opportunity to maintain or, hopefully, increase US support. Preparing for that opportunity and advocating for as much support as possible for the Global Fund will be a top RESULTS priority for the remainder of the year.” Notes from a conversation with John Fawcett on September 3, 2013
  • 21. “The impetus for what became Power Africa came about when Michael Froman – who is now US Trade Representative, but at the time was President Obama’s principal economic advisor at the National Security Council – took a trip to Africa with Gayle Smith, Obama’s chief development advisor. They met with businesses, donors, and agencies and found that what was restricting opportunities and holding back African economies’ ability to compete in the global marketplace was a lack of affordable, reliable power and a lack of transport infrastructure. After that trip, Michael Froman launched a 9-month inter-agency process to think about possible actions the US government could take. ONE and CGD shared ideas, some of which were adopted. Simultaneously, ONE and CGD worked to create sustainable bipartisan support for the proposals on Capitol Hill. Because energy and infrastructure issues require long-term policy, it is important that the political support remains steady over the long run, so lots of spadework is necessary to make sure that legislators feel invested in the policy.” Notes from a conversation with Ben Leo on September 3, 2013
  • 22. “The United States will commit more than $7 billion in financial support over the next five years to this effort, including: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will provide $285 million in technical assistance, grants and risk mitigation to advance private sector energy transactions and help governments adopt and implement the policy, regulatory, and other reforms necessary to attract private sector investment in the energy and power sectors. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) will commit up to $1.5 billion in financing and insurance to energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) will make available up to $5 billion in support of U.S. exports for the development of power projects across sub-Saharan Africa. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will invest up to $1 billion in African power systems through its country compacts to increase access and the reliability and sustainability of electricity supply through investments in energy infrastructure, policy and regulatory reforms and institutional capacity building.” Fact sheet: Power Africa
  • 23. “RESULTS has had a number of successes in recent years, including the reauthorization of PEPFAR in 2008. The PEPFAR reauthorization was a legislative process rather than a presidential budget request. RESULTS worked on that bill, especially on the tuberculosis section, which has proved crucial to PEPFAR. Due to continuing budget resolutions, there is unlikely to be another vote on PEPFAR funding in the near future, making the 2008 bill very important.” Notes from a conversation with John Fawcett on September 3, 2013
  • 24. “RESULTS has had a number of successes in recent years, including the reauthorization of PEPFAR in 2008. The PEPFAR reauthorization was a legislative process rather than a presidential budget request. RESULTS worked on that bill, especially on the tuberculosis section, which has proved crucial to PEPFAR. Due to continuing budget resolutions, there is unlikely to be another vote on PEPFAR funding in the near future, making the 2008 bill very important. The 2010 pledge to the Global Fund was the first pledge of its kind to any multilateral institution of that type, and so was a significant accomplishment that set a precedent for that type of giving. The pledge increased the US contribution to the Global Fund and that money has been protected despite challenging budget cycles. The US pledge in the following year to the GAVI Alliance was another notable success. The pledge was of a smaller magnitude than the pledge to the Global Fund, but was a significant increase. The administration has also protected that increase.” Notes from a conversation with John Fawcett on September 3, 2013
  • 25. “CGD’s work on the vaccines initiative helped put the issue on the international agenda at the 2006 G8 meeting. CGD provided intellectual leadership, a platform for multi-stakeholder engagement, and effective promulgation of a draft plan to address a global failure of the public-health market. Observers generally agree that actually realizing a pull mechanism for vaccine development would not have advanced as far or as fast had it not been for CGD’s contribution. CGD helped translate an existing idea into a concrete policy proposal. CGD did not invent the pull incentive mechanism, but incubated the concept and then managed an appropriate handoff to an international financial institution and a global fund. CGD’s vaccine work demonstrated the benefits of the working group approach. The working group model allowed CGD to harvest the wisdom of a well-connected group of experts that delivered far more than any individual or small grouping of experts could have achieved. Careful attention must be paid to the composition of the working group. The initiative is beginning to show concrete results. The resources already pledged by one bilateral donor – C$100 million from Canada – for a pilot Advanced Market Commitment for Vaccines far exceed the cost of undertaking the initiative.” Center for Global Development: Evaluation of Impact pgs 14-15
  • 26. “CGD can justifiably claim considerable credit for Nigeria’s debt-relief deal. Its work contributed to Nigeria’s landmark 2006 agreement with the Paris Club of creditor nations to reduce its debt burden. This view is widely held among Nigerian officials, debt-relief advocates, and some rich-country officials. CGD’s work on the issue of the qualified nature of Nigeria’s access to IDA funding was thorough and competent, but its influence on World Bank policy is questionable. World Bank staff and senior managers directly responsible for Nigeria’s IDA classification and allocation were neither consulted by CGD nor aware of its work on Nigeria’s debt status. CGD’s efforts on the deal’s structure were relevant, timely, and influential. Led by Dr. Moss, CGD consulted extensively with Nigerian government officials, but only approached a subset of representatives of the relevant creditor nations during negotiations that led to the deal. Nigerian officials credit CGD with playing a key and influential role in the process. CGD’s network is heavily Anglo-Saxon, limiting its influence on the creditor nations. Relative to its work with the U.S. and U.K. Treasuries, CGD’s outreach toward other key creditors like France and the Netherlands was non-existent. CGD researchers can continue to increase the Center’s influence on development policy by seeking to reach beyond established networks.” Center for Global Development: Evaluation of Impact pg 15