Commitment to Development Index
The Commitment to Development Index (CDI), published annually by the Center for Global Development, ranks the world's richest countries on their dedication to policies that benefit the five billion people living in poorer nations. Rich and poor countries are linked in many ways; thus the Index looks beyond standard comparisons of foreign aid flows. It measures "development-friendliness" of 40 of the world's richest countries, all member nations of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. The CDI assesses national effort in seven policy areas: aid, trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology.[1] It is considered to be a numerical targeting indicator for Goal 8 of the Millennium Development Goals.[2] It shows that aid is about more than quantity – quality also matters – and that development policy is about more than aid. The Index penalizes countries that give with one hand, for instance through aid or investment, but take away with the other, through trade barriers or pollution.
In 2021, the CDI ranked Sweden number one in the world, followed by France, Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom. Argentina, United Arab Emirates and India finished at the bottom.
History
The CDI is a flagship initiative of the
Components
Aid
Trade
Finance
Previously it was called the Investment. The CDI strives to reward rich countries that pursue policies that encourage investment and financial transparency that is good for development. It looks at two kinds of capital flows: foreign direct investment, which occurs when a company from one country buys a stake in an existing company or builds a factory in another country; and portfolio investment, which occurs when foreigners buy securities that are traded on open exchanges. The investment component is built on a checklist of twenty questions. Do the rich-country governments, for example, offer political risk insurance, encouraging companies to invest in poor countries whose political climate would otherwise be deemed too insecure? Do they have tax provisions or treaties to prevent overseas investors from being taxed both at home and in the investment country?
Migration
The CDI rewards migration of both skilled and unskilled people, though unskilled more so. It uses data on the gross inflow of migrants from developing countries in a recent year and the net increase in the number of unskilled migrant residents from developing countries during the 1990s. The CDI also uses indicators of openness to students from poor countries and aid for
Environment
Rich countries use a disproportionate amount of scarce resources, and poor countries are most vulnerable to
Security
The security component of the CDI compares rich countries on military actions that affect developing countries. The CDI looks at four aspects of the security-development nexus. It tallies the financial and personnel contributions to
Technology
The technology component of the CDI analyses policies of the rich countries that support creation and dissemination of new technologies, which can profoundly shape life in developing countries. The CDI rewards policies that support the creation and dissemination of innovations of value to developing countries. It rewards government subsidies for research and development(R&D), whether delivered through spending or tax breaks, while discounting military R&D by half. Also factored in are policies on intellectual property rights (IPRs) that can inhibit the international flow of innovations. These take the form of patent laws that arguably go too far in advancing the interests of those who produce innovations at the expense of those who use them. U.S. trade negotiators, for example, have pushed for developing countries to agree never to force the immediate licensing of a patent even when it would serve a compelling public interest, as an HIV/AIDS drug might if produced by low-cost local manufacturers.
Health
The health component of the CDI was added in 2021 as a response to the
Methodology
The CDI ranks 40 countries which are the richest, most developed countries in the world. Together, they constitute the majority membership of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee which is the official organization of aid donors, along with one DAC observers (Hungary).
The CDI quantifies a range of rich-country policies in seven policy area. Scores on each component are scaled on a percentage so that an average score in 2021 equals 50%. A country's final score is the average of those for each component. The CDI adjusts for size in order to compare how well countries are living up to their potential to help. Data for the CDI come from official sources such as the
Latest rankings
Rank | Country | Investment | Development Finance | Technology | Environment | Trade | Security | Migration | Health[9] | Overall (Average) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sweden | 86% | 95% | 40% | 100% | 92% | 86% | 100% | 92% | 100 |
2 | France | 100% | 54% | 69% | 95% | 80% | 85% | 39% | 59% | 78 |
3 | Norway | 70% | 96% | 58% | 83% | 31% | 88% | 66% | 68% | 75 |
4 | Australia | 67% | 45% | 100% | 50% | 97% | 84% | 37% | 90% | 74 |
5 | United Kingdom | 90% | 82% | 38% | 86% | 86% | 100% | 28% | 56% | 74 |
6 | Netherlands | 57% | 80% | 34% | 86% | 100% | 86% | 46% | 82% | 74 |
7 | Germany | 80% | 66% | 38% | 84% | 89% | 79% | 58% | 72% | 74 |
8 | Finland | 63% | 67% | 33% | 73% | 85% | 90% | 45% | 100% | 71 |
9 | Canada | 94% | 56% | 62% | 49% | 72% | 77% | 54% | 85% | 70 |
10 | Denmark | 57% | 87% | 36% | 86% | 83% | 92% | 31% | 72% | 69 |
11 | Austria | 63% | 50% | 62% | 85% | 79% | 94% | 46% | 55% | 67 |
12 | Portugal | 60% | 52% | 45% | 94% | 71% | 89% | 55% | 60% | 66 |
13 | Switzerland | 61% | 63% | 51% | 82% | 56% | 75% | 47% | 81% | 65 |
14 | Luxembourg | 39% | 100% | 83% | 34% | 70% | 68% | 57% | 62% | 62 |
15 | New Zealand | 54% | 30% | 70% | 74% | 94% | 81% | 55% | 52% | 62 |
16 | Belgium | 69% | 74% | 40% | 71% | 76% | 71% | 54% | 57% | 62 |
17 | Japan | 63% | 48% | 46% | 77% | 85% | 69% | 22% | 92% | 60 |
18 | Ireland | 72% | 75% | 22% | 83% | 56% | 95% | 36% | 45% | 57 |
19 | Italy | 81% | 53% | 22% | 86% | 74% | 83% | 45% | 27% | 54 |
20 | Spain | 78% | 49% | 18% | 92% | 80% | 75% | 42% | 33% | 53 |
21 | Czech Republic | 47% | 45% | 42% | 81% | 76% | 85% | 14% | 55% | 49 |
22 | United States | 47% | 50% | 30% | 44% | 82% | 93% | 36% | 58% | 46 |
23 | Slovakia | 43% | 45% | 18% | 87% | 60% | 96% | 4% | 69% | 44 |
24 | South Korea | 36% | 42% | 88% | 76% | 24% | 59% | 32% | 54% | 44 |
25 | Hungary | 42% | 40% | 27% | 89% | 58% | 95% | 10% | 56% | 44 |
26 | Chile | 40% | 30% | 15% | 92% | 81% | 48% | 81% | 29% | 42 |
27 | Greece | 59% | 50% | 11% | 84% | 45% | 83% | 61% | 19% | 42 |
28 | South Africa | 37% | 51% | 61% | 61% | 37% | 84% | 35% | 25% | 38 |
29 | Turkey | 17% | 90% | 10% | 60% | 12% | 53% | 98% | 33% | 34 |
30 | Poland | 33% | 44% | 11% | 80% | 52% | 71% | 9% | 18% | 22 |
31 | Brazil | 55% | 42% | 36% | 80% | 3% | 58% | 30% | 0% | 21 |
32 | Saudi Arabia | 5% | 58% | 56% | 24% | 42% | 26% | 8% | 88% | 19 |
33 | Indonesia | 24% | 43% | 30% | 79% | 14% | 57% | 0% | 48% | 19 |
34 | Mexico | 48% | 28% | 0% | 78% | 30% | 51% | 16% | 38% | 16 |
35 | Israel | 55% | 0% | 36% | 59% | 56% | 1% | 28% | 37% | 13 |
36 | China | 18% | 3% | 40% | 79% | 42% | 38% | 0% | 41% | 11 |
37 | Russia | 17% | 40% | 47% | 55% | 31% | 24% | 7% | 38% | 10 |
38 | Argentina | 17% | 31% | 32% | 75% | 4% | 50% | 20% | 20% | 9 |
39 | United Arab Emirates | 0% | 73% | 30% | 0% | 69% | 0% | 17% | 61% | 5 |
40 | India | 25% | 3% | 20% | 90% | 0% | 25% | 5% | 13% | 0 |
Collaborators
CGD commissions background papers and research for most of the components. However, final design responsibility rests with CGD and the CDI does not necessarily represent the views of contributors.
- David Roodman, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development (Chief Architect)
- Theodore Moran, Non-Resident Fellow, Center for Global Development (Investment)
- Kimberly Hamilton and Jeanne Batalova of the Migration Policy Institute (Migration)
- B. Lindsay Lowell and Victoria Carro of Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration (Migration)
- Amy Cassara and Daniel Prager of the World Resources Institute (Environment)
- Michael O'Hanlon and Adriana Lins de Albuquerque of the Brookings Institution (Security)
- Jason Alderwick and Mark Stoker, formerly of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (Security)
- Keith E. Maskus of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Walter Park of American University(Technology)
Criticism
The Commitment to Development Index has received much media attention over the years and has sparked criticism and discussion among a wide range of audiences. One of the most frequent comments, voiced by the
References
- ^ Inside The Index
- ^ Human Development Report 2003
- ^ "Birdsall and Roodman, Technical paper 2003" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-06-20. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
- ^ Commitment to Development Index Aid Component
- ^ "Roodman, Technical paper 2012" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-04-16. Retrieved 2012-11-05.
- ^ "2012 CDI Spreadsheet". Archived from the original on 2013-04-16. Retrieved 2012-11-05.
- ^ "Commitment to Development Index".
- ^ "Health". cgdev.org. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
- ^ Added in 2021 due to COVID-19[8]
- ^ Critical Comments – MOFA (Japan)
- ^ "Japanese Government Criticizes CGD Index". Archived from the original on 2011-07-16. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
- ^ Sawada et al. 2004 Archived 2012-01-13 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ see also Picciotto 2003 Archived 2005-05-09 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Chowdhury and Squire 2003
- ^ McGillivray 2003 Archived 2010-09-23 at the Wayback Machine