Our Programmes



Sign up to our newsletter.

Follow ODI

Development Policy Review May 2022 round-up

Expert comment

Written by Annalisa Prizzon

Image credit:Book lot on table Image license:Tom Hermans / Unsplash

Keen to learn about the recommendations of the latest articles published in Development Policy Review (DPR) but short of time to read beyond the table of contents? This month we begin a digest of what you will find in its latest issue.

Development Policy Review is a peer-reviewed journal. It focuses on the links between research and policy in all aspects of international development and across the spectrum of social science disciplines.

The topics covered in 10 articles of the new May 2022 issue include a proposal to raise finance for sustainable development through fintech technology solutions; criteria to predict loan performance in microcredit; aid effectiveness in Pacific countries; public opinion of foreign aid in an emerging donor like South Korea; social protection in sub-Saharan Africa; land grabbing in Cameroon; food security in China during the Covid-19 pandemic; nutrient production and consumption in Uganda; an analysis of the milk market in Kenya; and a review of water and sanitation policies.

More specifically:

  1. Fintech. In their article (in Open access) Yushi Chen (University of Sussex) and Ulrich Volz (SOAS) put forward a proposal for blockchain-based project bonds to raise finance through a digital crowdfunding platform. Most low- and middle-income countries face an urgent need to scale up sustainable finance for low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure investment, yet underdeveloped capital markets tend to inhibit domestic resource mobilisation for infrastructure investment.

  2. Loan performance of microcredit. In their article Marup Hossain (IFAD) and Conner Mullally (University of Florida) examine the potential role of information generated by an anti-poverty programme on self-selection by borrowers (i.e., applying for a loan), screening applicants by lenders (i.e., loan approval) and borrower performance in the microcredit market.

  3. Aid effectiveness in the Pacific. Terence Wood (Development Policy Centre), Sabit Otor (Development Policy Centre) and Matthew Dornan (World Bank) investigate why aid projects are less effective in the Pacific. The main factors they identify are poor governance, restricted levels of political freedom, poor economic performance, isolation and small populations. See their article – in Open Access – here.

  4. Public perception of foreign aid in South Korea. In their article Eunju Kim (Hansung University) and KyungWoo Kim (Pusan National University) analyse the factors influencing public perceptions of foreign aid policies of South Korea, an emerging donor. They conclude that the higher the individual’s appreciation of experience as a recipient country, the stronger the support for aid when that country becomes a donor. In addition, unlike traditional donor countries, the political ideology has no clear mediating effects on public opinion on foreign aid.

  5. Social protection in sub-Saharan Africa. Sudhanshu Handa (University of North Carolina), Frank Otchere (Unicef Office of Research Innocenti) and Paul Sirma (University of North Carolina) present evidence on the overall impacts of state-sponsored cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa, using data from three impact evaluations of government programmes in their article (Open Access). They find that these government unconditional cash transfers have important positive effects on households, that these effects are not limited to just food security, and that programme design features influence the pattern and size of impacts.

  6. Foreign land grabs. In their article (Open Access), Frankline Anum Ndi (Örebro University), James Emmanuel Wanki (Harvard Kennedy School) and Joost Dessein (Ghent University) argue that land grabbing in Cameroon should be understood as an outcome of the state’s strategic and/or opportunistic choice that local traditional authorities paradoxically play the role of state facilitators in the process, rather than serving as custodians of the populations they represent.

  7. Food security in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Taiyang Zhong (Nanjing University), Jonathan Crush (Balsillie School of International Affairs and University of the Western Cape), Zhenzhong Si (Balsillie School of International Affairs) and Steffanie Scott (University of Waterloo) analyse the emergency food policies in Wuhan and Nanjing, China, during lockdown in 2020 and their implications for household food security in these two cities. You can find the article here.

  8. Improve nutrient production and consumption in Uganda’s agriculture sector. In their article Wim Marivoet and John Ulimwengu from IFPRI quantify nutrient production and consumption by sub-region in Uganda, to identify the magnitude and location of gaps left by farm households’ production, market purchases, and food transfers relative to household nutrient requirements.

  9. Regulation of the milk market in Kenya. Emma Blackmore, Alejandro Guarin, William Vorley, Silvia Alonso and Delia Grace at IIED and ILRI seek to better understand if, and why, Kenya’s informal milk sector and regulatory system are disconnected from one another and how the policy–reality gap might be better bridged. Around 80% of milk in Kenya is marketed informally, providing livelihoods and contributing to the food security and nutrition of low-income consumers. Their article (Open Access) is available here.

  10. Water and sanitation policies, programmes and projects. In their systematic review Venkata Santosh Kumar Delhi, Ganesh Devkar, Sriharini Narayanan, Reeba Devaraj, Akshaya Ayyangar and Thillai Rajan (Indian Institute of Technology, Madras) analyse which segments of the population have been addressed in WASH policies, programme and projects, how the population segments vary between sectors and regions as well as the barriers, strategies, and benefits for providing WASH services.