Center for Global Development

About: Center for Global Development is a nonprofit organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Poverty & Population. The organization has 1472 authors who have published 3891 publications receiving 162325 citations.

Climate Change and the Future Impacts of Storm-Surge Disasters in Developing Countries

Abstract: As the climate changes during the 21st century, larger cyclonic storm surges and growing populations may collide in disasters of unprecedented size. As conditions worsen, variations in coastal morphology will magnify the effects in some areas, while largely insulating others. In this paper, we explore the implications for 84 developing countries and 577 of their cyclone-vulnerable coastal cities with populations greater than 100,000. Combining the most recent scientific and demographic information, we estimate the future impact of climate change on storm surges that will strike coastal populations, economies and ecosystems. We focus on the distribution of heightened impacts, because we believe that greater knowledge of their probable variation will be useful for local and national planners, as well as international donors. Our results suggest gross inequality in the heightened impact of future disasters, with the most severe effects limited to a small number of countries and a small cluster of large cities.

Phase II, multicenter, open-label, randomized study of YM155 plus docetaxel as first-line treatment in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Abstract: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of YM155, a survivin suppressor, in combination with docetaxel, compared with docetaxel alone in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This phase II, multicenter, open-label, 2-arm study randomized patients (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and ≥1 measurable lesion, to receive docetaxel alone or docetaxel plus YM155. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to response (TTR), biomarker assessment, and analysis of circulating tumor cells. Patients were women diagnosed with HER2-negative breast cancer; most had received prior drug therapies. The median PFS was 8.4 months with YM155 plus docetaxel (n = 50) and 10.5 months with docetaxel alone (n = 51; HR 1.53; 95 % CI 0.83, 2.83; P = 0.176). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary endpoints, although slightly greater OS (630 vs 601 days; P = 0.768), CBR (84.3 vs 82.0 %; P = 0.855), DOR, and TTR were observed with docetaxel alone compared with YM155 plus docetaxel, whereas ORR was similar (25.5 vs 26.0). The most common TEAEs observed with YM155 plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone were neutropenia (83.3 vs 84.3 %), alopecia (62.5 vs 52.9 %), fatigue (50 vs 41.2 %), and nausea (37.5 vs 41.2 %). Although YM155 is a novel drug that suppresses survivin, YM155 plus docetaxel exhibited no statistically significant differences in endpoints compared with docetaxel alone. The combination regimen was well tolerated.

The Millennium Challenge Account: How Much is Too Much, How Long is Long Enough?

Abstract: The US government's proposed $5 billion Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) could provide upwards of $250-$300m or more per year per country in new development assistance to a small number of poor countries judged to have relatively "good" policies and institutions. Could this assistance be too much of a good thing and strain the absorptive capacity of recipient countries to use the funds effectively? Empirical evidence from the past 40 years of development assistance suggests that in most potential MCA countries, the sheer quantity of MCA money is unlikely to overwhelm the ability of recipients to use it well, if the funds are delivered effectively. There may be a small number of potential recipients, mostly very small economies already receiving substantial amounts of aid, in which MCA money might be so bountiful as to surpass recipient governments' absorptive capacity. Strong monitoring and evaluation is the key to detecting and correcting possible absorptive capacity problems, rather than ad-hoc rules limiting the amount of assistance. Where problems do arise, funds should be re-allocated to other activities within the country or to other MCA countries, or the list of countries qualifying for the MCA could be expanded slightly to include a small number of additional countries that may be able to use the funds effectively. We also explore the length of time that the USG should be prepared to continue to fund MCA countries, and how recipients might exit from MCA funding over time. We look back at two dozen "good policy" countries that previously were very poor but have grown and developed after receiving large amounts of aid, one might call them the ideal MCA candidates of the 1970s. Their experience suggests that (1) unlike some other countries, they used aid well, and (2) these "best case scenarios" required stable and moderately sizeable aid commitments lasting decades. This experience suggests that even the best performing of the MCA countries are likely to require significant assistance for many years. The idea of a brief, big-bang "Marshall Plan" for developing countries in which the MCA provides a large amount of funding for a short period of time in hopes of igniting rapid development is probably wishful thinking.

A Valley of Death in the Innovation Sequence: An Economic Investigation

Abstract: The United States Department of Commerce, Technology Administration provided support to the Phoenix Center to study the causes and potential solutions of the Valley of Death for technology development in the United States under Study Contract No. SB1341-05-2-0023 administered by KT Consulting, Inc. While several explanations for this Valley of Death have been proffered, this Paper takes a decidedly different approach to this issue. We focus our attention on the notion that the Valley of Death is, in fact, a valley in the innovation process - an image that implies that funding for RD in fact, there are important and valid reasons for government to support R&D activity. In some respects, the Valley of Death may be an inevitable consequence of socially-valuable government intervention. An important question is whether technology policymakers should devote some attention and resources to the study of the optimal mix of government support for early-stage and intermediate-stage R&D projects. In particular, it may be possible to increase economic welfare from government R&D efforts by increasing support for intermediate stage projects or by altering the allocation of a fixed level of support between early and intermediate stages of the innovation process. Even if the current mix of funding across the stages of the innovation process is deemed optimal, it is also sensible to evaluate ways to increase technology innovation by assisting private investors in seeing projects through intermediate stages of the innovation sequence, which will bring innovations closer to commercialization and diffusion.