Relative endorsements of development finance instruments in GDG- and ODI-policy documents

To assess the relative approval of the three approaches identified by our trilemma, we conducted a content analysis of policy documents published by the two leading independent think tanks in global development finance: the US-based CDG and the UK-based ODI. We categorised the Type of financing: (1) external, (2) mixed, (3) domestic. Subdivided into: (1) private capital mobilization, subdivided into (i) project derisking, (ii) portfolio derisking, and (iii) unspecified; (2) leveraging or strenghtening MDBs, subdivided into (2i) CAF reforms, (2ii) WBG capital increase, and (2iii) IDA replenishment; and (3) domestic resource mobilization, subdivided into (3i) figting illicit capital flight, (3ii) sovereign debt restructuring, and (3iii) other. The G20 independent expert groups commissioned to write key reports on MDB reforms over the last decade – Making the Global Financial System Work for All (G20 Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance, 2018), Boosting MDBs’ Investing Capacity: An Independent Review of MDBs’ Capital Adequacy Frameworks (G20 CAF Review Expert Panel, 2022), Strengthening the MDBs: The Triple Agenda (G20 Independent Expert Panel, 2023 – included affiliates of the GCD and/or ODI. To gauge the relative focus of the two think tanks on different approaches in the MFD agenda, we categorized 207 policy documents published from 2015 to 2024 with a focus on the MFD agenda according to whether they contained explicit endorsement of private (project or portfolio) derisking and/or leveraging/strengthening of MDBs. There has been some rise in endorsements of portfolio derisking proposals since 2020. Nevertheless, endorsement of such proposals have been far fewer than endorsements of proposals related to leveraging and/or strengthening the traditional business model of the MDBs. The thinktank publications have been read systematically, with the use of Qualtrics, with exact mentions and text excerpts written down. These forms can be made available upon request. Qualtrics survey: https://ugent.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6Vx84GPlZyQ2ciG为评估我们提出的三难困境所界定的三种路径的相对认可度，我们对全球发展金融（Multilateral Development Finance，MFD）领域两家顶尖独立智库发布的政策文件开展了内容分析：美国的CDG与英国的ODI。我们将融资类型划分为三类：(1) 外部融资、(2) 混合融资、(3) 国内融资，并进一步细分：(1) 私人资本动员，细分为(i) 项目风险缓释、(ii) 资产组合风险缓释，以及(iii) 未指定类型；(2) 撬动或强化多边开发银行（Multilateral Development Bank，MDB），细分为(2i) 资本充足框架（Capital Adequacy Framework，CAF）改革、(2ii) 世界银行集团（World Bank Group，WBG）增资，以及(2iii) 国际开发协会（International Development Association，IDA）增资补充；(3) 国内资源动员，细分为(3i) 打击非法资本外逃、(3ii) 主权债务重组，以及(3iii) 其他举措。 过去十年间，受G20委托撰写多边开发银行改革核心报告的独立专家小组包括：《让全球金融体系服务于全人类》（G20全球金融治理知名人士小组，2018年）、《提升多边开发银行投资能力：多边开发银行资本充足框架独立评估》（G20资本充足框架审查专家小组，2022年）、《强化多边开发银行：三重议程》（G20独立专家小组，2023年——报告作者包含CDG和/或ODI智库成员）。 为衡量这两家智库在MFD议程中对不同路径的关注侧重，我们对2015年至2024年间发布的207份聚焦MFD议程的政策文件进行了分类，依据是文件是否明确认可私人（项目或资产组合）风险缓释举措，以及/或撬动/强化多边开发银行的相关路径。2020年以来，资产组合风险缓释提案的认可度有所提升，但此类提案的认可度仍远低于与撬动和/或强化多边开发银行传统业务模式相关提案的认可度。 研究团队通过Qualtrics平台对智库出版物进行了系统性研读，记录了精准提及的内容与文本摘录，相关表单可应要求提供。Qualtrics调研链接：https://ugent.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6Vx84GPlZyQ2ciG