ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ РЕГИОНАЛЬНЫХ БАНКОВ РАЗВИТИЯ В УСЛОВИЯХ КОРОНАВИРУСНОГО КРИЗИСА

The aim of the study is to carry out comparative analysis of the international development banks’ activities in the current situation and to develop forecasts regarding the directions of their further performance, as well as some recommendations. The paper considers and summarizes the approaches of a number of international development banks to participation in anti-crisis measures, connected with COVID-19. The stages in the provision of financial resources for the fight against the coronavirus crisis are highlighted. So, first of all, these financial institutions carried out measures such as rapid response and support programs in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic. Going forward, based on the initial anti-crisis measures, new assistance programs are needed to ensure economic growth and sustainable development. To expand their activities, international development banks have increased the issue of their bonds. Activities of the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) in the fight against coronavirus, as well as difficulties and problems, including the need for additional capitalization are studied. The practical significance of the study is expressed in the possibility of using the experience of some international development banks such as the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and others in the context of a pandemic to improve the activities of the EDB. The analysis also provides some information about debt instruments on the international capital markets under the conditions of COVID-19 pandemic.KeywordsInternational development banksWorld bankPandemicCrisisDebtBondsSocial responsible investmentsSustainable development

Resource allocation and management as well as fiscal federalism/decentralization have remained contentious issues in a federal state such as Nigeria. This is because the essence of government at all levels is to bring about rapid economic development through adequate provisions of social and economic infrastructures for the citizenry. The fiscal arrangement within the federation should, therefore, adequately cater for the federating units to enable them to discharge their constitutional responsibilities. Consequently, the struggle for control of power and equitable distribution of resources by the component units that make up the federation is driven by the need for balanced development, fiscal justice and fair play. Fiscal federalism has, therefore, become part of a worldwide 'reform' agenda supported by the Bretton Woods institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and several international institutions such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Asian Development Bank. It has become an integral part of economic development and governance in developing and transitional economies (Bahl, 1999). Fiscal decentralization and the desire for local discretion and devolution of power is often seen by the World Bank as a vehicle to promote governance and development in developing countries such as Nigeria. James (2003) observed that the underlying basis for the renewed interest in fiscal federalism/decentralization as an aspect of any reform agenda includes the following: (i) central governments have discovered that it is impossible for them to meet all the competing needs of their various constituencies and are therefore attempting to build local capacity by delegating responsibilities downward to their regional governments, (ii) central governments expect regional and sub-regional governments to implement national economic development strategies and (iii) regional and local political leaders are demanding more autonomy and want the taxation powers that go along with their expenditures.KeywordsMonetary PolicyFederal GovernmentNiger DeltaRevenue SharingFiscal DecentralizationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This research examines International Development Banks (IDBs) while they implement green financing programs to support renewable energy projects and climate adaptation along with energy efficiency projects in developing regions. The study examines three geographic blocs to show how IDB strategic initiatives lead to both successful and unsuccessful outcomes. IDBs develop environmental emissions reduction and community resilience development through combined financial approaches that incorporate both green bond programs with concessional loans as well as blended finance to produce employment opportunities while advancing economic growth. Policy-makers play a vital role in determining IDB effectiveness through their commitment to ensure frictionless procedures and open governance systems with appropriate mechanisms to engage the private sector. IDBs operate differently from private sector financial institutions through public funding that lowers private investment risks and expenses for multiple business sectors across various industries. The evaluation methods focusing on success track two essential factors: environmental emission cuts alongside economic growth and social welfare advancement for assessing effects. Significant achievements by IDBs persist despite ongoing challenges related to limited funding availability and regulatory barriers affecting their operational effectiveness. The research provides three essential recommendations that stress public-private relations enhancement and institutional proficiency development and technological systems for overseeing projects. Accurate government regulations established according to international climate targets should force private companies to either make strategic investments or enhance their sustainability reporting and risk management programs. Wider implementing measures will enhance the effectiveness of IDBs to drive transformative growth in green finance.

There is a sense of urgency in emerging market and developing countries in general, and Latin America in particular, for international development banks to generate a pipeline of infrastructure projects in order to reboot lagging economies and to meet broader sustainable development goals. In meeting those goals, it is important to also ensure that such efforts are socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable. To draw lessons for this new wave of development finance, this article conducts a comparative analysis of social and environmental safeguards across international development banks. We find a significant divergence in safeguard policy across development banks operating in the region, with Western-backed development banks requiring that borrowers harmonize to developed country standards to others such as China's and Brazil’s banks deferring to host country standards. On the basis of this research, we develop a framework that allows analysts to better empirically examine the impact of different ...

Over the past half century, the idea of sustainable development has evolved and rooted itself in the lexicon on international development. But what is it, really? Are development agencies truly committed to long-term sustainable solutions to development issues? Are we learning from our past successes and failures? This book takes an historical perspective on these questions. The analysis begins with the Atlantic Charter, the creation of the United Nations, its family of agencies, and the international development banks. It reviews recommendations from international commissions and conferences, from World bank and UNDP development reports. It comments on governmental policies, human and industrial actions detrimental to the planet's environment and natural resources. It studies the patterns by which biotechnologies essential to human survival and health have progressed over the past 8,000 years, and the consequences of uncontrolled urban growth on food and health security.

The current trend and activity of development banks is to attract and allocate resources for sustainable financing, which takes into account the consequences for the environment, social sphere and corporate governance. The framework of sustainable bonds is part of the broad agenda of the UN Global Compact to continue to provide private capital for sustainable development. The aim is to inspire key players in the investment value chain to create a market for investments with sufficient scale, liquidity and diversification to attract large institutional investors and finance a wide range of private and public sector activities. The potential for expanding the market for sustainable development bonds is very significant, although their share in the global volume of debt instruments does not exceed 1%. National development banks are able to be leaders in issuing green, social and sustainable bonds to finance projects that meet the interests of society. These institutions can play a more active and effective role if governments clearly articulate their mandate to achieve the goals of sustainable development. Allocation of resources will be possible subject to the adoption of a national strategy for sustainable financing, which provides for the attraction of resources in capital markets, joint financing of projects with private banks, strengthening cooperation with international donors. The national development banks (NDB), in contrast to international or multilateral development banks, better identifies the needs and gaps of the national economy for financial resources. Compared to commercial banks and investment funds, they have a greater potential for risk-taking than financial intermediaries, providing long-term financing in local currency. Also, the NDBs are able to raise resources in international and local capital markets cheaper than private institutions, but this requires the preparation and implementation of a mechanism for issuing bonds, reporting on global standards

During the last fifty years or more, international financial institutions have played an increasingly important role in development. Although some, such as the World Bank or International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, initially supported the reconstruction of war-ravaged countries such as Norway, Holland, and others, their function and prime responsibility soon became to assist newly independent countries in Africa and Asia, and poor developing countries in Central and South America. Various regional development banks were also established, one for each continent (except Australia-New Zealand). In some parts of the world, such as Central America and the Caribbean, regional and sub-regional international development banks spring up to assist in the specific requirements of smaller areas. Development banks mainly and often exclusively financed projects requested by governments through loans to such governments.

Closing the world's infrastructure gap would take $1 to $1.5 trillion annually. The Global Infrastructure Forum aims to discuss opportunities to harness public and private resources to close this gap. The 2017 forum was jointly organized by the multilateral development banks (MDBs): African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, New Development Bank, and the World Bank Group, in close partnership with the United Nations (UN). The following pages are a collection of featured infrastructure projects and initiatives that show how MDBs and the United Nations join forces with the public and private sectors to provide sustainable, accessible, resilient, and quality infrastructure worldwide.

Adding numbers to complex processes: Asian integration indicator systems in perspective

The private sector plays an important role in the economic reconstruction of emerging market economies, and international financial institutions (IFIs) increasingly work in partnership with the private sector to increase economic growth and reduce poverty in those economies. IFIs, for example, offer: (i) equity financing and/or loans for private sector projects, (ii) investment guarantees against political risks (or non-commercial risks), (iii) technical assistance, and (iv) advisory services, etc. This article will briefly discuss the services that IFIs offer the private sector in emerging markets and cases in which these services could be useful for Icelandic companies. The institutions discussed are (i) the World Bank Group, (ii) the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), (iii) the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), (iv) the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and (v) the African Development Bank (AfDB). A few Icelandic firms already have plans for relatively large projects in emerging market economies, especially in the energy sector, some of them in countries that could be classified as being risky. The ongoing economic crisis in Iceland will make project financing in emerging markets more problematic than before and therefore investments in partnership with international financial institutions could be an option that Icelandic firms will increasingly need to consider if they intend to invest abroad. However, increased private sector and IFI partnerships will not happen without government action. Iceland is a member of only two of the above-mentioned IFIs: the World Bank Group and the EBRD. The decision for Iceland to become member of the AsDB, IDB and AfDB rests solely with the government. Further government inaction in this area could become an impediment for foreign direct investment from Iceland to emerging markets and increase risks when the Icelandic private sector invests in those economies. Unnecessary risks might not only hurt Icelandic companies but also put Iceland’s economy in jeopardy. This is especially the case with large energy investments with long repayment periods. In addition to the specific case of Iceland, the discussion in this article could also be relevant to other small states which do not have the same leverage as do large states in the event of a dispute with the host governments, making partnership with IFIs more feasible in emerging markets.

Conducting a constructive relationship with international financial institutions (IFIs) can be a challenge for small states like Iceland. Iceland is a member of the World Bank Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, but not a member of the regional development banks, i.e.: the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the African Development Bank. IFIs work both with the governments of emerging market economies in formulating and supporting policy reforms as well as with the private sector as private sector lead projects can help boost economic reconstruction in emerging markets. But can small states work effectively in partnership with IFIs? This article will discuss the challenges faced by small states in working with IFIs both when supporting government reforms in emerging market economies as well as when promoting private sector activities and investment in those economies.

Good governance has become a mantra of the movement seeking to make multilateral financial institutions more accountable to their stakeholders while improving institutional governance. Although much of the visible criticism has been directed at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the regional development banks share many of the same governance and accountability problems. Important issues relating to governance and accountability include the banks' heavily unequal voting power based on capital contributions, limited transparency and disclosure requirements, questionable efficacy of monitoring programs on the impact of the banks' projects, and limited scope of the banks' private complaint mechanisms. This Article undertakes a thorough survey of the current state of governance and accountability at the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Understanding the banks' structures and policies relating to governance and accountability is crucial to evaluating critics' charges that the banks are ineffective, undemocratic, secretive, and even facilitate human rights violations and environmental destruction.

In 2014, the Austrian bank Hypo Group Alpe Adria was purchased by the American banking group Advent International, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and re‐branded as Addiko bank. In this paper, I explore how this purchase of Addiko Bank by an international multilateral development bank (MDB) affected exporting firms in Croatia. Using a difference‐in‐differences specification to investigate whether there was a meaningful effect of this turnover on firm performance, I find that the turnover of Addiko bank led to a $160,000 decrease in loans taken out by firms. However, this effect seems to occur immediately after the turnover, and vanishes over time. This effect is seen among domestically‐owned firms and non‐manufacturing firms, but not multinational affiliates and manufacturing firms. Additionally, I find no effect of this turnover on firm revenues. These results indicate that after an initial period of turmoil, the intervention by EBRD and Advent International had no lasting negative effects on firms in Croatia. The intervention by a MDB can help reform a financial sector and will not necessarily lead to detrimental effects at the micro‐level.

This chapter examines how providing recourse to people harmed by MDB financed projects was promulgated by donor shareholders, pivotally the United States. It traces how the demand for accountability resulted from dissatisfaction with MDB performance and activist campaigns revealing large-scale harm. The US history of using accountability as control for the MDBs is articulated, to which concerns of justice were added. The design of the World Bank’s Inspection Panel reflected US demands for accountability as justice. The United States used its power of the purse, vote, and voice to press for the accountability as justice norm in the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank Group, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank. The banks sought to compromise over the norm. Outside the high-profile campaigns against the World Bank and World Bank Group, the MDBs designed accountability mechanisms with limited independence.

Public Health and the Air Management Information System (AMIS)