Suchergebnisse

The Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Norfund), Norway's Development Finance Institution (DFI), were established in 1997, to assist in developing sustainable business and industry in developing countries (Norfund, 2018f). Norfund have been critically discussed in media and reports regarding their contribution to development (Rorg-samarbeidet, 2018). The purpose of this study is to assess different Norwegian development actors' critical perceptions and expectations of Norfund as a channel of development assistance, and Norfund's response to these perceptions. The study aims to give more insight into different opinions, to discuss how Norfund are perceived and expected to act in a development context, according to these actors. The study is based on a purposive sampling approach, based on actors who have expressed opinions of Norfund publicly, and selected Norfund representatives. The findings in this study can therefore not be generalized to represent views of all Norwegian development actors. Additionally, findings are from 2018, and reflect opinions from the time of interviews. Findings are discussed with literature and theory including the role of private sector in development, DFIs and Norwegian development politics. Critical points expressed include lack of transparency, human rights and civil society challenges, environmental concerns and documentation of development effects. Norfund is expected to see investments in context, to avoid negative consequences and contribute to poverty reduction. Additionally, Norfund is critically viewed in a larger perspective. Expressed by Norfund informants, Norfund is a responsible actor, contributing to development through for instance economic growth, jobs, tax and value creation. Norfund works with development effects and strive to be as transparent as possible. The thesis discusses criticism related to Norfund's role as a private sector actor and development actor. It is discussed that criticism can both be linked to expectations of private sector actors not contributing to negative effects, and the expectation of contributing to development effects and poverty reduction as a development actor. More cooperation may lead to understanding different views and meeting halfway. It has been expressed that a mechanism like Norfund is needed and have great potential to be a leader in their field. Criticism and debates can be used as a resource to improve, develop and finding common solutions. ; submittedVersion ; M-DS

AbstractDevelopment finance needs to be better aligned with climate change objectives, and many experts see net zero portfolio targets as a powerful way to achieve this. This paper explores the operational implications of net zero portfolio targets for development finance institutions (DFIs). We set out an agenda to move development finance towards net zero goals in a way that acknowledges development concerns. These include (1) setting context‐specific emissions pathways with granular bottom‐up data and emphasising climate‐development win‐wins; (2) dealing with inertia and lumpiness in the portfolio through 'when' flexibility (multiyear carbon budgets) and 'where' flexibility (sharing of carbon space); (3) encouraging transition projects through future‐emissions accounting and transition credits; (4) managing climate‐development and other trade‐offs with an internal carbon price and ESG standards; and (5) accounting for emissions after project‐end with monitoring and legal provisions.

This study reviews the approach to development finance adopted by Ghana and takes stock of the current situation of development finance institutions (DFIs). The study then articulates a set of key principles relevant to Ghana reflecting international experience. The intention is to provide the basis for dialogue on new approaches to making Ghana's policies and institutions more consistent with good practices in development finance. The study does not venture into detailed assessment of particular institutions due to the unavailability of required data for such an assessment. The paper primarily focuses on DFIs targeted toward the priority areas of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and non-traditional exports, which are relevant for access to finance and the financial inclusion agenda. Particular attention is paid to their targeting, cost-effectiveness, market distortions, and governance. A review of international experience with DFIs finds that cost-effectiveness tends to be greatest and market distortions lowest when development finance is provided on a wholesale basis through commercial financial institutions that bear the risk and are empowered to make loan decisions, based on well-defined and targeted eligibility criteria. Direct intervention by government in allocation and in setting interest rates tends to undermine sustainability, impact, and willingness of beneficiaries to repay funds that they perceive as politically motivated. Ghana's approach to development was state-led in the post-Independence period through the mid-1960s, and highly interventionist during the 1970s and early 1980s, after a brief period of stabilization. Controls were gradually removed in the late 1980s, and financial policies were liberalized. During the period 1985-2006, the government and the Bank of Ghana (BoG) established a number of institutions to promote and finance MSMEs and exports, especially in agricultural value chains. While the majority operate through private financial institutions, some of these institutions provide finance directly, increasing the cost and risks and reducing effectiveness. Although some of these institutions managed or benefited from donor-supported government projects in the past, little such funding remains available, especially for MSMEs, resulting in low cost-effectiveness and sustainability for some DFIs. Several institutions have come to depend largely on funds from the Export Trade, Agricultural and Industrial Development Fund (EDAIF), which is funded through a levy on imports. However, an interest rate cap of 12.5 percent is imposed on funding provided by EDAIF, which is well below market rates and tends to result in rent-seeking, long delays while applications are vetted, and lack of interest by commercial financial institutions whose earnings are constrained by the interest rate cap.

For many years, the main focus of international institutions and bilateral aid agencies has been on state building as the main action to support countries' recovery from conflicts or other fragile situations. The role of the private sector has been widely overlooked, despite being crucial in supporting economic growth and job creation. We argue that development finance institutions have a dedicated role to play in closing financial gaps, which are widening as fragility increases. They have the comparative advantages needed to make projects happen by supporting the private sector, hence significantly contributing to the recovery process.