Evidence and analysis, when used well, can form the foundation for effective policymaking. But what happens once an analytical report is published, and the findings are shared? In the worst case, these reports sit collecting dust on a few lucky office shelves.
In the best cases, however, smart, rigorous, and timely evidence leads to real impact for the least well off. We set out recently to find out a bit more about how this can work in practice, looking at the case of Indonesia.
Effective social assistance is crucial not only for helping people move out of poverty, but also keeping people from falling into poverty. Too often, however, well-meaning programs do not reach those who need them the most. The poor stay poor, shocks push the vulnerable into poverty, and fiscal space is wasted on programs that are not doing what they need to do.
This week, more than fifty donor governments and representatives of borrowing member countries are gathering in Nay Pyi Taw to discuss how the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) can continue to help the world’s poorest countries.
IDA financing helps the world’s 77 poorest countries address big development issues. With IDA’s help, hundreds of millions of people have escaped poverty. This has been done through the creation of jobs, access to clean water, schools, roads, nutrition, electricity and more. During the past five years, IDA funding helped immunize 205 million children globally, provided access to better water sources for 50 million and access to health services for 413 million people.
Kyaw San has trouble studying at night. The student from Yangon Division’s Buu Tar Suu village finds it especially difficult during the rainy season when his old solar-powered lamps cannot be charged, forcing him to study by candlelight.
Win Win Nwe, a grade 5 student, also often prepares for exams by candlelight. Her family can’t always afford to buy candles, adding another obstacle to an activity many take for granted. “If we can afford candles, we buy them. If we can’t, we don’t. We struggle and do our best,” said her father Kyi Htwe.
Today, two-thirds of Myanmar’s population is not connected to the national electricity grid and 84% of rural households lack access to electricity. No power means no light, no refrigerators, no recharging phones and batteries. Small businesses can’t stay open in the evenings, and clinics cannot refrigerate medicines. Access to reliable and affordable energy is essential for a country’s development, job creation, poverty reduction and shared prosperity goals.
Sejak tahun 1990an, ketimpangan di Indonesia naik lebih pesat dibanding negara Asia Timur manapun selain Tiongkok. Pada tahun 2002, konsumsi 10% rumahtangga terkaya setara dengan konsumsi 42% rumahtangga termiskin. Bahkan pada tahun 2014, naik menjadi 54%. Mengapa kita perlu khawatir mengenai tren ini? Apa penyebabnya, dan bagaimana pemerintah yang sekarang bisa mengatasi naiknya ketimpangan? Apa saja yang perlu dilakukan?
Ketimpangan tidak selalu buruk; ketimpangan bisa memberi penghargaan bagi mereka yang bekerja keras dan berani mengambil risiko. Tetapi ketimpangan yang tinggi itu mengkhawatirkan dan bukan hanya karena alasan keadilan. Ketimpangan tinggi bisa berdampak pada pertumbuhan ekonomi, memperparah konflik, dan menghambat potensi generasi sekarang dan masa depan. Contohnya, riset baru mengindikasikan bahwa secara rata-rata, ketika porsi besar pendapatan nasional dinikmati oleh seperlima rumahtangga terkaya, pertumbuhan ekonomi melambat – sementara negara bisa tumbuh lebih cepat ketika seperlima rumahtangga termiskin menerima lebih banyak.
Since the 1990s, inequality has risen faster in Indonesia than in any other East Asian country apart from China. In 2002, the richest 10 per cent of households consumed as much as the poorest 42 per cent. By 2014, they consumed as much as the poorest 54 per cent. Why should we be worried about this trend? What is causing it, and how is the current administration addressing rising inequality? And what still needs to be done?
Inequality is not always bad; it can provide rewards for those who work hard and take risks. But high inequality is worrying for reasons beyond fairness. High inequality can impact economic growth, exacerbate conflict, and curb the potential of current and future generations. For example, recent research indicates that, on average, when a higher share of national income goes to the richest fifth of households, economic growth slows—whereas countries grow more quickly when the poorest two-fifths receive more.
Malaysia has been able to reach remarkable achievements over the past decades, including extreme poverty eradication and promotion of inclusive growth. It aims to reach a high-income nation status by 2020, which goes beyond merely reaching a per capita GDP threshold. As the 11th Malaysia Plan points out, the goal is to achieve a growth path that is sustainable over time, reflects greater productivity, and is inclusive. High-income status can be achieved if we ensure that future generations have access to all the resources, such as education and productive opportunities, necessary to realize their ambitions and if Malaysia’s economy is globally competitive and resource-sustainable.
Over the years, immigrants have played a crucial role in the economic development of Malaysia, with around 2.1 million immigrants registered and over 1 million undocumented as of 2013. Education levels among the Malaysian population have increased remarkably over the last two decades, and immigrant workers have become one of the primary sources of labor for low-skilled occupations, most commonly in labor-intensive sectors such as construction, agriculture and manufacturing. Economic studies show that a 10% net increase in low-skilled foreign workers could raise Malaysia’s GDP by 1.1% and create employment and increase wages for most Malaysians.
The changes underway in Myanmar can be felt almost everywhere: in Nay Pyi Taw, portraits of Bogyoke Aung San grace the walls of parliament; in Yangon, traffic is choking roads while construction cranes dominate the skyline; and across the country, ports, airports and border crossings are booming with trade. Felt almost everywhere that is, except in rural areas, where the impacts of change have been less visible.
Албан бус орчуулга.Монгол улс, Дэлхийн Банкны хамтын түншлэлийн 25 жилийн 16 дахь он болох 2006 оны тухай өнөөдөр авч үзье. Эдийн засаг өссөөр, жилийн өсөлтийн хурд 8.6 хувьд хүрч, ДНБ-д эзлэх аж үйлдвэрлэлийн хэмжээ 43 хувьд хүрлээ.
2006 он бол Дэлхийн Банкны хувьд гялалзсан он байсан бөгөөд энэ жил хэд хэдэн төсөл хэрэгжиж эхэлсэний нэг нь хөдөөгийн боловсролд чиглэгдсэн байсан юм.
Төсвийн зарцуулалтад хийсэн институтын болон засаглалын үнэлгээгээр хотод нэг багшид ногдох сурагчийн тоо хавьгүй өндөр байгаа нь харагдсан. Төсвийн зарцуулалтын судалгаагаар (PETS) өөр зүйлүүд ч бас ажиглагдсан. Тухайлбал, хөдөө орон нутгийн сурагчид хотын сурагчдыг бодвол шалгалтад хамаагүй бага оноо авч байгаа нь харагдсан. Энэ нь хаана сурах орчин таагүй байна, тэнд сурагчдын үзүүлэх амжилт муу байгаа уялдааг харуулсан хэрэг. Хөдөөгийн хүүхдүүдийн сургууль завсардалт өндөр байж, эрт сургуулиа орхиж байлаа. Хөдөөгийн хүүхдүүдэд сурах боломжийг илүүтэй олгох шаардлага байгаа нь дараа дараагийн жилүүдийн сэдэв байх нь тодорхой байлаа.
Today we look at 2006, the 16th year of the 25 year partnership between Mongolia and the World Bank. The economy continued to grow, checking in at 8.6% for the year, as did industry’s share of GDP which peaked that year at 43%.
The year 2006 was a banner year for the World Bank’s program in Mongolia, with several iconic projects approved that year, starting with one in rural education.
An institutional and governance review of budget expenditure for education found that the pupil-per-teacher ratio is higher in urban schools. Among other findings, the Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS), on which the report was based, illustrated that students in rural schools obtained significantly lower test scores than those from urban schools, consistent with “a pattern where the more disadvantaged — and therefore lower-performing students — systematically fail to advance their schooling and drop out at a younger age in the rural areas.” The need to provide rural children better education opportunities, which had been a theme for years, had further evidence.
Young people account for almost half of Papua New Guinea’s population and comprise a large part of the urban poor. In the capital, Port Moresby, an increasing number of young people are leaving school without the necessary skills for entry-level jobs.
The Urban Youth Employment Project (UYEP) provides disadvantaged young people (aged between 16 and 35) in Port Moresby with life skills and employment training to increase their chances of finding long-term employment, also the motivation to make a fresh start in life. To help meet immediate economic needs, the project is also providing temporary employment opportunities.