It’s already been a year since People, Spaces, Deliberation was officially launched, and we would like to take the opportunity to thank all of our readers and our bloggers for making this blog into such a rewarding experience. We are grateful to our guest bloggers, who have joined this blog from around the world to share their expertise on issues we believe are fundamental to improving governance and accountability.
First, America must remove trade barriers on exports from the poorest countries, regardless of trade policies in those countries. With global market access, poor countries would automatically attract private investment, despite their institutional weaknesses. These institutions would become stronger over time as businesses flourish. Private investments capitalizing on access to global markets would necessarily employ low-cost labor, thus creating jobs.
Just what does it take to make a successful female entrepeneur in the developing world? At least part of the answer is that a woman needs a relatively effective way to save money. A new paper on Savings Constraints and Microenterprise Development reports on the results of an experiment in Kenya that provided zero-interest savings accounts to village microentreprenuers:
Editor's Note: Sarah Iqbal is a consultant at the World Bank, currently working on the Doing Business Gender Law Library. Previously, she worked as an attorney in California.
Writing in the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opines on the benefits of having greater gender diversity in the financial sector:
After 3 years in the making, the results of the research project that started as part of Doing Business and looks at transparency in government are out.
We hear that climate changes – ongoing and those to come – are hitting the poor the hardest and the soonest. So what can we do about that?
Randomized program implementation is currently seen as the ‘gold standard’ for impact evaluation in the search for the most effective development interventions. Earlier studies were criticized for their limited scope, so some of these interventions now involve large populations. Unfortunately, the larger the intervention, the larger is the danger that people who were supposed to get the treatment do not receive the intervention and vice-versa. Do such deviations invalidate the conclusions drawn from randomized studies?