Tonight, Esther Duflo, an award-winning development economist, will be giving a talk at the Center for Global Development’s Sixth Annual Richard H. Sabot Lecture. We’re really excited about her presentation because to be perfectly honest, she’s kind of a big deal. She knows how to take economics out of the lab and into the field to discover the causes of poverty and the ways to eradicate it — and that’s a very special gift indeed.

The best part is that you can watch a live stream of this presentation right from your desk today at 5PM ET. The Center for Global Development will be hosting it on their website, and it runs to about 6:30PM ET.

We’ve big fans of Ms. Duflo. Last year, we highlighted her awesome TED presentation, “Social experiments to fight poverty” (it’s garnered 175 comments and almost 25,000 views on YouTube) in a blog post. And just last week, she introduced Bill Gates at ONE’s Living Proof presentation in Paris.

So, if you have a free second later this afternoon and you need a bit of anti-global poverty inspiration, you know what to do. Watch Ms. Duflo’s talk! And don’t forget to tell us what you think in the comments below.

Photo courtesy of Pop!Tech

Antimicrobial resistance, or drug resistance, can be a tricky topic to wrap your head around, so we thought we’d highlight a a very cool new interactive map from the Center for Global Development (CGD). It shows drug resistance data relating to selected infectious diseases across the world, including HIV, pneumonia, shigella, MDR-TB, malaria and MRSA.

The map highlights where individuals carrying resistant strains are, as well as locations that have seen failures of selected drugs and facts on drug resistance. What’s scary is the limited information available to the map. Based on estimates and small-scale studies, what the map truly highlights is how dangerously limited our current knowledge on drug resistance prevalence is.

How is drug resistance spread? Well, according to Rachel Nugent, lead author of “The Race Against Drug Resistance,” a CGD working group report, resistance is spread through “superbugs” such as hospital-bred pathogens that are immune to antibiotics, drug-resistant malaria and drug-resistant TB, which the World Health Organization (WHO) says has the ability to infect an estimated two million people worldwide by 2015.

“When you see and feel an emergency, you respond to it,” Rachel explains, “Unfortunately, drug resistance tends to be invisible, so it’s been hard to come up with a coherent response.” The World Health Organization is now renewing its focus on drug resistance, and CGD has come up with four key recommendations in an effort to beat drug resistance.

Be sure to check out CGD’s interactive map to become better informed, and listen to Rachel’s podcast as well.

“Experimentation on foreign aid is valuable — and rare.” This is the single most important line in Tina Rosenberg’s excellent description of Cash on Delivery Aid in her recent NYTimes opinion piece.

Tina fleshes out an important point we have made but not emphasized enough: COD Aid will make sense to Americans. It will appeal to Americans’ instinct to be generous with aid as long as aid is targeted toward improving people’s lives -– more girls in school, fewer babies dying. Those are short-term goals that everyone, even skeptics of foreign aid, can understand — and a good value at just $20 per child! It is also true that by giving recipient governments some space to address their own bureaucratic and political problems, COD Aid creates some risks. But the potential return in terms of more accountable and responsible government is also something that Americans want — in Malawi (Tina’s example), Pakistan, El Salvador, Ghana, and in all countries around the world where better government is the strongest medicine against extremism abroad (and other bad borderless ills) and the best investment in greater security and prosperity here at home.

There are some good comments on Tina’s column — both about aid in general and COD Aid in particular. None about COD Aid are new to us. We hope newcomers will explore our FAQ and read the preface to the second edition of the book by Bill Savedoff and me here.

To those with questions and complaints about foreign aid in general, we say: encourage the official donors to try COD Aid anyway. Because at least then they won’t be putting your tax dollars at risk — with COD Aid if a government doesn’t produce independently verified results, your money is not spent!

–Nancy Birdsall, CGD

Feel like there’s just no hope for the world these days? Well, it might be time to change your outlook. While the income per capita around the world has not increased, people are exponentially happier than ever before. And life expectancy has even increased by 10 years, despite economies facing monetary crises.

How is this possible, you ask? As Charles Kenny, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, explains in his new book, “Getting Better: Why Global Development is Succeeding. And How We Can Improve the World Even More,” it’s not all about money — the basic quality of life is actually cheap!

Intrigued? I was. Last week, I went to Kenny’s book launch to find out more. Kenny’s book sheds an extremely underrated light on the positive aspects of global development and how the 21st century is ushering in the best of times in terms of health, education, political freedoms and access to infrastructure and new technologies, benefiting even the poorest in the world.

For instance, thanks to technological advancements, we are able to make vaccines extraordinarily affordable and available to the masses, vastly improving the quality of life for countless communities. Kenny addressed aid skeptics by stating that there are enough cases to confidently say that where there was aid, there was effect -– the greatest example being the eradication of smallpox. Additionally, with education, attitudes can be changed, resulting in bigger movements such as encouraging female education (which helps to increase economic growth while decreasing fertility rates) and simple practices like washing your hands (which helps to control the spread of germs and disease).

Global health has made huge strides, and is perhaps the most exciting advancement that we’ve seen. As Kenny told us, “The story is positive and needs to be told. Many people think that aid doesn’t work, and it’s just not true.”

He went on to comment on the foreign aid budget and had a special message for the Senate: “Reform aid. Don’t cut it. Move aid dollars toward something that works.” Certainly, with tens of millions of fewer parents seeing their children die, aid has made an enormous impact, proving its effectiveness.

We love good news, and Kenny certainly delivers. To learn more about the positive aspects of global development, be sure to check out Kenny’s new book –- it’s a great read.

Also, the Center for Global Development is holding a Twitter contest until March 18. Simply mention @CGDev in a tweet and tell them what in the world is #gettingbetter, and you could win a signed copy of “Getting Better: Why Global Development is succeeding. And How We Can Improve the World Even More.”

According to the report’s authors, the Millennium Development Goal to halve the rate of global poverty by 2015 was met sometime in 2007. The report states that poverty reduction is currently taking place in all regions of the world, and predicts that by 2015, we will not only have halved the global poverty rate, but will have halved it again to under 10 percent, or less than 600 million people.

Because of dramatic decreases in poverty rates in India and China, 60 percent of the remaining poor will be in Africa. The report estimates that despite massive population growth, sub-Saharan Africa’s poverty rate has fallen below 50 percent for the first time, an exciting milestone. By 2015, the authors predict that Africa’s poverty rate will fall below 40 percent — something China did not achieve until the mid-1990s. Also, the absolute number of poor people in the region is falling, from 380 million in 2005 to 350 million in 2015.

In addition to extreme poverty being concentrated in Africa, it will also be increasingly concentrated in fragile states. While only 20 percent of the world’s poor lived in fragile states in 2005, the report predicts that more than half of the world’s poor will live in fragile states by 2014. Based on these new predictions, the authors argue that aid agencies should be focusing on two particular areas: sub-Saharan Africa and fragile states. Sub-Saharan Africa has long been recognized as one of the front lines in the war on poverty, and as poverty becomes further concentrated in Africa between now and 2015, the report urges aid agencies to deliver on their commitments to the continent. (You can find more on that in our 2010 DATA Report.)

And now for the technical stuff: While the World Bank is the internationally trusted monitor of global poverty, the complexity and the availability of data from individual countries mean that we don’t get updated global poverty estimates every year. The authors of the report generated poverty estimates for 2005 to 2015 using historical and forecast estimates of per capita consumption growth and the most recent household survey data. With the assumption that the income distribution in each country remains unchanged, they were able to estimate global poverty figures by adding together the number of poor from each country.

As the international community plots the way forward, anti-poverty efforts will have to focus on those in need, which looks to be a very different landscape from when the MDGs were established in 2000. Between now and 2015, many smart people will continue to monitor progress on all of the MDGs. Check out the Center for Global Development’s MDG Scorecards for a visual representation of the progress individual countries are making.

He outlined this notion during a major speech yesterday at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C. Almost 200 influential members of the international development community gathered to hear his proposition for a “new partnership with Africa,” one that offers practical support in delivering on their priorities — and quite simply — gets them to “do the right thing.”

After the speech, I was able to speak with Mr. Blair for a couple of minutes, featured in the video interview above. He offered words of encouragement to our ONE members and explained why he was so “happy” about Africa. “We’re seeing an emerging group of young people from Africa who are smart, who are capable and who are determined to make change,” he responded. “There is change happening.”

Tony Blair answers questions from the audience with Nancy Birdsall of CGD

And this change isn’t just happening on the continent –- Mr. Blair lauded development leaders such as Bob Zoellick from the World Bank, Raj Shah from USAID and Andrew Mitchell from DFID for their game-changing approaches to development. This new batch of leaders — along with the new generation of African leaders that he mentioned during our interview — are helping to pave the way toward a new Africa.

“It is an incredibly exciting time to be in the development field,” Mr. Blair said. “The desire on the part of Africa for its destiny to be in African hands is palpable and invigorating,” he said.

On the subject of aid, he agreed that it is necessary, but warned that it “can only ever be a palliative – vital to many, but not transformative of a nation.” And as far as development policy goes, NGOs need to assist governments in building capacity in ways that are “more innovative, enterprising and politically connected.”

It truly is inspiring to see that Africa is still at the heart of Mr. Blair’s foreign policy agenda, even though he isn’t in office anymore. He ended his speech with a humble quote indicative of his service and commitment to the continent: “This could be Africa’s century. It should be. To play even a very small part in making that happen is a privilege.”

Be sure to watch the two-minute interview in the video above -– Mr. Blair says some very kind things about our ONE members! And if you’d like to watch his full speech, you can do so on the Center for Global Development’s website.

Check out about Tony Blair’s organization, the Africa Governance Initiative. It works with African countries at critical turning points – like Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Liberia – to advance good governance and alleviate poverty.

This award honors individuals or organizations that have made a significant contribution to changing the attitudes, policies and practices of the rich world toward the developing world. Past winners include former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign and ONE for our efforts to put global poverty at the forefront of the presidential candidates’ minds during the 2008 election season.

CDG is honoring Publish What You Pay this year for their work in facilitating the Cardin-Lugar Transparency Provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This piece of legislation will help increase transparency in the oil, gas and mining industries, protect investors from risks associated with corrupt or unstable governments, and require extractive companies listed on the US stock exchanges to disclose government payoffs.

Congratulations, Publish What You Pay, and good luck in the fight against corruption. We’re with you every step of the way. Be sure to check out the organization’s site, too — they do some incredible work in countries across the world.

Last week, at the Center for Global Development, we released the annual Commitment to Development Index -– a ranking of how well rich countries help development abroad.

Though there is clearly a debate about the effect that aid has on development, there is no doubt that developed countries affect developing ones not just with aid, but trade, investment, migration and other policies. Using a series of quantitative measures on seven dimensions, we find that the Scandinavian countries, once again, lead the rich in development-friendly policies. Sweden is top, followed by Denmark and Norway. Only three of the seven G20 nations –- Canada, the United States, and Germany –- were ranked in the top 15 (out of 22).

Where does the United States fall? Right in the middle, at number 11. This is an increase from previous years, mainly due to our contributions in the security realm (the CDI accounts for both financial and personnel contributions to internationally sanctioned operations — thus, Afghanistan is counted, Iraq is not). As in past years, the United States also scored well in the trade component, due to tariffs and subsidies on agricultural products that are low by the standards of its peers (which unfortunately isn’t saying much).

But we lag dramatically behind in other areas. Foreign aid is a small share of our income. A large percentage of that aid is tied. We have low gas taxes and some of the highest greenhouse gas emissions and fuel production rates per capita. We export arms to poor and undemocratic governments.

What is the importance of this ranking? Following the US midterm elections and growing pressure on the federal budget, our foreign aid may be cut. But as the CDI shows, development is about more than aid and aid is about more than quantity—quality of our aid dollars matters too.

As my colleague Sarah Jane Staats writes, it’s possible that budget pressures will lead to other reforms and perhaps progress on other issues such as trade. In fact, here’s a very specific list of 20 steps the United States can take to make our policies more development-friendly, and maybe one day get our CDI score up to No. 1 — something I suspect that ONE could get behind!

- Julie Walz, Center for Global Development

For the first time, QuODA lets you measure the effectiveness of aid to developing countries across donors by looking at a wide range of quantifiable indicators on aid quality (such as measurements of aid transparency, the use of country systems and donor coordination). It lets you compare 23 different countries and 150 agencies, which means you can even see how different parts of the U.S. government stack up against each other. Check out the comparison of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, USAID and the Department of the Defense in the screen shot above -– pretty interesting!

QuODA is a critical first step to helping track whether donors are meeting their commitments to improve aid effectiveness and -– most importantly — ensuring that development assistance is being delivered in a way that can achieve maximum results in countries around the world. Check it out and listen to the “Wonkcast.”

In reality, the president, the secretary of state and the head of USAID all want the same thing: stronger development tools to fight poverty and promote prosperity to create a better, safer America and world. Key members of Congress stand ready to offer support. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been arguing for stronger development and diplomatic programs to complement U.S. defense efforts.

They then delve a bit deeper into how things could play out, writing:

Word is that a draft of the presidential study directive defines a strategy for global development covering not just aid, but trade, migration, climate change and more; and proposes that a senior development official should have a distinct voice at the foreign policy table, preferably with a seat on the National Security Council alongside defense and diplomacy. That is good.

But what about who will be in charge and accountable to Congress, the president and the American people? We hope it will be head of USAID, Rajiv Shah, and that alongside the presidential study directive, the complementary review managed in the State Department will assign to him sufficient autonomy to do the job well.

Why the head of USAID? Why does greater autonomy for USAID matter? While our three main tools of foreign policy — development, diplomacy and defense — should support one another, they have different means for achieving complementary but distinct ends. First, there are trade-offs between more immediate political decisions (often in the realm of defense and diplomacy) and the longer-term horizons and endurance required to reap the benefits of development investments.

Second, there are differences in how broadly dispersed these tools should be. For diplomacy, it makes sense to have some presence in as many countries as possible. For defense, the goal may be to be in as few countries as needed. Development is somewhere in between. Especially given limited development resources, it may make the most sense to focus on fewer places for bigger impact, a direction the White House review of development policy may be headed.

Perhaps most importantly, there must be some degree of separation between development and other foreign policy tools so Congress and the American people can track and measure development results against development objectives — today’s diffuse and unclear authority makes accountability impossible.

The whole piece is worth a read.