In the three months since the EU-Turkey migrant pact came into force, the number of migrants arriving on Greek shores has dropped precipitously. But the number of migrants making the even more dangerous crossing to Italy has increased substantially. After months of chaos, Rome—having adopted a variety of measures in partnership with European authorities—is now much better prepared than last summer to deal with a new migrant surge. But, despite its efforts, Italy—like its peers—cannot possibly cope on its own with a new wave of migration on the order of magnitude as the one witnessed last summer.

Yet that possibility is real. With almost 19,000 arriving from Libya in the first three months of this year, an EU-Libya migration compact is urgently needed. But for it to work, Europe as a whole must engage with Libya comprehensively and across policy areas. That will require time—and an interim solution in the meantime. 

Fewer arrivals in Greece, more in Italy

Notwithstanding its many flaws, the EU-Turkey deal appears to be working at deterring people from making the treacherous crossing from Turkey to Greece. Although weather conditions have improved, the number of migrants reaching Greece dropped by 90 percent in April, to less than 2,700. Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Iraqis made up the bulk of new arrivals, as has been the case for the last few months. Further north, along the Western Balkans route, the number of migrants reaching Europe’s borders in April dropped by 25 percent, down to 3,830. In this case, Macedonia’s de facto closure of its southern border with Greece clearly contributed to stemming the flow. 

With the Eastern Mediterranean and the Western Balkans routes sealed, the Central Mediterranean pathway presents new and worrying trends. In the month of April alone, 9,149 migrants arrived in Italy. As in the past, they were overwhelmingly from Sub-Saharan Africa (mostly Nigeria), many of them economic migrants unlikely to be granted asylum. For the first time since May 2015, more migrants are now reaching Italy than Greece. Many more are likely to have lost their lives trying to do so. 

For the first time since May 2015, more migrants are now reaching Italy than Greece.

Learning from past mistakes 

Italy is doing its homework. A revamped headquarters for the European Union Regional Task Force (EURTF) overseeing migrant arrivals across the Central Mediterranean opened at the end of April in the town of Catania. Five of its six hotspots—first reception centers fully equipped to process new arrivals—are now in place, with a combined reception capacity for 2,100 people and the involvement of Frontex, the European Asylum Support Office, Europol, Eurojust, the International Organization for Migration, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Fingerprinting rates have now reached virtually 100 percent at all active hotspots. Long-term reception capacity across the country is currently at 111,081, and plans are in place to boost this to 124,579. This would probably not be enough to host the share that the country could be expected to take under a permanent and fair pan-European relocation mechanism. And yet, at least for the time being, the European Commission judged the Italian reception system to be more than sufficient.

Within this context, European partners seem to be slowly becoming more confident in Rome’s willingness to take up its responsibilities. It is no coincidence that on the same day that German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble invited Vienna to support Italy in its efforts to control migrant movements within the Schengen area, Austria’s Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka announced that work on building a “migrants protection fence” at the Italy-Austria border was halted. 

A sustainable solution before it’s too late

Still, should a new massive migrant wave reach its shores, Italy could not cope on its own. Indeed, no single European country could. Should such a new wave materialize, Libya would be by far the most likely country of origin. Italy is the key to fighting ISIS and stabilizing Libya, but it would be unrealistic to expect Italy to do so on its own. 

The current European migrant crisis is part of a broader global refugee crisis and Europe has a shared interest and responsibility in dealing with it. Because of that, an EU-Libya deal is now necessary. This must—and can—be better than the agreement between the EU and Turkey. But a strategic pan-European approach is urgently needed. As Mattia Toaldo recently highlighted, a joint EU-Libya migration plan would be one of five priority areas for Libya. These would also include supporting a Libyan joint command to fight ISIS, a diplomatic offensive in support of the recently-established unity government, a reconciliation of local militias through power devolution, and the re-launch of the country’s economy. In April, Italy shared proposals with its European partners for a new migration compact with Libya but which also involves the broader region. That might be wise: since Europe is certainly unable to stabilize Libya in the short term, its leaders should start thinking about the country as a variable within a far broader equation. 

What can Italy do in the meantime?

The European Union should step up its support for Italy and an interim solution to migrant crisis in the Central Mediterranean must be found. Meanwhile, Italy has to brace itself for the potential arrival of over 800,000 migrants currently in Libya and waiting to cross the Mediterranean. While Rome could never cope with such a surge in migrant flows on its own, it still can—and must—plan for such an eventuality.

Three measures could be taken to address this challenge. First of all, Italy could consider setting up a seventh—and possibly even an eight—hotspot. This would be an important step given that an idea Italian Interior Minister Angelino Alfano floated—to set up “hotspots at sea”–is unlikely to be viable on both legal and humanitarian grounds. Second, Italy should increase its long-term reception capacity to around 150,000 people. The exact number would depend on the calculations that the European Commission is currently finalizing. Crucially, this should mirror the number of individuals beyond which an emergency relocation mechanism would be activated to re-distribute asylum seekers from Italy to another EU member state. Finally and should a sudden surge in the number of arrivals materialize, Italy could prepare contingency plans to mobilize virtually its entire navy to support ongoing EU efforts with its Operation Sophia. These policy proposals involve a significant effort in terms of state capacity. Yet, Italy has both a moral responsibility as well as a vested interest in implementing them. 

       

In the three months since the EU-Turkey migrant pact came into force, the number of migrants arriving on Greek shores has dropped precipitously. But the number of migrants making the even more dangerous crossing to Italy has increased substantially. After months of chaos, Rome—having adopted a variety of measures in partnership with European authorities—is now much better prepared than last summer to deal with a new migrant surge. But, despite its efforts, Italy—like its peers—cannot possibly cope on its own with a new wave of migration on the order of magnitude as the one witnessed last summer.

Yet that possibility is real. With almost 19,000 arriving from Libya in the first three months of this year, an EU-Libya migration compact is urgently needed. But for it to work, Europe as a whole must engage with Libya comprehensively and across policy areas. That will require time—and an interim solution in the meantime. 

Fewer arrivals in Greece, more in Italy

Notwithstanding its many flaws, the EU-Turkey deal appears to be working at deterring people from making the treacherous crossing from Turkey to Greece. Although weather conditions have improved, the number of migrants reaching Greece dropped by 90 percent in April, to less than 2,700. Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and Iraqis made up the bulk of new arrivals, as has been the case for the last few months. Further north, along the Western Balkans route, the number of migrants reaching Europe’s borders in April dropped by 25 percent, down to 3,830. In this case, Macedonia’s de facto closure of its southern border with Greece clearly contributed to stemming the flow. 

With the Eastern Mediterranean and the Western Balkans routes sealed, the Central Mediterranean pathway presents new and worrying trends. In the month of April alone, 9,149 migrants arrived in Italy. As in the past, they were overwhelmingly from Sub-Saharan Africa (mostly Nigeria), many of them economic migrants unlikely to be granted asylum. For the first time since May 2015, more migrants are now reaching Italy than Greece. Many more are likely to have lost their lives trying to do so. 

For the first time since May 2015, more migrants are now reaching Italy than Greece.

Learning from past mistakes 

Italy is doing its homework. A revamped headquarters for the European Union Regional Task Force (EURTF) overseeing migrant arrivals across the Central Mediterranean opened at the end of April in the town of Catania. Five of its six hotspots—first reception centers fully equipped to process new arrivals—are now in place, with a combined reception capacity for 2,100 people and the involvement of Frontex, the European Asylum Support Office, Europol, Eurojust, the International Organization for Migration, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Fingerprinting rates have now reached virtually 100 percent at all active hotspots. Long-term reception capacity across the country is currently at 111,081, and plans are in place to boost this to 124,579. This would probably not be enough to host the share that the country could be expected to take under a permanent and fair pan-European relocation mechanism. And yet, at least for the time being, the European Commission judged the Italian reception system to be more than sufficient.

Within this context, European partners seem to be slowly becoming more confident in Rome’s willingness to take up its responsibilities. It is no coincidence that on the same day that German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble invited Vienna to support Italy in its efforts to control migrant movements within the Schengen area, Austria’s Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka announced that work on building a “migrants protection fence” at the Italy-Austria border was halted. 

A sustainable solution before it’s too late

Still, should a new massive migrant wave reach its shores, Italy could not cope on its own. Indeed, no single European country could. Should such a new wave materialize, Libya would be by far the most likely country of origin. Italy is the key to fighting ISIS and stabilizing Libya, but it would be unrealistic to expect Italy to do so on its own. 

The current European migrant crisis is part of a broader global refugee crisis and Europe has a shared interest and responsibility in dealing with it. Because of that, an EU-Libya deal is now necessary. This must—and can—be better than the agreement between the EU and Turkey. But a strategic pan-European approach is urgently needed. As Mattia Toaldo recently highlighted, a joint EU-Libya migration plan would be one of five priority areas for Libya. These would also include supporting a Libyan joint command to fight ISIS, a diplomatic offensive in support of the recently-established unity government, a reconciliation of local militias through power devolution, and the re-launch of the country’s economy. In April, Italy shared proposals with its European partners for a new migration compact with Libya but which also involves the broader region. That might be wise: since Europe is certainly unable to stabilize Libya in the short term, its leaders should start thinking about the country as a variable within a far broader equation. 

What can Italy do in the meantime?

The European Union should step up its support for Italy and an interim solution to migrant crisis in the Central Mediterranean must be found. Meanwhile, Italy has to brace itself for the potential arrival of over 800,000 migrants currently in Libya and waiting to cross the Mediterranean. While Rome could never cope with such a surge in migrant flows on its own, it still can—and must—plan for such an eventuality.

Three measures could be taken to address this challenge. First of all, Italy could consider setting up a seventh—and possibly even an eight—hotspot. This would be an important step given that an idea Italian Interior Minister Angelino Alfano floated—to set up “hotspots at sea”–is unlikely to be viable on both legal and humanitarian grounds. Second, Italy should increase its long-term reception capacity to around 150,000 people. The exact number would depend on the calculations that the European Commission is currently finalizing. Crucially, this should mirror the number of individuals beyond which an emergency relocation mechanism would be activated to re-distribute asylum seekers from Italy to another EU member state. Finally and should a sudden surge in the number of arrivals materialize, Italy could prepare contingency plans to mobilize virtually its entire navy to support ongoing EU efforts with its Operation Sophia. These policy proposals involve a significant effort in terms of state capacity. Yet, Italy has both a moral responsibility as well as a vested interest in implementing them. 

       

Editor’s Note: This post is part of a series on the 2015 Brookings Financial and Digital Inclusion Project (FDIP) Report and Scorecard, which were launched at a Brookings public event in August. Previous posts have highlighted regional findings from Southeast and Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, as well as selected financial inclusion milestones from FDIP countries. This post focuses on key financial inclusion achievements and challenges regarding the five Latin American FDIP countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru.

Financial inclusion growth and opportunities in Latin America

With its well-developed banking infrastructure and growing mobile ecosystem, Latin America presents a unique set of opportunities and obstacles with respect to promoting greater financial inclusion. From 2011 to 2014, there was a 12 percentage point increase in the number of adults in Latin America and the Caribbean with formal financial accounts, according to the World Bank’s Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) database. As noted in the 2015 GSMA report “Mobile financial services in Latin America & the Caribbean,” in 2014 Latin America and the Caribbean saw the fastest growth of any region in terms of new registered mobile money accounts.

Moreover, these accounts are often used for more advanced transactions that go beyond simple transfers: As stated in a 2015 post published by the GSMA, “ecosystem transactions (transactions that involve third parties, e.g. bill payment, merchant payment or bulk payment) already make up 27% of transaction volumes in Latin America & the Caribbean.” In contrast, only 6 percent of transaction volumes over the same period were considered ecosystem transactions in East Africa, where mobile money has been most widely adopted and used.

Moving forward, facilitating greater adoption of a suite of digital financial services (e.g., savings) will be a vital component of promoting sustainable financial inclusion in the region. Recent regulatory changes in several Latin American countries designed to promote a greater diversity of service providers should propel financial inclusion growth, although a need for regulatory clarity persists in some places. Financial inclusion strengths and challenges germane to our five Latin American FDIP countries are explored below.

Brazil: Branchless banking leadership combined with dynamic mobile market

Brazil achieved the highest ranking of any Latin American country on the Brookings 2015 FDIP Scorecard, ranking 3^rd overall with a score of 78 percent. Brazil’s economy is the largest in Latin America, with a GDP (in current US dollars) of about $2.3 trillion as of 2014; for comparison, Mexico, the Latin American country with the second largest economy, had a GDP of about $1.3 trillion within that same period.

Brazil received strong country commitment and mobile capacity scores (89 and 83 percent, respectively) in the 2015 FDIP Scorecard and earned the highest regulatory environment score among the Latin American FDIP countries, which also included Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. As noted in the 2015 FDIP Report, Brazil launched a National Partnership for Financial Inclusion in November 2011, which has supported the development of a number of enabling financial inclusion initiatives. In 2013, Law 12865 and associated regulations permitted non-banks to issue e-money as payments institutions. Brazil boasted the largest mobile market in Latin America as of 2014, with a unique subscribership rate of about 57 percent in 2015 (a lower unique subscribership rate than Chile’s by about 7 percentage points, but otherwise higher than that of any of the other Latin American FDIP countries).

Brazil received 4^th place on the 2015 FDIP Scorecard for adoption of selected traditional and digital financial services. As with many other countries in Latin America, branchless banking (i.e., access to formal financial services beyond a traditional brick-and-mortar bank) through “agents” is popular in Brazil — as of 2014, Brazilian banks’ agent networks had a presence in all of the country’s approximately 6,000 municipalities, contributing to formal account growth. Chile was the only Latin American country that received a higher ranking for the adoption dimension, placing 2^nd. In terms of account usage, government-to-person payments comprise a significant source of activity for formal accounts: The 2014 Global Findex report noted that among recipients of government payments in Brazil, 88 percent received their transfers directly into an account.

Yet according to the Global Findex, about 32 percent of Brazilian adults age 15 and older still do not have accounts with a formal financial institution or mobile money provider. As with the other Latin American countries in the FDIP sample, mobile money adoption in Brazil has remained low: Brazil received the lowest score (one out of three possible points) for all six mobile money indicators included in the 2015 FDIP Scorecard. However, given that as of 2014 Brazil had the fifth-largest global smartphone market in the world in terms of subscribers, a combination of growing smartphone penetration and an increasingly enabling regulatory environment should drive greater adoption of digital financial services in the future.

Chile: Opportunities for enhanced e-money regulatory clarity

Chile tied with Colombia and Turkey for 6^th place on the overall 2015 FDIP Scorecard. Chile’s financial inclusion environment is characterized by a firm national commitment to financial inclusion (earning a country commitment score of 89 percent) but a less developed mobile money environment than the other Latin American FDIP countries. While Chile’s unique mobile subscribership rate and 3G network coverage rate by population are higher than and on par with other countries in the region, respectively, Chile’s mobile money offerings are limited. The lack of a robust mobile money market contributed to Chile’s mobile capacity score of 72 percent, the lowest score among the FDIP Latin American countries.

Chile’s regulatory environment score (67 percent) was also the lowest of the Latin American FDIP countries, primarily due to a lack of regulatory clarity surrounding digital financial services. Developing or clarifying regulations pertaining to electronic money in particular could potentially drive more engagement with the sector and advance the diversity of mobile money providers and offerings. Further, supporting the interoperability of digital and traditional financial services could enhance the utility of these products for customers.

Given that 37 percent of adults in Chile did not have an account with a formal financial provider as of 2014, there is also room for growth in terms of expanding financial inclusion. However, it should be noted that Chile earned the highest adoption ranking of any Latin American country featured in the 2015 FDIP Scorecard. While Chile’s adoption levels with respect to mobile money services were limited, adoption rates of other formal financial services were among the highest of the FDIP countries. Chile received three out of three possible points for all but one indicator (savings at a formal financial institution) related to traditional financial services. Chile’s performance on the adoption dimension of the scorecard contributed to its 6^th place ranking overall.

While Chile’s mobile money adoption rates are low, use of other digital financial services is increasingly popular. For example, as noted in the “2015 Maya Declaration Progress Report,” since 2012 the number of CuentaRUT accounts (accounts that feature debit cards associated with a savings account provided by Chile’s BancoEstado) has increased by about 47 percent. As of 2014, there were over 7 million active CuentaRUT cards in Chile.

Colombia: Regulatory advancements coupled with sustained country commitment

As noted above, Colombia tied with Chile for 6^th place on the overall 2015 FDIP Scorecard. Colombia has demonstrated strong commitment to financial inclusion, including through involvement in multinational organizations such as the Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI). An example of Colombia’s national-level financial inclusion commitment is the 2006 establishment of Banca de las Oportunidades, an entity charged with fostering regulatory reforms conducive to financial inclusion. Another key player in the financial inclusion space is the Intersectoral Economic and Financial Education Committee, created in February 2014 under Decree 457.

In terms of the country’s regulatory environment, Law 1735 of 2014 permitted new institutions, called Sociedades Especializadas en Depósitos y Pagos Electrónicos, to offer mobile financial services. As part of the law, proportionate “know-your-customer” (KYC) requirements were also instituted for under-resourced customers in order to facilitate greater access to financial services among low-risk populations. In July 2015, Decree 1491 implemented Colombia’s financial inclusion law and highlighted the regulatory regime for the mobile money market. Colombia’s regulatory environment earned a score of 89 percent, ranking it 2^nd among the Latin American FDIP countries in this dimension.

On the supply side, banking correspondents (also known as agents) have been utilized to extend financial access to underserved populations.  As of 2015, all of Colombia’s 1,102 municipalities had at least one financial access point, defined as bank branches, banking correspondents, and ATMs. Another innovative approach to branchless banking in Colombia is bank Davivienda’s initiative to use DaviPlata mobile wallet accounts to distribute government transfers to more than 900,000 recipients of welfare program “Familias en Accion.”

With respect to demand side figures, Colombia tied with Mexico for 7^th place on the adoption dimension. As of 2014, about 38 percent of adults in Colombia had an account with a formal financial institution, and about 2 percent of adults were mobile money account holders. In terms of advancing future mobile money use, Colombia received the highest score of the Latin American countries on the mobile capacity dimension; thus, Colombia is well-positioned to advance access to and use of mobile money services in the future. Promoting usage of appropriate, quality financial services is critical, as dormancy rates have been identified as an obstacle to financial inclusion; about half of accounts in Colombia (including savings accounts, simplified accounts, and electronic deposits) were identified as dormant in 2014.

Mexico: Recent reforms may enhance competition and drive digital takeup

Mexico ranked 9^th on the overall 2015 FDIP Scorecard, with adoption of traditional and digital financial services as its highest-ranked dimension. Among the Latin American FDIP countries, Mexico features the greatest parity in terms of formal financial account ownership rates among men and women, at about 39 percent each.  In terms of national-level commitment to financial inclusion, Mexico tied with Peru for the highest ranking among the Latin American countries. AFI’s Maya Declaration was signed at the 2011 Global Policy Forum held in Riviera Maya, Mexico, signaling Mexico’s public commitment to financial inclusion.

With respect to mobile capacity, as of the first quarter of 2015 Mexico’s unique subscribership rates were the lowest of the Latin American countries. Mexico tied with Chile and Brazil for 3G network coverage by population. In terms of mobile money, Mexico’s market is still developing; several providers were available as of May 2015, but the extent of offerings was somewhat limited. As noted in the GSMA’s “Mobile Economy: Latin America 2014” report, new telecommunications reforms recently passed in Mexico are expected to affect the mobile market and potentially increase competition among the telecommunications sector. This increased competition could in turn drive the development of a greater array of innovative, affordable mobile money products.

Regarding Mexico’s regulatory environment, the country has been lauded for its risk-based KYC requirements that enable underserved individuals to access low-value accounts without fulfilling the full array of traditional identification processes, which can sometimes be burdensome for under-resourced groups. Under Mexico’s four-tiered KYC system (introduced in 2011), “level one” (very low-risk) accounts feature monthly deposit limits and a maximum balance limit of about 400 dollars; accounts can be opened at a bank branch, banking agent, over the internet, or by telephone. Higher-tier accounts have more stringent KYC requirements. A 2015 AFI article noted that Mexico's banking and securities regulator, the Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores, indicated about 7.5 million new accounts were opened between August 2011 and September 2012, including over 4 million “level one” accounts.

Mexico tied with Colombia for 7^th place on the adoption dimension of the 2015 FDIP Scorecard. About 39 percent of adults in Mexico held accounts with a formal financial institution as of 2014, while about 3 percent of adults held mobile money accounts. As with other countries in Latin America, debit card and credit card use were much higher than mobile money use as of 2014, although usage of both kinds of cards was lower in Mexico than in several other Latin American FDIP countries such as Brazil and Chile. Initiatives such as the Saldazo debit card, which enables customers to use a debit card associated with a savings account and does not require a minimum balance, have helped drive adoption of digital financial services in Mexico.

Peru: Enabling regulatory environment, but constrained adoption of financial services

Peru presents perhaps one of the most interesting paradoxes among the FDIP countries. While Peru’s regulatory environment has been consistently recognized as among the best in the world for enabling financial inclusion, adoption of formal financial services remains quite low. Peru received 17^th place overall on the 2015 FDIP Scorecard, which can primarily be attributed to its low adoption score: Peru received a 15^th place ranking on the adoption dimension, the lowest score among the Latin American FDIP countries. However, we anticipate that recent regulatory changes in Peru, coupled with increasing smartphone penetration rates (Peru’s 2014 adoption rates were about 12 percentage points below the Latin American average), will facilitate adoption of digital financial services and drive greater financial inclusion in the future.

With respect to the supply side aspect of financial inclusion, as of 2014 about 92 percent of Peru’s population lived in a district with access to financial services, according to the Superintendencia de Banca, Seguros y AFP (SBS) del Peru. Nonetheless, demand side figures lag behind: The Global Findex found that only about 29 percent of adults had an account with a formal financial provider as of 2014. Peru received a “1” for two-thirds of the non-mobile money indicators on the adoption dimension of the 2015 FDIP Scorecard, and mobile money adoption was negligible. Moreover, as of 2014 there was a 14 percentage point disparity in financial account ownership between men and women, the highest financial inclusion “gender gap” among the Latin American FDIP countries.

However, given Peru’s strong national commitment to financial inclusion (reflected in Peru’s country commitment score of 94 percent) and legislative initiatives designed to promote an enabling regulatory environment, we fully anticipate that financial inclusion growth will accelerate in the future. For example, Peru recently finalized its national financial inclusion strategy, as discussed in our earlier post. Moreover, Peru has adopted laws and regulations that permit a greater diversity of players to enter the financial services market. Law 2998 of January 2013 allowed both banks and non-banks to issue e-money, and October 2013 regulations issued by the SBS enabled e-money issuers to follow a simplified account opening process. These initiatives should facilitate greater access to and usage of formal financial accounts in the future.

In terms of electronic payments specifically, diversifying the mobile money market and increasing unique subscribership could help facilitate greater adoption of mobile money services. Demand side factors, such as ensuring that services are a good fit for customers, are also critical — as evidenced by the fact that Mexico, which had comparable smartphone adoption rates to Peru and lower unique subscribership rates as of 2014, features significantly higher rates of mobile money adoption across all demographics than Peru. Peru is making a concerted effort to develop innovative electronic platforms — for example, the Peruvian Association of Banks (ASBANC) is working on the creation of an electronic money platform accessible by both financial institutions and telecommunications companies. Implementation of this interoperable platform is expected to promote further adoption of digital financial services.

       

       

       

In the new music video from OK Go, the band uses a drone with a camera to capture some fantastic footage. Businesses, artists, and hobbyists are using drones for a variety of purposes. But, the rock group didn’t film the music video in the United States. They filmed it in Japan and one possible contributing factor is that filming the video in the U.S. may have been illegal. The laws and regulations governing drones are still being sorted out by authorities. Both state governments and the federal government have started to take notice of the problem. Civil liberties advocates have emerged in support for strong federal oversight of drone surveillance to ensure that privacy is protected. Others argue that states and their preexisting privacy laws are already equipped to deal with nongovernment drone surveillance.

Photo credit: OK Go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ZB_rGFyeU

State Privacy Law

Wells C. Bennett’s recent report Civilian Drones, Privacy, and the Federal-State Balance describes how most state privacy laws could be applied to drone operators. Most states offer three general types of privacy protections:

1. Protection against intrusion: Common law that makes it unlawful for a person to trespass on someone else’s property.
2. Protection against aerial surveillance: Laws in this category are either criminal or civil in nature and aim to specifically block aerial surveillance.
3. Anti-Voyeurism: These laws deal with “peeping toms” and other moments when people have an expectation of privacy.

Federal Aviation Rules

Those who believe that drones ought to be heavily regulated argue that the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) should introduce strong new rules. In 2012 Congress has called on the FAA to develop new rules for drones by 2015. The FAA has long regulated aircraft of all types but the agency has less experience with privacy issues. In 2013, the agency selected six test sites where it would be legal to fly drones. The operators at these sites were required to abide by privacy rules the FAA created, which over time developed into a set of comprehensive standards. These standards ultimately remained applicable to test sites only as the agency was reticent to enforce privacy regulations for the whole country. However, the standards still serve as the foundation for the FAA’s roadmap to integrating drones into American skies and as a set of recommendations for policymakers.

The FAA’s reticence to regulate privacy creates a policy conundrum. Bennett proposes an approach that involves the states taking the lead with policy. The states already have a broad, legal framework that can be applied to privately owned drones. Where the states lack authority, Bennett suggests the Federal government can fill in the gaps. This mixed approach allows the states to use tested privacy laws and for the federal government to wait until it has the mission-critical data necessary to even begin crafting regulations for nongovernment drone surveillance.

Matt Mariano contributed to this piece.

      

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

The Syrian uprising has changed significantly since the first signs of localized armed resistance began emerging in late April 2011. Western states and regional countries opposed to President Assad’s rule failed to manage the formation of an organized and representative political and military opposition body over the past three years. Instead, fragmentation of first the opposition, and then the conflict as a whole, has come to pose numerous serious threats to regional and international security and stability.

In a new Policy Briefing by the Brookings Doha Center, Charles Lister analyzes the Western-backed opposition, the spreading influence of jihadi militants, and the evolving capabilities of pro-government forces. With a definitive military victory seemingly out of reach for all sides of the conflict, Lister argues these parties will remain at a standoff until a political solution is reached. However, as armed groups multiply on either side, even an agreement between government and opposition will be unlikely to end the violence.

Lister concludes that Western and regional countries should focus on two core policy objectives. First: the international community should bolster a cohesive opposition that can challenge the Assad regime in battle as well as in negotiations. Second: the international community should aid Syria’s neighbors in managing the violent spillover of the conflict, particularly curtailing the potential for Syria-based jihadi groups to expand their operations beyond the country.

Downloads

• Arabic PDF
• English PDF

      

       

       

       

       

Editor’s Note: This blog post is one in a series of posts in which guest bloggers respond to the Brookings paper, “The potential and limitations of impact bonds: Lessons from the first five years of experience worldwide.”

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are one of a number of new “Payment by Results” financing mechanisms available for social services. In a SIB, private investors provide upfront capital for a social service, and government pays investors based on the outcomes of the service. If the intervention does not achieve outcomes, the government does not pay investors at all. The provision of upfront capital differentiates SIBs from other Payment by Results contracts.

Development Impact Bonds (DIBs) are a variation of SIBs, where the outcome funder is a third party, such as a foundation or development assistance agency, rather than the government. To date, 47 SIBs and one DIB have been implemented in the sectors of social welfare (21), employment (17), criminal recidivism (4), education (4), and health (2).

How do SIBs stack up?

In a recent Brookings study, drawing from interviews with stakeholders in each of the 38 SIBs contracted as of March 1, 2015, we evaluate 10 common claims of the impact bond literature to date, so far made up of published thought-pieces and interview-based reports.

Figure 1. Common claims about Social Impact Bonds

Source:  The Potential and Limitations of Impact Bonds: Lessons Learned from the First Five Years of Experience Worldwide, Brookings Institution, 2015.

Of the 10 common claims about impact bonds, we found five areas where the SIB mechanism had a demonstrable positive effect on service provision:

1. Focus on outcomes. We found a significant shift in the focus of both government and service providers when it came to contracting and providing social services. Outcomes became the primary consideration in these contracts in which the repayment of the investment depended on achievement of those outcomes. Given that outcomes are the pivotal and defining piece of a SIB contract, it is unsurprising that many of those interviewed in the course of our research emphasized their importance, though we did find that this represented a more significant transformation in culture than expected.
2. Build a culture of monitoring and evaluation. The outcome-based contract necessitates the collection of data on outcomes, which helps build a culture of monitoring and evaluation in provider organizations and government. We found that the SIB is beginning to help solve longstanding problems in systemic data collection in multiple instances. In turn, government evaluation of outcomes and obligation to pay only for successful outcomes provides transparency and value for taxpayers. However, it is too soon to tell whether the monitoring and evaluation systems will remain in place after the SIB contracts conclude.
3. Drive performance management. The involvement of the investors and intermediaries in management of the service performance is a key component of SIBs. These private sector organizations often have stronger background in performance management and bring a valuable perspective to the social service sector. However, on average we find limited evidence that the service providers in SIBs to date have been able to significantly adjust their programs mid-contract in the case of poor outcomes, despite SIB proponents claiming this is one of the mechanism’s greatest merits.
4. Foster collaboration. In addition to collaboration between the for-profit, nonprofit, and government sectors, we also find evidence of gridlock-breaking collaboration across government agencies, levels of government, and political parties due to SIB contracts. This was noted to be one of the most important aspects of SIBs but also one of the most challenging.
5. Invest in prevention. External, upfront capital for services allows government to invest in preventive programs that greatly reduce spending in the future, such as early childhood development programs that reduce remedial education, crime, and unemployment. We found that all but one of the 38 SIBs were issued for preventive programs. Going forward, SIBs will not necessarily need to be tied to cash savings for government, but could simply be used as a method to finance programs that achieve desired social outcomes. 

Where do SIBs currently fall short?

For the five remaining claims about SIBs, we found less evidence of impact.

1.  Achieve scale. Of the 38 impact bonds contracted as of March 1, 2015, 25 served less than 1,000 beneficiaries. The largest impact bond, the SIB to reduce criminal recidivism at Rikers Island Prison in New York City, aimed to reach up to 10,000 individuals, but was terminated a year early this July because it did not meet target outcomes. The smallest SIB supports 22 homeless children and their mothers in the city of Saskatoon in Canada. These numbers are nowhere near the scale of the toughest problems facing the globe, where, for example, 59 million children are out of school. However, since March of 2015, two larger SIBs have been contracted, which may be an indication of increasing confidence in the mechanism. The Ways to Wellness SIB in the U.K. aims to improve long-term health conditions of over 11,000 beneficiaries and the first DIB launched plans to improve enrollment and learning outcomes of nearly 20,000 schoolchildren in Rajasthan, India. Further, the impact bond fund model used in the U.K. for 21 SIBs—where teams of service providers, intermediaries, and investors bid for SIB contracts based on a rate card of maximum payments per outcome government is willing to make—could be used to reach greater scale by contracting multiple SIBs at once. The largest of the impact bond funds, the Innovation Fund, reaches over 16,000 beneficiaries across 10 SIBs.
2. Foster innovation in delivery, and 
3. Reduce risk for government. SIBs vary in the degree of innovation and risk to investors—SIBs based on more innovative programs pose a greater risk to investors and may have higher investment protection or greater potential returns to balance the risk. In our study we found that very few of the programs financed by SIBs were truly innovative in that they had never been tested before, but that many were innovative in that they applied interventions in new settings or in new combinations. The literature claims that SIBs reduce the risk to government of funding an innovative service (government pays nothing if outcomes aren’t achieved), but as of March of this year it did not seem that the programs were particularly risky. The SIB in Rikers Island Prison was one of the most innovative and risky, and the early termination of the deal was an important demonstration of the reduction in risk for government. The New York City Department of Correction did not pay anything in this case; instead the investor and foundation backing the investment paid for the program.
4. Crowd-in private funding. Our research also shows mixed evidence on the power of impact bonds to crowd-in private funding, the fourth claim with unclear results. The literature up until now has claimed that impact bonds crowd-in private funding for social services by increasing the amount of money from traditional funding sources and bringing in new money from nontraditional sources. There is some evidence that traditional service funders, such as foundations, are increasing their contributions because of the opportunity to earn back what would otherwise have been a donation. Many of the current investors in impact bonds, Goldman Sachs for example, are indeed new actors in the space and their increased awareness of social service provision may be a benefit in and of itself. However, if a program is successful, government ultimately pays for the program. In this case, investors are solving a liquidity problem for government by providing upfront capital and not actually providing new money. Nonetheless, there is some evidence that paying only for proven outcomes has motivated the public sector to spend more on social services and that the external upfront capital has allowed government to shift spending from curative to preventive programs. Further, most programs thus far have been designed such that savings to the public sector are greater than payments to investors, resulting in a net increase in available public sector funds.
5. Sustain impact. Finally, five years since the first impact bond, we have yet to see whether impact bonds will lead to sustained impact on the lives of beneficiaries beyond the impact bond contract duration. The existing literature states that impact bonds could lead to sustained impact by demonstrating to government that a sector or intervention type is worth funding or by improving the quality of programs by instilling a culture of outcome achievement, monitoring, and evaluation. However, the success of impact bonds depends on whether new efforts to streamline the contract development stage come to fruition and whether incentives for all parties are closely scrutinized.

The optimal financing mechanism for a social service will differ across issue area and local context, and we look forward to conducting more research in the field on the suitable characteristics for each tool.

      

Downloads

• Download the policy recommendations
• The potential and limitations of impact bonds: Lessons from the first five years of experience worldwide (PDF)

      

Editor’s Note: This blog post is one in a series of posts in which guest bloggers respond to the Brookings paper, “The potential and limitations of impact bonds: Lessons from the first five years of experience worldwide."

Constitutional mandate for ECD in Kenya

In 2014, clause 5 (1) of the County Early Childhood Education Bill 2014 declared free and compulsory early childhood education a right for all children in Kenya. Early childhood education (ECE) in Kenya has historically been located outside of the realm of government and placed under the purview of the community, religious institutions, and the private sector. The disparate and unstructured nature of ECE in the country has led to a proliferation of unregistered informal schools particularly in underprivileged communities. Most of these schools still charge relatively high fees and ancillary costs yet largely offer poor quality of education. Children from these preschools have poor cognitive development and inadequate school readiness upon entry into primary school.

Task to the county government

The Kenyan constitution places the responsibility and mandate of providing free, compulsory, and quality ECE on the county governments. It is an onerous challenge for these sub-national governments in taking on a large-scale critical function that has until now principally existed outside of government.

In Nairobi City County, out of over 250,000 ECE eligible children, only about 12,000 attend public preschools. Except for one or two notable public preschools, most have a poor reputation with parents. Due to limited access and demand for quality, the majority of Nairobi’s preschool eligible children are enrolled in private and informal schools. A recent study of the Mukuru slum of Nairobi shows that over 80 percent of 4- and 5-year-olds in this large slum area are enrolled in preschool, with 94 percent of them attending informal private schools.

In early 2015, the Governor of Nairobi City County, Dr. Evans Kidero, commissioned a taskforce to look into factors affecting access, equity, and quality of education in the county. The taskforce identified significant constraints including human capital and capacity gaps, material and infrastructure deficiencies, management and systemic inefficiencies that have led to a steady deterioration of education in the city to a point where the county consistently underperforms relative to other less resourced counties. 

Potential role of impact bonds

Nairobi City County now faces the challenge of designing and implementing a scalable model that will ensure access to quality early childhood education for all eligible children in the city by 2030. The sub-national government’s resources and implementation capacity are woefully inadequate to attain universal access in the near term, nor by the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) deadline of 2030. However, there are potential opportunities to leverage emerging mechanisms for development financing to provide requisite resource additionality, private sector rigor, and performance management that will enable Nairobi to significantly advance the objective of ensuring ECE is available to all children in the county.

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are one form of innovative financing mechanism that have been used in developed countries to tap external resources to facilitate early childhood initiatives. This mechanism seeks to harness private finance to enable and support the implementation of social services. Government repays the investor contingent on the attainment of targeted outcomes. Where a donor agency is the outcomes funder instead of government, the mechanism is referred to as a development impact bond (DIB).

The recent Brookings study highlights some of the potential and limitations of impact bonds by researching in-depth the 38 impact bonds that had been contracted globally as of March, 2015. On the upside, the study shows that impact bonds have been successful in achieving a shift of government and service providers to outcomes. In addition, impact bonds have been able to foster collaboration among stakeholders including across levels of government, government agencies, and between the public and private sector. Another strength of impact bonds is their ability to build systems of monitoring and evaluation and establish processes of adaptive learning, both critical to achieving desirable ECD outcomes. On the downside, the report highlights some particular challenges and limitations of the impact bonds to date. These include the cost and complexity of putting the deals together, the need for appropriate legal and political environments and impact bonds’ inability thus far to demonstrate a large dent in the ever present challenge of achieving scale.

Challenges in implementing social impact bonds in Kenya

In the Kenyan context, especially at the sub-national level, there are two key challenges in implementing impact bonds.

To begin with, in the Kenyan context, the use of a SIB would invoke public-private partnership legislation, which prescribes highly stringent measures and extensive pre-qualification processes that are administered by the National Treasury and not at the county level. The complexity arises from the fact that SIBs constitute an inherent contingent liability to government as they expose it to fiscal risk resulting from a potential future public payment obligation to the private party in the project.

Another key challenge in a SIB is the fact that Government must pay for outcomes achieved and for often significant transaction costs, yet the SIB does not explicitly encompass financial additionality. Since government pays for outcomes in the end, the transaction costs and obligation to pay for outcomes could reduce interest from key decision-makers in government.

A modified model to deliver ECE in Nairobi City County

The above challenges notwithstanding, a combined approach of results-based financing and impact investing has high potential to mobilize both requisite resources and efficient capacity to deliver quality ECE in Nairobi City County. To establish an enabling foundation for the future inclusion of impact investing whilst beginning to address the immediate ECE challenge, Nairobi City County has designed and is in the process of rolling out a modified DIB. In this model, a pool of donor funds for education will be leveraged through the new Nairobi City County Education Trust (NCCET).

The model seeks to apply the basic principles of results-based financing, but in a structure adjusted to address aforementioned constraints. Whereas in the classical SIB and DIB mechanisms investors provide upfront capital and government and donors respectively repay the investment with a return for attained outcomes, the modified structure will incorporate only grant funding with no possibility for return of principal. Private service providers will be engaged to operate ECE centers, financed by the donor-funded NCCET. The operators will receive pre-set funding from the NCCET, but the county government will progressively absorb their costs as they achieve targeted outcomes, including salaries for top-performing teachers. As a result, high-performing providers will be able to make a small profit. The system is designed to incentivize teachers and progressively provide greater income for effective school operators, while enabling an ordered handover of funding responsibilities to government, thus providing for program sustainability.

Nairobi City County plans to build 97 new ECE centers, all of which are to be located in the slum areas. NCCET will complement this undertaking by structuring and implementing the new funding model to operationalize the schools. The structure aims to coordinate the actors involved in the program—donors, service providers, evaluators—whilst sensitizing and preparing government to engage the private sector in the provision of social services and the payment of outcomes thereof.

      

The confluence of the agreement on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, or Global Goals) in 2015, and the increased attention being paid to the role of non-traditional actors in contributing to shared prosperity, provide a unique opportunity to focus attention on attempts to identify promising new solutions to the barriers that impede the full development of the world’s youngest citizens. Current estimates indicate that 200 million children globally under the age of 5 are at risk of not reaching their development potential. With these goals, the global community has a tremendous opportunity to change the course of history. There is evidence that certain early childhood development (ECD) interventions—spanning the nutrition, health, water and sanitation, education, social protection, and governance sectors from conception to age 5—have high potential to help to achieve the SDGs related to child development. Furthermore, early childhood interventions have been found to improve adult health and education levels, reduce crime, and raise employment rates, which will be paramount to achieving global economic, climate, and physical security.

Impact bonds have the potential to address some of the main financing and delivery constraints faced in ECD. By providing upfront private capital, impact bonds could help to address service provider liquidity constraints and leverage public capital by allowing the government to connect preventive programs with future benefits to individuals, society, and the economy. Impact bonds also have the potential to drive performance management, support monitoring and evaluation, and create accountability, which all help to address quality and capacity constraints. By fostering innovation, experimentation and adaptive learning in service delivery, cost-effective solutions could be identified through impact bonds. By producing evidence of outcome achievement, impact bonds could shift the focus toward effective ECD programs. Finally, collaboration across stakeholders—a necessary component of impact bonds—has the potential to allow for alignment of interests and a win-win situation for investors, outcome funders, and program beneficiaries alike.

The high participation of non-state actors and potentially significant returns in ECD make it a promising sector for impact bonds. Unlike other services that may have entrenched interests, the multitude of agencies and non-state entities financing and providing ECD services potentially allows for more experimentation. The preventive nature of ECD programs also fits well with the core feature of SIBs, which is that preventive investments will result in valuable short- and potentially long-term outcomes. There is evidence that ECD interventions can have immense effects on later-life outcomes. For example, a longitudinal study of a program in Jamaica, in which participants received weekly visits from community health workers over a 2-year period, was found to increase the earnings of participants by 25 percent, 20 years later.

There may, however, be some particular challenges associated with applying impact bonds in the ECD sector. Impact bonds (and other Payment by Results mechanisms tied to outcomes) require meaningful outcomes that are measureable within a timeframe that is reasonable to the outcome funder (and investors in the case of an impact bond). Meaningful outcomes are outcomes that are intrinsically or extrinsically valuable. Intrinsically valuable outcomes that are measureable within a reasonable timeframe could be extrinsically valuable if they are proxies for long-term benefits to individuals, society, or the economy. The delay between ECD interventions and later-life results may prove an impediment in some cases. By identifying appropriate interim measures such as language development, socioemotional development, and schooling outcomes that may proxy for desirable longer-term outcomes, the issue of delay could be mitigated. For example, there is evidence that early stimulation and health programs can have statistically significant effects on schooling outcomes in the short-run. An increase in focus on the intrinsic value of short-term outcomes that result from ECD interventions, such as child survival, is also important.

As the global community moves beyond the Millennium Development Goals to a set of Global Goals and associated targets linked to measurable outcomes, there is an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to invest in future generations. Leveraging upfront funding, focusing on outcomes through adaptive learning and testing new ways to deliver early childhood interventions more effectively are all means of achieving the ECD-related goals. Despite the hype around all of the new financing mechanisms, the keys to creating high-quality, locally appropriate programs remains simple—real-time collection of outcome data, the freedom to fail, and the flexibility to course-adjust. In some circumstances social service provision based on outcomes and adaptive learning may require mechanisms like impact bonds or other Payment by Results mechanisms. In other circumstances it may not. As this very nascent field continues to grow, more research will be needed to capture lessons learned, contextualize them within the larger landscape of ECD financing and service provision, and apply them to real-world social challenges with the world’s youngest and most disadvantaged populations at the forefront of the conversation. 

Read the previous report on the landscape of impact bonds across sectors and geography »

Downloads

• Download the full report
• Download the policy brief

      

Event Information

Register for the Event

Webcast archive:

View speaker presentations here:
1. Impact Bonds Worldwide
2. Impact Bonds for ECD

Impact bonds, also known as Pay for Success contracts in the United States, have leveraged over $200 million in upfront private capital for social services worldwide over the last six years, and by 2020 the market is expected to triple. Brookings experts have published two reports analyzing the market, the first of which is a comprehensive review of the global impact bond market and the second of which examines applications to Early Childhood Development programs.

On February 29, the Global Economy and Development program at Brookings hosted a discussion on the scope for social and development impact bonds to address social challenges globally. Sessions reflected on the types of challenges for which these new financing modalities are best suited, and the factors critical for their success. Sir Ronald Cohen, chairman of the Global Social Impact Investment Steering Group, provided keynote remarks, followed by presentations from Emily Gustafsson-Wright, fellow at the Center for Universal Education at Brookings and lead author of both reports on impact bonds.  The event included two panel discussions and a networking lunch.  

 Join the conversation on Twitter using hashtag #ImpactBonds.

Audio

• The global potential and limitations of impact bonds

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160229_social_impact_bonds_transcript

      

“For a not-for-profit it’s the equivalent of venture capital,” said Sir Ronald Cohen, chairman of the Global Social Impact Investing Steering Group, about impact bonds in his keynote address at a recent event at the Brookings Institution. Impact bonds combine results-based financing and impact investing, where investors provide upfront capital for a social service and government agencies, or donors, agree to pay investors back based on the outcomes of the service. At their best, they could allow for innovation, encourage performance management and adaptability, promote learning through evaluation, and create a clear case for investing in what works. However, impact bonds thus far have had immense transaction costs and there are risks that poor execution of the impact bond mechanism could have negative consequences for beneficiaries.

It has been six years since the first impact bond was implemented in March of 2010, and the field is beginning to move from an exploratory stage to looking at systemic change, as Tracy Palandjian, CEO and co-founder of Social Finance U.S. described. The event, “The Global Potential and Limitation of Impact Bonds,” served as a point of reflection for stakeholders at this pivotal stage of the field, bringing together over 500 individuals in the room and on the webcast, including practitioners developing impact bonds around the world. While context matters, there were notable similarities in the motivations and challenges across regions.

Potential value-add

In our presentations of our research and subsequent panels, we focused on the potential value and challenges of combining results-based financing and impact investing through an impact bond. Shri Naveen Jain, mission director of the National Health Mission of Rajasthan, India, who is working to develop an impact bond for maternal and child health services across his entire state, pointed out that the value of a results-based financing contract to him was in the added transparency it provides—the government is able to see what they are paying for, keep service providers accountable, and incentivize providers to achieve better outcomes. Louise Savell, a director at Social Finance U.K., the entity that first put impact bonds on the map, explained that results-based financing contracts are often arranged such that only one portion of the contract is based on results. This, she explained prescribes a model and does not allow for flexibility; furthermore, it forces service providers to bear a significant risk. Impact bonds allow for the entirety of payments to be based on results, which gives the provider full flexibility (at least in theory), but puts the risk of service performance on the investor. The shift of risk to investors could be particularly useful for service delivery in conflict affected areas, where donors are often highly concerned about how money will be used, mentioned Francois de Borchgrave, co-founder and managing director of Kois Invest, who is working on an impact bond with the International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross. The panelists also emphasized that impact bonds are more powerful than results-based financing contracts alone because, if successful, they pay real financial returns to investors. This draws a great deal of attention from policymakers and the public, and the added scrutiny helps in making the investment case for preventive interventions highly explicit. Mayor Ben McAdams of Salt Lake County, Utah said that “data and evidence is bridging a partisan divide” in his state—when the case for investment is clear, policymakers from both sides of the aisle are willing to invest. Impact bonds do not necessarily add value by increasing the total amount of funding available for social services, because investors are repaid if outcomes are achieved. Rather, impact bonds could help increase the outcomes achieved with given funding.

Overall there was agreement that impact bonds have enormous potential to lead to more outcome-focused financing that focuses on preventive interventions and incentivizes collaboration. However two critical considerations for the use of impact bonds arose throughout the day.

Optimal impact bond size

The first consideration discussed was whether or not impact bonds can support innovation or scale. As found in our first report, impact bonds have been relatively small in scale in terms of capital and beneficiaries. The average upfront investment in impact bonds to date is $3.7 million, reaching an average of 1,900 beneficiaries. They also have not, on average, focused on particularly innovative interventions—in fact they have almost all had a relatively strong base of evidence behind them. Views on the panel differed on whether the uses of impact bonds could be expanded—if they could be used for highly innovative pilot programs or proven large scale programs. One perspective was that impact bonds could indeed provide seed capital to test new ideas for service delivery. This would require investors who are willing to test not only the innovation but also this relatively new financing mechanism. Given the high transaction costs that impact bonds entail, however, this may not be the most efficient use of resources. Impact bonds could also reach more beneficiaries per transaction (greater scale) with changes in public procurement and the creation of markets for tradeable impact bond assets. Government can play a role in facilitating larger impact bonds by creating central government outcome payment funds, providing tax breaks for investment in impact bonds, and enabling the development of investment vehicles, all of which are being implemented in the U.K. Impact bonds could also help effective social services reach scale by encouraging government to fund programs at scale after the impact bond is over or by improving data use and performance management in government-funded services broadly.

Outcome evaluation design

A second, and related, discussion happened around evaluation methodology—which may differ depending on whether the impact bond is intended to test an innovative intervention or scale an intervention already backed by significant evidence. The “gold standard” randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the only methodology that eliminates the possibility that impact could be attributed to something other than the intervention, though the majority of impact bonds thus far use evaluation methodologies that are less rigorous. The panelists explained that it is important, however, to consider the status quo—currently, less than 1 percent of U.S. federal spending on social services has been shown to be effective. The same is true in low- and middle-income countries, where there are relatively few impact evaluations given the number of interventions. At the end of the day, the government agency acting as the outcome funder must decide on the importance of attribution to trigger payment through the impact bond in view of the already available evidence of program effectiveness and weigh the criticism that might ensue in the absence of a valid counterfactual.

Challenges

Though impact bonds are a potentially useful tool in the toolbox of many financing mechanisms, there are some significant constraints to their implementation. The biggest barrier to impact bonds and other results-based contracts is the administrative hurdle of contracting for outcomes. Peter Vanderwal, innovative financing lead at the Palladium Group, and Caroline Whistler, co-president and co-founder of Third Sector Capital Partners, both stated that governments often are unable or do not know how to contract for outcomes, and there is a need to invest in their capacity to do so. Appropriation schedules are part of this challenge, governments are often not allowed to appropriate for future years. When an audience member asked how we go about changing the culture in government to one of contracting for outcomes, Mayor McAdams answered that impact bonds may have a contagious effect—contracting for outcomes will be the expectation in the future. Additionally, the transaction costs of establishing the partnership are large relative to other mechanisms, though they may be worthwhile. Jim Sorenson, of the Sorenson Impact Center, pointed out that service provider capacity and data collection systems could be barriers to the development of future impact bonds. There is also still a long way to go in developing outcome measures and in particular in calibrating those outcome measures to low- and middle-income countries.

The role of governments and research groups

The influence that impact bonds have on the provision of quality services globally depends on the quality of implementation. With a rapidly growing market, there will inevitably be “bad” impact bonds in the future. To ensure that impact bonds are used as effectively as possible, governments and the research community have a pivotal role to play in asking the right questions: Will a results-based contract help improve outcomes in this particular case? What should the outcomes be to avoid perverse incentives or potentially negative externalities? And would an impact bond structure add value? 

       

March 18 was an historic day for early childhood development (ECD) financing—the Departments of Social Development and Health of the Western Cape province of South Africa committed 25 million rand ($1.62 million) in outcome funding for three social impact bonds (SIBs) for maternal and early childhood outcomes. This is the first ever funding committed by a middle-income government for a SIB—to date no low-income country governments have participated in a SIB either—making South Africa’s choice to pioneer this new path especially exciting.

A SIB is a financing mechanism for social outcomes where investors provide upfront capital for services and a government agency repays investors contingent on outcome achievement. There are currently two active development impact bonds or DIBs (where a donor provides outcome funding rather than a government agency) in middle-income countries, one for coffee production in Peru and one for girls’ education in India. The South African SIBs, whose implementation was facilitated by the Bertha Centre for Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the University of Cape Town and Social Finance U.K. as well as other organizations, will be the first impact bonds in Africa.

We have been following closely the development of these SIBs over the last two years through our research on the potential applications of impact bonds for ECD outcomes, and recently hosted a discussion on the topic at Brookings. There are currently nine other impact bonds worldwide that include outcomes for children ages 0 to 5, including two recently announced impact bonds in the U.S. for nurse home-visiting in South Carolina and support for families struggling with substance abuse in Connecticut.

Impact bonds are well suited to fund interventions that have high potential returns to society; that require learning, adaptability, and combinations of services to achieve those returns; and that are not core government-funded services (often resulting in a relative proliferation of non-state providers). In our recent report, we find that a majority of evaluations show ECD can have unparalleled returns, but there are also a number of evaluations that show no significant impact or where impact fades out. Overall however, there are few evaluations relative to the number of service providers and interventions, an indication of how little we know about the effectiveness of the majority of service providers. For example, there are only 15 studies examining the effects of ECD interventions in low- and middle-income countries on later-life socioemotional development, which has been shown to be a critical determinant of success in school and life.

The case for government investment is strong, but continuous learning and adaptation is needed to ensure the high potential impacts are achieved. Tying payments to outcomes could help the ECD sector in three ways: it could encourage new government investment in ECD, it could encourage performance management and adaptability, and, crucially, it could help develop the knowledge base of what works in ECD. Unlike some other sectors where providers are able to finance their own operations to participate in a results-based (performance-based) contract through fees or other cash flows, ECD providers will almost always require upfront capital in order to reach the most vulnerable. Consequently, we find that, despite some significant challenges, ECD interventions are particularly well suited to impact bonds.

For this reason, there are three things we find particularly exciting about these new SIBs for early childhood development in South Africa:

1. Collaboration of two departments to ensure a continuity of outcome measurement and, hopefully, achievement. Given their different mandates, the Department of Health will fund outcomes for pregnant mothers and children in their first 1,000 days and the Department of Social Development will fund outcomes for children ages 2 to 5. The Bertha Centre writes that “the funding will be made available to three community based organizations working with pregnant women and children up to five years of age with outcomes including improved antenatal care, prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV, exclusive breastfeeding, a reduction in growth stunting, and improved cognitive, language and motor development.” 

The continuity of quality services is essential to sustaining the impacts of early childhood services, and this is the first set of impact bonds to address outcomes across the development spectrum from age 0 to 5. Selecting outcomes however, particularly for more complex learning outcomes for children ages 3 to 5, can be one of the greatest challenges for impact bonds in the ECD sector.

A full list of recommended outcome metrics for ECD impact bonds is available in our report.

2. Outcome fund structure. The SIBs in South Africa have been designed as impact bond funds, where the outcome funder issues a rate card of prices it is willing to pay for certain outcomes and multiple service providers are awarded contracts to provide those outcomes. This structure, which has been implemented in four instances in the U.K., could help facilitate impact bonds at greater scale than what we have seen thus far.

At the Brookings event on impact bonds, Louise Savell of Social Finance U.K., explained that scale was critical in the South African case because there are few providers that work across the entire province. While the discussion around pricing outcomes in the U.K. was more focused on future value to the economy, the discussion in South Africa had to be more attuned to the price of providing services. These delivery prices differ greatly by township, which may result in different outcome payment prices by township. The impact bond designers also had to ensure the outcome price allowed for providers to serve the hardest to reach.

3. Matching of private-sector outcome funds. This is the first impact bond to date where private-sector actors will augment outcome funds, in addition to serving as investors. Impact bonds take a great deal of work for a government agency to establish—though it will likely drop over time—and additional or matching of outcome funds will be critical to making this effort worthwhile for low- and middle-income country governments.

Looking forward, it will be interesting to compare and contrast the structure and design of these SIBs with the impact bonds for ECD outcomes in Cameroon, India, and potentially other countries as they launch in the coming years. Each impact bond must be designed taking into consideration the particular issues and challenges in a given context. However, sharing learnings from one impact bond to the next will likely improve both efficiency and quality of the impact bond implementation. 

       

This week the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice announced that it will pay for the successful achievement of employment and prison recidivism outcomes among short-term adult prisoners as part of the new “Work After Prison” social impact bond (SIB)—the fifth such transaction in the Netherlands and one of about 60 in the world. In a SIB—which is a mix of results-based financing, a public-private partnership, and impact investing—private investors provide upfront capital for preventive social services, and in turn an outcome funder (usually government) pays them back plus a return contingent upon the achievement of agreed-upon outcomes. Where consistent social outcomes achievement poses challenges, this model has considerable potential to create a path forward.

What is the social challenge?

Each year in the Netherlands, around 40,000 adults are incarcerated and about 30,000 are released. What’s troubling is that the rate of recidivism two years after release from prison is nearly 50 percent. And the costs of successful reintegration and reduced recidivism rates are high and include enormous amounts of social benefits paid out to previously incarcerated individuals. Multi-pronged approaches are often necessary including programs that address housing needs, employment, mental health and substance abuse issues, and debt settlement. Addressing all of these challenges simultaneously is difficult and often the right incentives are not in place for the outcomes of importance to be at the forefront of decision-making. But SIBs may offer a promising way to meet these hurdles.

Who are the players in the SIB?

In a typical SIB, the players at the table include an outcome funder (government), investors (usually impact investors including foundations), a service provider or providers (usually a non-governmental entity but it can also be public), and the beneficiary population. In addition, there can be external evaluators who assess whether or not the agreed-upon outcome has been achieved; and, in many SIBs, there is also an intermediary party that brings the stakeholders to the table, structures the deal, manage the deal, or conducts performance management for the service provider.

The Dutch SIB for prison recidivism has a total of 10 players not including the beneficiary population. Most interestingly, this deal differs from all four previous SIBs in the Netherlands in that the outcome funder, the Ministry of Security and Justice, is at the national level rather than subnational level—the previous outcome funders were all municipal governments. Notably, less than half of the SIBs in the world have a national-level outcome funder. The Dutch bank ABN Amro, the Start Foundation, and Oranje Fonds are equal investors (and have all invested in previous Dutch SIBs). Three organizations that are part of the Work-Wise Direct Consortium—Exodus Foundation, Restart, and Foundation 180—will provide services to the population in need. Society Impact, an organization supporting social entrepreneurship and innovative financing in the Netherlands, acted as a matchmaker in the transaction by helping to bring all parties to the table. An evaluation arm of the Ministry of Security and Justice and a research entity, Panteia will evaluate whether or not outcomes are achieved.

The beneficiary population includes 150 adults who have been in prison between three and 12 months. There is no targeting based on type of crime, age, or gender and consent must be provided by the participant and the municipality.

What’s at stake?

There are two outcome metrics established in this SIB. In a period of two and half years, the outcome funder will repay investors the principal investment of 1.2 million euros plus a maximum return of 10 percent of the investment (but expected return is around 5 percent) contingent upon: 1) a 25 to 30 percent decrease in the social benefits issued to the previously incarcerated participants (which is estimated to require a 882-month increase in labor force participation by the entire group); and 2) a 10 percent reduction in recidivism among the participants.

Who will benefit?

The beneficiary population

In theory, with all eyes on the target (outcomes), beneficiary populations have a greater chance of success with this results-based financing mechanism compared to traditional input-based financing contracts. The potential for greater collaboration among stakeholders, performance management, and adaptive learning should all bode well for the delivery of the set goals. This could allow for improvements even beyond the targets within the impact bond structure such as improved family life, higher earnings, and increased civic participation.

The outcome funder (and taxpayers)

For the Ministry of Security and Justice, the SIB provides an opportunity to shift to private investors the implementation and financial risk of funding social service programs. If outcomes are achieved, then the ministry repays the investors an amount that represents the value they place on outcome achievement, and if outcomes are not achieved, then they do not pay. What’s more, the ministry could benefit from reduced costs as a result of shifting from remedial to preventive services. Additional cost savings, in particular the reduction in social welfare benefits, and other inherent benefits will be accrued to other government entities as well as society as a whole.

The service providers

There can be multiple benefits for services providers. First, the availability of upfront capital allows them to do their job better. Second, the longer-term (multi-year) contract reduces time spent on grant proposals and allows for more steady funding flows. Third, the SIB can provide an opportunity to strengthen the providers’ systems of data collection. Fourth, it allows the service providers to conduct a rigorous evaluation of their program. Further, SIBs can allow for flexibility and learning-by-doing in the delivery of the social services.

The investors

The three investors in this SIB have an opportunity to earn a financial return of maximum 10 percent if outcomes are successfully achieved. In addition, they benefit from having contributed to the improvement of the lives of the target population and their families. Furthermore, they could generate an impact that goes way beyond the SIB itself. They have the potential to create larger systemic change in the provision of social services by shifting government’s focus away from how services are delivered to which outcomes they want to achieve and by helping to build systems of monitoring and evaluation that allow for systematic assessment of those outcomes.

A way forward

Six years after the implementation of the first SIB for prison recidivism in the United Kingdom, this creative idea has spread to at least 12 other countries with the aim of tackling some of the world’s most intractable social problems. The Netherlands, known globally as a leader on many social and environmental issues, is taking a leading role in the adoption of this mechanism. Moving forward, the rest of the world will be watching to see what lessons can be gleaned from these early experiments as the burden of tough societal issues and potential solutions become increasingly global in nature.

       

Impact bonds, and other RBF mechanisms, require the measurement of outcomes and create an incentive for the service provider to deliver results. Both aspects encourage the service provider to improve performance management and, ultimately, the quality of the service. Because governments or donors only pay if results are achieved, funding is not wasted on unsuccessful programs. Furthermore, the guarantee of value can encourage governments or donors to explore new, potentially high-impact interventions, instead of continuing to fund low-impact programs.

Impact bonds may also have other positive spillover effects on development. For example, the involvement of private intermediaries and investors may also help grease the wheels of new government contracting systems or provide a way for the business sector to engage in a social issue.

However, despite the enormous potential of impact bonds, there are also some considerable limitations and challenges associated with their implementation. Three criteria are necessary to even consider the use of an impact bond:

1. The ability of the funder to pay for outcomes rather than inputs
2. Sufficient evidence that a given intervention and service provider will be able to deliver a stated outcome for an investor to take the risk of engaging
3. Meaningful outcomes (i.e., related to the SDG indicators) that can be measured within a time frame suitable to both investors and outcome funders

In addition to these three critical criteria, the ability for the key stakeholders to collaborate with one another has enormous implications for getting an impact bond off the ground. These factors contribute to the complexity and high transaction costs associated with impact bonds (relative to traditional input-based financing). Given these constraints, impact bonds are suited to areas where service providers need flexibility and where risk factors discourage direct funding but are minor enough to attract impact investors.

Thus far, these criteria have limited impact bonds to particular subsectors, regions, and investor types and have restricted their scale (both monetarily and in terms of beneficiary numbers). Impact bonds have been developed in fields with complex service inputs and simple outcomes, and for services that cater to particularly underserved or marginalized populations. The scale of impact bonds has been limited—the majority serve fewer than 2,000 individuals, and the largest reaches less than 16,000. Investors have been limited to philanthropic or impact investors rather than commercial investors. However, all impact bonds thus far have supported interventions that have at least some evidence of effectiveness.

Given trends in the global impact bond market, what role do impact bonds have in fulfilling the financing needs to achieving the SDGs, in particular in developing countries?

Impact bonds are likely to be improve effectiveness of financing rather than increasing volume. They also serve an important role in financing mid-scale interventions with some evidence of effectiveness. While they may not be best suited to large-scale financing of social services, they have the potential to affect large-scale systemic shifts in how governments and service providers think about service provision because they build cultures of monitoring and evaluation, encourage investments in prevention, and incentivize collaboration, all of which are essential to achieving the SDGs.

       

       

       

Being able to read and write is the most basic foundation of knowledge accumulation and further skill development. Without literacy, there can be no quality education. Presently, 1 in 5 adults is illiterate, two-thirds of whom are women. At the current pace, over 700 million adults worldwide will still not be able to read in 2015. [1] In global education discussions, literacy rates are most often reported for adolescents and adults, an ex post facto measure of the failure of primary school systems to impart basic skills in the most formative schooling years. It is clear that much needs to be done to provide these adolescents and adults with access to successful literacy programs. But we must also ensure that children with access to schooling are not growing up to be illiterate.

Children enrolled and regularly attending school for the first three grades should be able to read basic text. Evidence shows that acquiring this ability to read sets students up for further learning, enabling them to read and comprehend progressively more advanced materials and acquire additional knowledge.

As explained in our earlier policy brief, data from numerous countries show that children in school are failing to acquire the most basic of skills, measured as the ability to read words of connected text. We called for a global paradigm shift that places learning at the center of the global education discourse. This shift requires the major bilateral and multilateral actors to refocus their own efforts on supporting learning in the classroom and measuring progress by increased learning outcomes. There has been some progress here, such as USAID’s goal to improve reading skills for primary school children in its new education strategy and the World Bank’s Education Strategy 2020, Learning for All: investing in people’s knowledge and skills to promote development.

This shift of focus also requires substantial changes on the ground, including encouraging and supporting a culture of literacy and learning at the community level. For example, Gove and Cvelich highlight some main factors contributing to low reading levels, including a lack of support for teachers, limited instructional time, poorly resourced schools, the absence of books in the home and policies regarding the language of instruction. [2] In Mali, a recent survey found that three-quarters of grade 2 students did not have a textbook and no student had supplementary reading books at school. [3] In The Gambia, the vast majority of students who demonstrated a level of reading fluency said that they had books at home. Globally, in both developed and developing economies, a relatively consistent proxy for “parental commitment to education” is the number of books in the home. A 20-year study of 27 countries found that children growing up in homes with many books get three years more schooling than their peers who come from homes without books. [4] There is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving the quality of education in developing countries. However, there is plenty of room for innovation to address some of the biggest barriers to improving reading levels, including availability of appropriate reading materials at school and at home. In disadvantaged communities, where there are relatively few books and even fewer books in local languages and that deal with culturally-relevant topics, innovation is needed to help develop a robust culture of literacy.

One such innovation is Worldreader.org’s iRead pilot in Ghana, which has put hundreds of e-readers into children’s hands. A lot has been written on similar classroom technology in developing countries, which cite examples of supplying hardware to schools without plans for its educational use, promoting technology from a single company, insufficient planning for sustainability, and inadequate investment in time to train teachers and administrators who will be the purveyors of the technology initiatives in the classrooms. [5]

However, the important difference between this e-reader program and similar projects focused on putting computers in classrooms is that e-readers usually operate on the mobile phone system, which has exploded in developing regions over the last few years. In Kenya, more than 80 percent of the population has mobile phone network coverage and more than half of the population has purchased a mobile phone subscription. The GSM compatibility of e-readers allows for downloading of new reading materials wherever there is mobile phone coverage and sufficient funds available to purchase new texts. E-readers also have relatively low levels of energy consumption (a one-hour charge can last more than a week). In addition to gaining the support of community leaders and teachers from the beginning, the pilot began with intense in-service training for teachers in how to use e-readers to complement their existing curricula. While Worldreader.org has not solved all of the challenges posed by technology initiatives in education, it has taken some important steps toward addressing the barriers to project success. [6]

The organization has also tackled specific challenges that are impeding reading success in the early primary grades:

• Additional support for emergent readers. E-readers provide additional support to teachers in teaching children how to read, an important supplement in primary school classrooms in low-income countries where there may be 40 or 50 students per teacher. In such cases, students are required to work independently or in small groups while the teacher is working with other students. The text-to-speech feature on e-readers can read books aloud to the student, exposing her to the written text as she hears it read aloud. Students can also use the downloaded dictionary while reading to look up unfamiliar words and continue to read without adult assistance.
  
• Students and teachers get to choose. While paper books donated by schools, libraries, and individuals from around the world have helped to get written materials into low-resource schools in developing countries, e-books allow students and teachers in developing countries to choose which books they teach and read. Although choices now are restricted by the dominance of English in the e-book market, the potential for the expansion of the digital market represents a step toward greater agency for teachers and students.
  
• Working with local publishers to increase access to books for emergent readers. Children learning to read need access to the types of books that engage their imagination and spark their interest. For children learning to read, this means stories with simple sentences in their local language. Yet, traditionally children’s books are not a good economic bet for publishers, particularly in developing countries. The high cost of printing the books are not recouped since so many families cannot purchase copies for their own household use. However, distributing books in e-reader format will actually allow publishers to reach more customers at a lower cost. To bring more books to the developing world through e-readers and e-books, Worldreader.org seeks to support a self-sustaining reading and publishing culture by working with local publishers to digitize books and materials to support local language curricula.
  
• Portability can increase reading opportunities. Anecdotal reports from classroom teachers in the Ghanaian pilot frequently reference how students would not stop reading, pulling out their e-readers in between lessons, during recess and lunch, and after school with friends, parents and siblings. An International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement study on reading literacy in 32 countries found that the amount of voluntary book reading that students did during out-of-school time was strongly positively related to students’ achievement levels. [7]

While the pilot is still in the early stages, the founders of the project are focused on the essential outcomes. Their USAID-funded impact study seeks to find out whether children are reading more than they were before the program and whether children read better than they were before the program. Measuring program success by understanding the impact on learning outcomes is a critical step for shifting the global education paradigm to one focused on learning.

---

[1] UNESCO. (2010). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalized. Paris: UNESCO.
[2] Gove, A., and P. Cvelich, (2010). Early Reading: Igniting Education for All. A report by the Early Grades Learning Community of Practice. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
[3] Evans, 2010
[4] M.D.R. Evans, Jonathan Kelley, Joanna Sikora, Donald J. Treiman. “Family scholarly culture and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.rssm.2010.01.002
The study controls for education levels, occupations, and socio-economic status of the parents.
[5] For example, Trucano, M. “Worst practice in ICT use in education,” 2010, accessed at http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/worst-practice
[6] Some of the core challenges identified by Worldreader.org and others include the upfront costs of e-readers, need for on-going training and support to teachers, students, and communities, buy-in of school systems and local governments to deploy technology and content, insufficient relevant materials in e-book format, and consistent access to electricity and mobile networks.
[7] Elley, W.B. (Ed.). (1994). The IEA Study of Reading Literacy: Achievement and Instruction in Thirty-two School Systems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Downloads

• Download Paper

      

       

Washington is again paralyzed and pulling back on clean energy economic development. Deficit politics and partisanship are firmly entrenched and the raft of federal financial supports made available through the 2009 stimulus law and elsewhere is starting to expire.

No wonder it’s hard to imagine—especially if you’re sitting in the nation’s capital—how the next phase of American clean energy industry growth will be financed or its next generation of technologies and firms supported.

And yet, one source of action lies hidden in plain sight. With federal clean energy activities largely on hold, a new paper we are releasing today as part of the Brookings-Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation argues that U.S. states hold out tremendous promise for the continued design and implementation of smart clean energy finance solutions and economic development.

Specifically, we contend that the nearly two dozen clean energy funds (CEFs) now running in a variety of mostly northern states stand as one of the most important clean energy forces at work in the nation and offer at least one partial response to the failure of Washington to deliver a sensible clean energy development approach.

To date, over 20 states have created a varied array of these public investment vehicles to invest in clean energy pursuits with revenues often derived from small public-benefit surcharges on electric utility bills. Over the last decade, state CEFs have invested over $2.7 billion in state dollars to support renewable energy markets, counting very conservatively.  Meanwhile, they have leveraged another $9.7 billion in additional federal and private sector investment, with the resulting $12 billion flowing to the deployment of over 72,000 projects in the United States ranging from solar installations on homes and businesses to wind turbines in communities to large wind farms, hydrokinetic projects in rivers, and biomass generation plants on farms. 

In so doing, the funds stand well positioned—along with state economic development and other officials—to build on a pragmatic success and take up the challenge left by the current federal abdication of a role on clean energy economic development.

Yet here is the rub: For all the good the funds have achieved, project-only financing—as needed as it is—will not be sufficient to drive the growth of large and innovative new companies or to create the broader economic development taxpayers demand from public investments.  Also needed will be a greater focus on the deeper-going economic development work that can help spawn whole new industries. 

All of which points to the new brand of fund activity that our paper celebrates and calls for more of. 

In recent years, increasingly ambitious efforts in a number of states have featured engagement on at least three major fronts somewhat different from the initial fund focus: (1) cleantech innovation support through research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) funding; (2) financial support for early-stage cleantech companies and emerging technologies, including working capital for companies; and (3) industry development support through business incubator programs, regional cluster promotion, manufacturing and export promotion, supply chain analysis and enhancement, and workforce training programs.

These new economic development efforts—on display in California, Massachusetts, New York, and elsewhere—show the next era of state clean energy fund leadership coming into focus. States are now poised to jumpstart a new, creative period of expanded clean energy economic development and industry creation, to complement and build upon individualistic project financing. 

Such work could not be more timely at this moment of federal gridlock and market uncertainty.

Along these lines, then, our paper advances several recommendations for moving states more aggressively into this new period of clean energy economic development. We suggest that:

• States should reorient a significant portion (at least 10 percent of the total portfolio) of state CEF money to clean energy-related economic development

• States, as they reorient portions of their CEFS to economic development, should better understand the market dynamics in their metropolitan regions.  They need to lead by making available quality data on the number of jobs in their regions, the fastest-growing companies, the critical industry clusters, gaps in the supply chain for those industries, their export potential, and a whole range of economic development and market indicators

• States also should better link their clean energy funds with economic development entities, community development finance institutions (CDFIs), development finance organizations and other stakeholders who could be ideal partners to develop decentralized funding and effective economic development programs

In addition, we think that Washington needs to recognize the strength and utility of the CEFs and actively partner with them:

• The federal government should consider redirecting a portion of federal funds (for instance, from federal technology support programs administered by the Department of Energy and other programs meant for federal-state cooperation) to provide joint funding of cluster development, export programs, workforce training, and other economic development programs  through matching dollars to state funds that now have active economic development programs, and to provide incentives to states without such programs to create them

• The federal government should create joint technology partnerships with states to advance each state’s targeted clean energy technology industries, by matching federal deployment funding with state funding.

• The states and the federal government, more generally, should look to “decentralize” financing decisions to local entities with street knowledge of their industries, relying on more “development finance” authorities that have financed traditional infrastructure and now could finance new clean energy projects and programs

In sum, our new paper proposes a much greater focus in U.S. clean energy finance on “bottom up,” decentralized clean initiatives that rely on the states to catalyze regional economic development in regions. Such an approach—which reflects the emergence of an emerging “pragmatic caucus” in U.S. economic life—is currently demanded by federal inaction. However, it might also be the smartest, most durable way to develop the clean energy industries of the future without the partisan rancor and obtuseness that has stymied federal energy policy. State clean energy funds—having funded thousands of individual projects—bring significant knowledge to bear as they focus now on building whole industries. For that reason, the funds’ transition from project development to industry creation should be nurtured and supported.

       

State clean energy funds (CEFs) have emerged as effective tools that states can use to accelerate the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. These clean energy funds, which exist in over 20 states, generate about $500 million per year in dedicated support from utility surcharges and other sources, making them significant public investors in thousands of clean energy projects.

However, state clean energy funds’ emphasis on a project finance model—which directly promotes clean energy project installation by providing production incentives and grants/rebates—is by itself not enough to build a statewide clean energy industry. State clean energy funds also need to pay attention to other critical aspects of building a robust clean energy industry, including cleantech innovation support through research and development funding, financial support for early-stage cleantech companies and emerging technologies, and various other industry development efforts.

As it happens, some of these state clean energy funds are already supporting a broader range of clean energy-related economic development activities within their states. As more and more states reorient their clean energy funds from a project finance-only model in order to encompass broader economic development activities, clean energy funds can collectively become an important national driver for economic growth.

To become true economic development engines in clean energy state clean energy funds should:

• Reorient a significant portion of their funding toward clean energy-related economic development
• Develop detailed state-specific clean energy market data
• Link clean energy funds with economic development entitites and other stakeholders in the emerging industry
• Collaborate with other state, regional, and federal efforts to best leverage public and private dollars and learn from each other's experiences

Downloads

• Download the Full Paper

       

Event Information

In a close referendum last week, voters in the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, setting off financial and political shockwaves in Europe and around the world. British PM David Cameron has resigned, while Scotland has renewed calls for another independence referendum, global stock markets lost nearly $2 trillion on Friday, and the British pound is at a 30-year low. Many view the British referendum as commentary not only on economic and immigration trends in the UK, but as a possible forecast of the broader wave of anti-globalization and nationalistic political movements in the U.S. and Europe.

On June 29, Brookings hosted a discussion of the immediate fallout and medium- to long-term consequences of Britain’s departure from the EU. Panelists addressed how the process of exiting the EU might unfold, effects on the U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-EU security and trade relationships, on global development, and the future of the EU project.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Brexit.

Video

• Brexit sends shockwaves: What now?

Audio

• Brexit sends shockwaves: What now?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160629_brexit_transcript

       

       

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

A conversation with Senator John McCain

On May 19, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings (21CSI) hosted Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) to address major reforms to the organization of the Department of Defense, the defense acquisition system, and the military health system included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which is planned for consideration by the Senate as soon as next week.

Given his role as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain also addressed ongoing budget challenges for the Department of Defense and the military and his views on what needs to be done. Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and co-director of 21CSI, moderated the discussion.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #FY17NDAA

Video

• Introduction by Martin Indyk, and remarks by Sen. John McCain
• Discussion between Sen. John McCain and Michael O'Hanlon

Audio

• New demands on the military and the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160519_mccain_defense_transcript