Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Rand: Could Deep Sea Mining Break China's Grip on Critical Minerals?
SANTA MONICA, California, April 15 (TNSrep) -- Rand issued the following news on April 14, 2026:* * *
Could Deep Sea Mining Break China's Grip on Critical Minerals?
Miles beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean lies a vast stretch of seabed littered with what look like dull, dark rocks.
Those rocks are actually polymetallic nodules, rich in the minerals that drive modern economies. They could help the United States break its reliance on China, which otherwise controls the market. But nobody has ever mined seabed nodules at scale, much less processed them for industrial use.
The United States ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, April 15 (TNSrep) -- Rand issued the following news on April 14, 2026: * * * Could Deep Sea Mining Break China's Grip on Critical Minerals? Miles beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean lies a vast stretch of seabed littered with what look like dull, dark rocks. Those rocks are actually polymetallic nodules, rich in the minerals that drive modern economies. They could help the United States break its reliance on China, which otherwise controls the market. But nobody has ever mined seabed nodules at scale, much less processed them for industrial use. The United Statesis about to try. But as a recent RAND study (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3560-1.html) found, getting those nodules to the surface is only part of the challenge.
"We need to find alternative sources of these critical minerals that don't involve China," said Tom LaTourrette, a senior physical scientist at RAND. "This is an all-of-government, all-hands effort. Seabed mining is one way we might accomplish it."
Dirty potatoes: That the seabed is pebbled with rocky nodules has been known for a very long time. The HMS Challenger dredged them up by the hundreds during its voyage of discovery in the 1870s. "When rolled on the deck," an expedition scientist wrote, "they looked like a pile of dirty potatoes."
Those dirty potatoes contain a fortune in nickel, cobalt, manganese, and copper. Those minerals are critical components in everything from batteries and electric engines to advanced weapons. And for now, the global market for them runs through China. The government there has not hesitated to pinch supplies when it wants to make a point. Seabed mining could give the United States a new and much more secure source.
But the Pacific seabed is one of the hardest-to-reach places on earth. The area identified as the best bet for mining is around 2.5 miles down, deeper than the wreck of the Titanic.
Immediate action: Mining companies have proposed to use remote-controlled robots or seabed crawlers tethered to surface ships to bring up nodules. They have begun to seek approval not from the International Seabed Authority, but from the United States. The seabed authority oversees resources in areas of the seafloor beyond national jurisdictions. But it has wrestled for more than two decades with how to regulate mining. The Trump Administration has promised no such delay. It plans to use an existing U.S. regulatory framework.
President Trump has described seabed resources as "key to strengthening our economy [and] securing our energy future." He has called for "immediate action" to explore and map the seafloor and to collect and process the minerals there.
One big challenge: Those nodules can't just plug into an electric car and be ready to go. They need to be processed and refined into usable compounds. But the technology to extract all four critical minerals from nodules remains largely unproven. One country has come to dominate mineral processing worldwide and is well positioned to take over the processing of nodules, too. That would be China.
"China is ready to make it happen," said Fabian Villalobos, a senior engineer at RAND. "People see seabed mining as something China has not yet dominated. They think it's an opportunity to escape China's control of the market. But if other countries don't start to figure out how to enter this market and process these nodules, that's just another resource that China will probably dominate in a few years after a regulatory framework is in place."
The United States should consider developing that side of the industry with as much urgency as the mining itself, RAND found. Some efforts are underway to design and build processing plants in the United States. Federal grants, loans, and purchase agreements could help get those projects off the ground. "You can mine all you want," LaTourrette said. "If you send it all to China for processing, you're not helping one iota."
China knows this, too. As part of their study, researchers interviewed representatives from half a dozen mining companies. Most said China is already pushing hard to sign processing deals, before their mining equipment even hits the water.
Weighing the impacts: Mining on land has often had catastrophic impacts: environmental damage; mineral conflicts; displaced communities; human-rights abuses. Seabed mining could provide an alternative, researchers noted. But the impact that mining could have on the deep ocean--or on related industries, like fishing--is not well understood.
Federally funded research could identify and mitigate environmental risks, RAND found--and help address some of the opposition to seabed mining. But the list of potential impacts that need more study is much longer than that. Seabed mining could trigger new territorial disputes and increase the need for maritime security forces. It could crash mineral prices, straining some developing countries that rely on mineral royalties.
For example: The Democratic Republic of Congo. Its budget rests on royalties it receives from its sprawling cobalt mines. In every scenario RAND studied, it stands to lose millions--maybe hundreds of millions--of dollars annually if seabed mining supplants those mines.
"The geopolitical implications of this are going to be huge," LaTourrette said. "There's a lot of money at stake. But beyond that, you need these minerals for technologies that are only becoming more important. If you can't source these minerals, then you can't compete in the global market."
Millions of tons of critical minerals are thought to be sitting on the seabed, far more than miners could ever find on land. By most estimates, those seabed nodules could more than meet U.S. demand in the decades to come. The early explorers who first hauled them onto deck had no idea how valuable those dirty potatoes would become.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2026/could-deep-sea-mining-break-chinas-grip-on-critical.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Iran War Increased Economic Uncertainty in Germany
MUNICH, Germany, April 15 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:* * *
Iran War Increased Economic Uncertainty in Germany
Uncertainty among companies in Germany has increased considerably in the past weeks. In March, 78.6% of companies found it difficult or fairly difficult to assess their future business development, according to the latest ifo Business Survey. In February, the figure was 75.4%. It brings the indicator of economic uncertainty to its highest level since February 2024. "The war in Iran has noticeably increased uncertainty in the German economy," says Klaus Wohlrabe, ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, April 15 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * Iran War Increased Economic Uncertainty in Germany Uncertainty among companies in Germany has increased considerably in the past weeks. In March, 78.6% of companies found it difficult or fairly difficult to assess their future business development, according to the latest ifo Business Survey. In February, the figure was 75.4%. It brings the indicator of economic uncertainty to its highest level since February 2024. "The war in Iran has noticeably increased uncertainty in the German economy," says Klaus Wohlrabe,Head of Surveys at ifo. "For many companies, the impact on their own business is currently difficult to predict."
Uncertainty is particularly pronounced in manufacturing, where the share of companies affected stands at 87.7%. Since October 2021, this figure has consistently remained above 80%, reflecting the industry's ongoing structural challenges. Uncertainty is particularly high in energy-intensive industries: In the chemical industry, it stands at around 95%, and among manufacturers of rubber and plastic goods, at 93.9%.
Uncertainty increased significantly in the service sector, with the share rising from 66.6% to 72.0%. Transport and logistics were particularly hard hit. 88.1% of companies reported planning difficulties, up from 82.7% in February. Uncertainty in the trade sector remains at a high level (84.4%, up from 84.1%). In construction, it stands at 73.4%, up from 71.9% in previous month. "Companies currently face a host of risks, from rising energy prices to potential disruptions in supply chains," says Wohlrabe. "The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more investments and growth will come under pressure."
Uncertainty is surveyed as part of the ifo Institute's monthly company survey. The companies are asked to state how easy or difficult it is for them to predict the future development of their business situation. There are four possible answers: easy, fairly easy, fairly difficult, or difficult. The share of companies that give a rating of "difficult" or "fairly difficult" is interpreted as an indicator of perceived uncertainty.
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-04-15/iran-war-increased-economic-uncertainty-germany)
ifo Podcast: The Economic Cost of Uncertainty (https://www.ifo.de/en/media-center/2025-10-31/ifo-podcast-economic-cost-uncertainty)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-04-15/iran-war-increased-economic-uncertainty-germany
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Industry Shrinkage in Germany Particularly Problematic
MUNICH, Germany, April 15 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on April 14, 2026:* * *
Industry Shrinkage in Germany Particularly Problematic
According to ifo President Clemens Fuest, industry shrinkage is particularly problematic in Germany as rural regions are more severely affected here than in comparable countries. "If industry shrinks without new, highly productive sectors emerging, then prosperity is at risk. Rural regions that depend on industry-driven value creation, investment, and well-paid jobs are particularly at risk," he says.
Fuest justifies his concern by pointing ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, April 15 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on April 14, 2026: * * * Industry Shrinkage in Germany Particularly Problematic According to ifo President Clemens Fuest, industry shrinkage is particularly problematic in Germany as rural regions are more severely affected here than in comparable countries. "If industry shrinks without new, highly productive sectors emerging, then prosperity is at risk. Rural regions that depend on industry-driven value creation, investment, and well-paid jobs are particularly at risk," he says. Fuest justifies his concern by pointingout that, unlike in some other economies, German industry is highly decentralized across regions. He says that numerous medium-sized enterprises and family-run companies are deeply rooted in rural areas and have provided prosperity and stability there. If this foundation were to erode, there would be a risk not only of an overall economic downturn, but also of a significant decline in many rural areas, with far-reaching economic and political consequences.
The ifo President therefore calls for decisive reforms to boost competitiveness: less red tape, a more affordable energy supply, and relief on taxes and duties in order to safeguard the industrial base in the regions and limit regional disparities in prosperity.
* * *
14 April 2026
Opinions
What Are the Consequences of the Decline in Industrial Value Added in Germany?
Germany's prosperity is based to a large degree on the success of its domestic industrial companies. They are highly productive, invest a lot of money in research and development, and offer well-paid jobs. In many advanced economies, the share of value added accounted for by industry has declined in recent decades, while services have grown in importance.
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/opinion/2026-04-14/decline-industrial-value-added-germany-consequences)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-04-14/industry-shrinkage-germany-particularly-problematic
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Trump Administration's $1,000 Tax Refund Promise Falls Hundreds Short for Most Americans
WASHINGTON, April 15 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 14, 2026:* * *
Trump Administration's $1,000 Tax Refund Promise Falls Hundreds Short for Most Americans
After months of promises that Americans would see "$1,000 or more" added to their tax refunds, a new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-1000-tax-refund-promise-falls-short-by-665/) from the Center for American Progress shows the typical increase is coming in about $665 short.
CAP finds that the average tax refund is projected to rise by about ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 15 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 14, 2026: * * * Trump Administration's $1,000 Tax Refund Promise Falls Hundreds Short for Most Americans After months of promises that Americans would see "$1,000 or more" added to their tax refunds, a new analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-1000-tax-refund-promise-falls-short-by-665/) from the Center for American Progress shows the typical increase is coming in about $665 short. CAP finds that the average tax refund is projected to rise by about$335, reaching roughly $3,274 this filing season. That falls well below the roughly $1,000 increase promised by the Trump administration, which would have brought average refunds to about $3,939.
"The administration promised taxpayers a $1,000 boost, but the data show refunds are coming in hundreds of dollars short of that mark," said Corey Husak, director of tax policy at CAP and author of the analysis. "Families are being squeezed by rising costs, and the gap between the relief the administration promised and what families are receiving is wide and growing."
CAP's analysis finds:
* Refunds fall short by about $665. Projected increases of $335 leave taxpayers roughly $665 below the promised $1,000 boost. This final projection is close to the most pessimistic previous assessments of tax refunds.
* Final refunds are projected at about $3,274. That represents an increase of about 11 percent, compared with roughly 34 percent promised by the administration.
* Most Americans are not seeing meaningful relief. Recent polling finds just 27 percent of filers say recent tax changes helped them, while 24 percent say they were hurt and a plurality report no real impact.
* Benefits skewed toward higher-income filers. Taxpayers earning more than $150,000 are most likely to report "significantly larger" refunds, while those earning under $75,000 are more likely to report smaller refunds or no meaningful change.
* Higher costs and benefit cuts are offsetting modest refund gains. Rising prices driven by tariffs and global instability, along with cuts to SNAP and health programs, are outweighing the roughly $335 average increase for most households.
* Refund changes reflect typical variation. Refunds were up $105 in the previous year, underscoring that this year's increase is barely more than in years with no significant tax changes enacted.
Read the analysis: "The Trump Administration's $1,000 Tax Refund Promise Falls Short by $665" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-1000-tax-refund-promise-falls-short-by-665/) by Corey Husak
For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-trump-administrations-1000-tax-refund-promise-falls-hundreds-short-for-most-americans/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Transcript of Event Entitled 'The Futures Summit: A New Era of Development Cooperation - UNDP in This New Era of Development'
WASHINGTON, April 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following transcript of an event on April 14, 2026, entitled "The Futures Summit: A New Era of Development Cooperation - UNDP in this New Era of Development".Event participants included U.N. Development Programme Administrator Alexander De Croo and Enoh T. Ebong, president of the CSIS Global Development Department:
* * *
Enoh T. Ebong: Hello, everyone. And welcome to CSIS' 2026 Futures Summit. Today we are examining a new era of development cooperation, one in which the United Nations Development Programme ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 15 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following transcript of an event on April 14, 2026, entitled "The Futures Summit: A New Era of Development Cooperation - UNDP in this New Era of Development". Event participants included U.N. Development Programme Administrator Alexander De Croo and Enoh T. Ebong, president of the CSIS Global Development Department: * * * Enoh T. Ebong: Hello, everyone. And welcome to CSIS' 2026 Futures Summit. Today we are examining a new era of development cooperation, one in which the United Nations Development Programmehas a role in navigating global crises and building integrated country-led resilience, which is more critical than ever. I am so fortunate to be joined today by UNDP's Administrator Alexander De Croo to examine innovative development strategies that reflect the current moment of shifting geopolitical and economic realities. Alexander De Croo, welcome. We're so pleased to have you here.
Administrator Alexander De Croo: Thank you. I'm glad to be here.
Ms. Ebong: I know that you were confirmed in your role in November of last year and, you know, began in December. And you jumped right in. You were fairly recently in Gaza, in Syria, and in Haiti - all countries that are experiencing real degrees of stress, significant humanitarian issues, and security challenges. I wonder, you know, what has been your experience in these settings? How in this moment of real change in our development system you feel that we can shape, we can help, we can intervene in these countries? What was your sense of it?
Administrator De Croo: Well, first of all, the three examples you gave are not by accident. This is the majority of the work we do as UNDP. We are active in more than 130 countries. Today more than 60 percent - and if the evolution we see over the past week continues probably even way more than 60 percent - of the interventions we do are in fragile settings. So fragility is really at the core of our - of our work. And that fragility leads to very high amount of human - of human suffering. It also leads to quite some complications on how you do - how you do interventions.
And the first point I want to make is that development is part of hard power. It's not -sometimes it's being said, oh well, you know, hard power is military interventions and is security-related interventions, and then the development part comes afterwards. I think that's wrong. I think that development is hard power. It is - to stay in military terms - it is a form of a preemptive strike. Why you do a preemptive strike in military terms? Well, you do it to avoid that a conflict develops. Development is actually the same.
If you do it right, you can avoid that there is a part of the population which would be in extreme poverty, which often leads to extremism, to corruption, and so on. You avoid that population loses trust in institutions, that institutions erode, that you get into situation of lawlessness with all the consequences that it can - that it can have. And so the examples you gave on Haiti, on Gaza, on Syria, these are places where we have to work with the consequences of fragility. But avoiding that fragility is actually a very sound investment. So the calculation - and I think it's an IMF calculation - shows that for every dollar you invest in development up front, you actually can avoid the cost of dealing with the consequences of fragility, which are more than a hundred times that cost.
Ms. Ebong: How do you see UNDP's role in this, which I think is a very important approach, integrating the notion of development, the action of development, in security?
Administrator De Croo: Yeah.
Ms. Ebong: What is the role of UNDP in actually effectuating that?
Administrator De Croo: So I think, and the first element is on the preventive side, what we will try to work on is policies that lead to prosperity, and there you have to be very tangible. What is one way of showing prosperity or showing progress to a population? It's having a job, and the jobs agenda is one which is - very often for political leaders is a very appealing one.
We have seen throughout the world the last years the Gen Z protests, and the Gen Z protests was very often countries with a young population where that young population says, hey, we're graduating, but where are the jobs? And often, I mean, the job creation is less than 20 percent of the inflow of young people into the labor market.
So we have a big component of what we work, especially with local political leaders, is OK, how can we create a jobs agenda? How can we show that the economy or economic development is actually working to your benefit?
That is on the element of the preventive side. Then in dealing with the consequences afterwards, one of the things that we see is that in fragility and in conflict you have a lot of refugees or IDPs - internally displaced people.
If you want to return back to stability, then recovery, and then rebuild, you need people to come back, and having people come back after a conflict is important in reconstructing a country. It's also extremely important, politically speaking, to keep the support for international protection. We all know that in developed countries, I mean, dealing with refugee flows over the past years has been politically extremely difficult.
And it is an international obligation, but we need to make sure that that international obligation is being preserved but also showing to those countries that, you know, yes, you have an obligation for international protection. But when conflict is over, people go back to their countries and people should be incentivized to reconstruct their countries.
Now, people are very willing to go back, but they will only go back when certain basic services are there. You cannot expect people to go back when there is no health care, when there is no schools, when there is no basic infrastructure, when there is no access to energy.
And that, for us, is a big part of what we call early recovery, is together with donors and with local political leadership restoring those services. And there are success stories. If you look at the stabilization of Iraq the last years, millions of people have gone back to Iraq.
Millions of people within Iraq have gone back to their home region. That is because we restored services. So making what we do, make it very, very tangible in a situation of fragility and a situation of insecurity can lead to very tangible results.
And there is many examples - there is examples of things which have not worked. I would rather focus on what has worked. Iraq is an example where it has worked.
The Lake Chad Basin is an example where it has worked and today, to me, Syria is an example where it could work and is an example where we could show that in a country where we would have said five years ago it's kind of hopeless, today, this is one of the places in the world, despite all the complexity in the region, where we can show, look, things might actually go in the right direction.
But it will not go in the right direction if the international community is leaning back and is saying, well, let's wait a year and see what happens. I mean, if you do that, then we will prove that it's not working.
Ms. Ebong: I think it's so important that you point to the successes and the narrative of what has worked. I think I also picked up from what you just mentioned the importance as much of security to include both, sort of, national security but economic security. That fundamental of jobs, of a livelihood, of an environment in which you can not just survive, but thrive in your in - your own country.
Administrator De Croo: It's a crucial element to have jobs, but also jobs that provide. So jobs that lift you out of poverty. That is not a guarantee these days. I mean, there's millions - hundreds of millions of people who work today but who still remain in poverty. So and to increase that income you have to look at pure economics. I mean, if you want to increase income of workers, you need to increase their productivity. Increasing their productivity means giving them access to technology. So jobs - if you want jobs that are an economic engine, you need to use technology to increase the productivity.
That leads to an income where you have a surplus. When having a surplus from a salary, that's the key to everything because then you can start saving. If you start saving you have access to a financial system. If you have access to a financial system and you save, you can borrow. If you can borrow, then you can construct a future. And then the economic engine gets going. So the element of productivity and using technology to improve the productivity of workers, wherever it is in the world, is a crucial element.
Ms. Ebong: Well, can you say a bit more about technology? Because I think this is crucial. And you have focused on it, both as a way, perhaps, that UNDP can do its work effectively, but also in terms of the development system and how it can be brought to bear in a way that does not increase a digital divide, in a way that does not exacerbate the positions of those who have and those who have not. Can you talk a bit to that?
Administrator De Croo: Sure. There's a lot of talking about how, for example, the evolutions in AI could create a bigger digital divide. That risk is there. But let's analyze it one level further. What is a fundamental reason that that would happen? It's not because technology would not be accessible to, let's say, least developed countries. It's because of policy reasons. I mean that technology is not flowing there, very often because the legal environment is not stable. Not stable to do, for example, the investments in datacenters that are - that are needed. Or the mobile communication networks are not there because, well, the legal stability or the financial stability is not - is not sufficient.
So I hear the people who warn for the divide. Our reasoning is, OK, but let's work on it. Let's work on the things that we have in our hands. And what we have in our hands is policy reforms, is working together with local political leadership that understand that they have to put their political capital in that. And there is work. I mean, if you look at today in developing countries, only 25 countries in the category of developing countries are investment grade. And actually, if you look between 2020 and 2025, Standard & Poor's lowered the rating for 35 countries in the category of developing countries. So these are statistics that are undeniable and show that there is an incredible amount of work to make countries' markets investable.
Now, that might sound very capitalist reasoning. But making countries investable is the basis for creating a middle class. A middle class of entrepreneurs that see the needs of their population, that provide economic solutions for the needs of their population, that create jobs, jobs have an income, and all the positive effects that it can - that it can have. So we are a big believer of technology as an enabler of development. And as technology as something that can increase the productivity of very young populations, but that can only happen if the boundary conditions to make those investment happens are there.
And today - there is no lack of capital these days. I mean, here at the spring meeting, you go in discussions with multilateral development banks or you go into a discussion with the World Banks and the others, they're not in lack of capital; they are in lack of investable projects, and that's the real discussion. So, yes, we see the cuts in official development assistance. Yes, all that is true. But the real discussion is what is available as investable capital, how do you make the projects investable. That, to me, is the real - the real endeavor.
Ms. Ebong: I do agree with that, and it's a - it's a conversation that we've been having for a while but have not been able to move appreciably on. I so underscore the importance of the investable environment, because actually it makes an environment livable and economically sustainable for everybody.
Administrator De Croo: Exactly.
Ms. Ebong: It's not just about business.
Administrator De Croo: Totally.
Ms. Ebong: But you mentioned ODA and the decline of official development assistance, so maybe we can touch on that for just a little bit. Obviously, the decline has been steep, I think 21 percent or so, from that.
Administrator De Croo: Yeah.
Ms. Ebong: I think that was more than what had been anticipated in 2025. How has this and how will this affect the way in which UNDP approaches its work, its partners? How are you partnering with others, perhaps the private sector, philanthropy? Can you give us a sense of the interconnection from UNDP's perspective of the - of the reductions that we've seen in the last couple of years?
Administrator De Croo: So the reductions we've seen, obviously, we deplore it, because we see massive reductions. I think it's between 21 and 23 percent. Those reductions we see at a moment where today the needs for investment in development are actually increasing in a very sharp way. So in one week('s) time you see the statistics of the drastic decrease, and we have a report that came out today that shows that those six weeks of war that we see in the Gulf region has a risk of pushing 32 million people back into poverty. So going down there, going up on the other side, yes, that shows the issue that we - that we have. OK, that's the analysis.
Now, what does it mean and how do we cope with it? If you look at the streams going into developing countries, ODA is one element in it but there's many other streams. Remittances are in volume three to four times as big as ODA. That's the first element. Foreign direct investments is even more important as a - as a flow. So to me what is crucial is: How do you use ODA? How do you use public funding? And we have to be extremely, extremely selective and extremely cautious on what do you use it for. To me, there's two categories.
First of all, you use it in those domains which you cannot finance with anything else. Let's say investing in governance and in organizing elections, it's hard to get other types of financing for it. And actually, you don't want - I mean, you don't want foreign direct investment into organizing elections in a - in a country. So that's one category. There are certain things where, look, that can only be done with ODA, and you have to be very clear on that.
Second element is what you would call catalytic investment. I mean, these are investments in policy reforms to create an environment that makes it much easier for private capital to flow. So let's be very, very selective on how we - on how we use it. And for us, this means that we have a few avenues where we see more work happening.
One of them is working closely with key international financial institutions. They very often have conditions before they can disburse. We need to stand on their side and say, OK, we are going to work with countries to make sure that the conditions you put before you disburse your loan are not just conditions on paper. I mean, what we do is we turn conditions on paper into practice, into things that are being realized. That's to the advantage of everything because it will increase investment that is happening that the World Banks and the others are doing, which are crucial. That's one big element.
Second element is domestic resource mobilization. I mean, in many countries, even the poorest countries, there are people who make money. And there's nothing wrong with making money. But there's nothing wrong either about paying some taxes on the profits that you have. And especially in domains such as natural resources and others, we have nothing against the fact that there is an economic activity around natural resources. It's one of the strengths that many of the poorer countries have. But they need to be way stronger at, on one hand, fighting corruption, but on the other hand also making sure that people who do make money pay a contribution with which governments can organize their own direction.
And then very often, and that's a third element, we see that more and more we work as a development organization with the money that the country provides themselves. That's what we call government development finance. We do that in DRC. We do that in Argentina. It's basically with the money of the country itself we implement certain types of programs. Which is, today, almost 25 percent of the volume that we do. And it's actually one of our preferred options, because it's - the core of political ownership is when, as local politicians, you set the direction, but you also do it with your own - with your own financing.
So I give these examples to show that the nature of development work has been changing quite a bit over the last year. So, yes, the reduction in ODA has an impact, but it definitely does not mean that it's the end of development. I mean development is moving rapidly away from the classic aid agenda to an investment agenda, to a local leadership agenda, which I think is actually - which I think are actually quite healthy characteristics.
Ms. Ebong: Can you speak a little bit - because I think you sort of alluded to it in the government development financing that you just mentioned - what do you and UNDP expect of your - the countries in which you are working? I ask this question, of course, because in the last year we have heard much on sovereignty from - I think it's come mostly from Africa. The notion of, look, we own our nations. We own our budgets. We do need to be fiscally responsible. It is a very defined and quite active call. How do you receive that? And how might it, or maybe not, but how does UNDP leverage and work with partner countries or developing countries in this kind of context in this moment?
Administrator De Croo: We enthusiastically welcome that. Development goes well when you have local political leaders, who represent their population, who need to give accountability towards their population on what their population expects from a development - from a development perspective. And I think it's a very healthy - very healthy agenda for us to work. And we have in - we have in 130 countries very long-lasting relationships by being there. I mean, UNDP has been there, is there, and will continue to be there. And that local ownership, that local contact, for us, is a crucial way of doing our work. And, in working together with them, in realizing - in realizing results.
You mentioned the African continent. To me, one of the most hopeful things that I see on the African continent is the Africa free trade zone. And as a development minister - I mean, I was Belgian development minister in the past - one of the most heartbreaking things I saw on the African continent is countries that, for example, have food production. And exporting it from one country to the neighboring country was more complicated than importing vegetables from Northern Europe into subSaharan countries. That always broke my heart, because I'm a big believer in trade. And, I mean, as a European, we are a product of the increased trades on the - on the European continent after a devastating war. At some point, European countries understood, OK, if we trade with each other this is going to boost our prosperity.
The potential for intra-African trades to be an incredible engine of prosperity, of middle-class class creation, of small-business creation - I mean, that potential is a huge one. And it's so hopeful to see that there is a dynamic there, and UNDP is actually a close contributor to that dynamic of the African free trade zone and agreement - that if there is something I would say, well, let's put some hard-fought ODA or public spending into accelerating that. To me, that is one of the most hopeful, hopeful elements that I see in the world today in a continent which will rapidly represent almost two-and-a-half billion inhabitants.
I mean, the population growth on the African continent is a huge one. Up to now, many people saw it as a problem. There's definitely challenges with it. But to me, the dominating element is, yes, this is going to be a market of two and a half billion people with needs but also with talents and with ambitions. Bringing that together by integrating the African continent is something I'm extremely hopeful on.
Ms. Ebong: I do - I completely agree with respect to the African continental free trade area is one of great possibility and I think will be a very great demonstration of the sovereignty that African countries are talking about.
Practically speaking, from your perspective, both as a former development minister, what are some of the practical steps that need to be taken to actually get this into implementation?
Administrator De Croo: On the African continental free -
Ms. Ebong: On the African continental free trade.
Administrator De Croo: So there is a big element today on the digital element of it, and we talked about the lack of intra-African trade. On the digital component it's even worse, and in a continent with such a young population with huge needs and where in many countries you can more or less start from a blank page, the potential for digital being an incredible enabler and an incredible factor of lowering barriers to entry for people to participate in society, to participate in government services, to participate in the economy is a great one.
But for that, you need some basic what we call DPI, digital public infrastructure. Identity authentication is a big one. Now, we have been doing this in a few African countries and that is good for the economy, but it's good for many other things, and if you want to organize elections, very often, to say in French, "le recensement" is always a big discussion. OK, but who's entitled to vote and how do we make sure that people don't vote two times and so on? So that digital public infrastructure of authentication is a major one with many benefits.
Our payment systems were actually in the edge of development in mobile payments. It did not start in the Western world. It started with M-PESA in Kenya and in Tanzania and so on.
I mean, you see that and that makes me hopeful that the innovation today is happening all over the world. It's not only happening in the rich countries. It's not only happening in those countries which, with tradition, are being seen in leading technology and the potential for adapting it to the needs, and those needs are different of that young, ambitious, talented African population.
I'm actually very hopeful on that. But you need some kind of cornerstone investments that are catalytic to having other things happen.
Ms. Ebong: Yeah, I agree. I think we're, unfortunately, coming to the end of our time together. I'd like to close with a discussion about trust.
Administrator De Croo: Yeah.
Ms. Ebong: You have emphasized trust and the need to build it. Yet, we are in a moment of complete disruption and lack of trust in many ways. What will it take to rebuild trust? Because I think it's a grave necessity. Trust in the international system. Trust in the ability to partner and collaborate.
How do you approach this issue? I also think, and I'd like to throw in as well, how we communicate and talk about it, because we have to bring people along. We have not done so so successfully.
I'm really interested in your perspective on this.
Administrator De Croo: OK. You cannot talk the mistrust away. So there is a certain level of mistrust - and let's be frank about it - in multilateral institutions, in what sometimes is called "the elite," in the fact that the economy should be serving the population. You can't talk that away. The only way you can tackle that mistrust is with delivery. And that's where we get our trust back. As U.N. in the broad sense, but as U.N. development system, it's with delivery on the ground that you, step by step, take it back.
And trust is something that goes away at high speed. Rebuilding it takes time. But for us, it's to show that when there is a crisis, we are there rapidly, and we are there with our surge forces to immediately help people out. I was recently in Jamaica. Jamaica is a country that has an incredible - has had an incredible development. But when Melissa hit, yes, all those hard-fought progress is just being washed away. We need to be there to immediately assist them, and to immediately not only do humanitarian work, but to reconstruction from the start. And that - so that is one of the elements on how you show it. And then it's to show that, you know, we deliver. It's not always perfect. I think sometimes you need to be open and say, look, we tried this. That didn't work. But you're transparent on we're not trying to cover up certain things.
And maybe to transition it to the conflict that we see in the Gulf region today, we've made the calculation that those just six weeks of war is pushing 32 million people back into poverty. And I say "back into poverty," because very often those are people that actually we lifted out of poverty. And what we see is that development is something that you build week, month, year by year. And it takes years to lift people out of poverty. It takes six weeks of conflict to wash it away. And that's heartbreaking for all the efforts that has been put in it, and for all the hard work especially of the local staff and local population who have worked it.
But despite that, our perspective at UNDP is, OK, let's get to work. And what can we do now to show that we are trustworthy? Well, of course, we'll advocate for the end of the war. That's point one. But, secondly, if you want to avoid that - what I just said, the development is washed away in six weeks, you need to intervene now. And you need interventions which are targeted to that part of the population that really needs it. Those are cash interventions. Those are subsidies on energy costs. Those are interventions in fertilizers to make sure that developing countries can still have access to it. So what can we do? Less talking and more action.
Ms. Ebong: That's a perfect note on which to end. Administrator De Croo, thank you so much for joining us today. And to the audience, thank you for joining us. I think we've seen the UNDP is continuing forward with vision, with action, and with the promise of delivery. Thank you for joining us.
* * *
Original text here: https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2026-04/260414_DeCroo_UNDP_Development.pdf?VersionId=WqxucwwxmpXIjjQM00lO8IqeBy080BCO
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary: Another New York Assault on Life
WASHINGTON, April 15 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on April 14, 2026, by Faith Engagement Director Daniel Trippie:* * *
Another New York Assault on Life
I have sat at the bedside, holding hands and witnessing the final moments of life. I have watched doctors work, listened as monitors fall silent, and felt the stillness settle over the room. I have prayed with children and wept with grieving parents. There is nothing more profoundly human than accompanying someone as they transition from this life to the next. End-of-life ministry is both special and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 15 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following commentary on April 14, 2026, by Faith Engagement Director Daniel Trippie: * * * Another New York Assault on Life I have sat at the bedside, holding hands and witnessing the final moments of life. I have watched doctors work, listened as monitors fall silent, and felt the stillness settle over the room. I have prayed with children and wept with grieving parents. There is nothing more profoundly human than accompanying someone as they transition from this life to the next. End-of-life ministry is both special andsacred--blessed are those who devote themselves to this calling. Why, then, is New York State threatening nuns for providing compassionate care to the most vulnerable at the end of life?
New York's 2023 LGBTQIA+ Bill of Rights Law requires long-term care facilities and staff to accommodate a patient's sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual expression--even when these may conflict with biological reality. The law mandates that patients be assigned to rooms, including bathrooms, based on gender identity rather than biological sex. This policy not only challenges caregivers' deeply held religious convictions but also undermines the theology that makes Christian end-of-life care unique.
Christian end-of-life care is grounded in a theology that views the body and soul as one integrated whole. Christians believe the physical body is sacred because it is the vessel in which the Holy Spirit dwells.
Christians also believe that one's inner spirit is sacrosanct because it is through that spirit that we experience intimacy with God and others. This is not a minor liturgical disagreement; New York State is striking at the very heart of Incarnation theology--the reason Christ took on a specific human body. The law essentially requires that nuns minister to the dying as if the body tells us nothing true about the person.
Christian end-of-life care is beautiful because it offers hope to the dying--the hope that one day body and spirit will be reunited in resurrection. This belief in re-embodiment reshaped burial practices in the ancient world and transformed pagan expectations of the afterlife.
Yet, New York's law forces Christians to compromise their belief in the unity of body and soul at the most vulnerable moment of human life. It pressures nuns to elevate a patient's internal perception above the significance of the physical body, disregarding the theological importance of the gendered body. The ancient Gnostics believed the body was a prison the spirit longed to escape. The Church answered that heresy with the doctrine of the Resurrection. Notably, it was precisely this hope--that the body would rise, that matter mattered, that death was not the final word--that drew the pagan world toward Christianity in the first place.
In effect, New York's law imposes a worldview that echoes the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, requiring Christians to accept a separation of body and spirit that is fundamentally at odds with their faith.
The Sisters of Hawthorne are not refusing to love; they are refusing to lie--and there is a profound difference.
We should all be alarmed--not only Christians, but anyone who believes that the government should not dictate theology, that authentic charity deserves protection, and that the dying deserves to be accompanied by those who see the body as telling us something true and beautiful about who we are. If New York succeeds here, no religious institution will be safe from being forced into an ideology fundamentally opposed to its foundational beliefs.
* * *
Daniel Trippie, Ph.D., Director for Faith Engagement
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/another-new-york-assault-on-life
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Statement on Veto of Education Freedom In Arizona
WASHINGTON, April 15 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 14, 2026:* * *
AFPI Statement on Veto of Education Freedom In Arizona
Today, Erika Donalds, chair of Education Opportunity at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement following the veto by Governor Katie Hobbs of Arizona's legislation (Senate Bill 1142) that would have permitted participation in the new federal tax credit scholarship created in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act:
"With decades of providing education freedom to thousands of families, Arizona has ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 15 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 14, 2026: * * * AFPI Statement on Veto of Education Freedom In Arizona Today, Erika Donalds, chair of Education Opportunity at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement following the veto by Governor Katie Hobbs of Arizona's legislation (Senate Bill 1142) that would have permitted participation in the new federal tax credit scholarship created in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act: "With decades of providing education freedom to thousands of families, Arizona haspaved the way for reforms across the nation. Opting in to the education freedom tax credit is widely viewed as a straightforward decision. The state successfully operates four state education tax credits and is in the best position to offer more. The new tax credit would simply add one more tool for families - at no cost to the state nor public schools - to provide options to directly benefit students.
"Nearly 30 states are committed to participation, and those that refuse are only allowing private donations to go elsewhere. Arizona stands to lose almost one billion dollars over the next three years, which equals 177,000 students without scholarships. AFPI has faith that education freedom will continue to advance in Arizona, regardless of the obstacles. We commend the legislature's policy agenda that keeps Arizona in the lead."
Starting in 2027, individuals can claim up to $1,700 in dollar-for-dollar tax credits for donations to scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) that award scholarships to K-12 children. But SGOs can only receive donations in states that formally opt in. Formalizing Arizona's participation will be yet another way parents can ensure their students receive the education they need well into the future.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-statement-on-veto-of-education-freedom-in-arizona
[Category: ThinkTank]