Why @OECDdev should look at revising its new rules for counting private sector investment as aid http://www.odi.org/comment/10371-new-oda-aid-rules-donors-incentive-invest-private-sector … @CDCgroup @pidgorg
-
-
Replying to @CarterPaddy
@CarterPaddy Isn't difference between a pension fund &@CDCgroup that at some pension pays out to beneficiary, wheras DFIs revolve?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater@CDCgroup yes that's a difference. Don't think it gets us to "and therefore money into CDC should be treated as sunk"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CarterPaddy
@CarterPaddy@CDCgroup but in practice it is. i.e it means when they reinvest investment doesn't count agains 0.7%. Swings & roundabouts?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater@CDCgroup stronger argument is that upfront estimates of subsidy per deal would be useful for impact evaluation1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CarterPaddy
@CarterPaddy@cdcgroup - Impact/effectiveness questions important but better answered separately from ‘counting fiscal effort’ question.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater@CDCgroup or are you arguing HMT accounting is wrong?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CarterPaddy
@CarterPaddy@CDCgroup initial donor capitalisation is counted 100% as ODA against 0.7%, subsequent cycles of reinvestment count 0, right?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater@CDCgroup think so. and HMT considers that non-fiscal expenditure.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@CarterPaddy @CDCgroup ah I see what u mean. So cld argue that if its viewed as sunk 4 purpose of ODA target, shld be viewed as sunk by HMT
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.