Ian Mitchell, Senior Policy Fellow at the Center for Global Development and lead architect of the CDI, commented:

“Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has had a disastrous impact on global development. Rising global food prices have affected billions worldwide. Global fuel shortages have led to soaring fossil fuel subsidies. While some countries have been quick to support Ukraine and host refugees, resources and focus havewhat Belgium produces in a year. And untold levels of aid finance haves been diverted away from other poor countries in order to assist Ukraine. ”

The impacts of the war in Ukraine are reflected not only by Russia’s low ranking—but elsewhere in the index too. Countries have stepped up their commitment to development by receiving refugees. Czechia, Poland, Slovakia are hosting a staggering 100 times the number of refugees as before the war. And Ireland is accepting eight times as many refugees as previously. Food shortages have led to new food-related trade restrictions, exacerbating inflation, and impacting the nutrition and health security of lower-income countries. Argentina, Canada, India, Indonesia, Türkiye, and New Zealand have placed export restrictions on over 10 types of food products, with an impact on developing countries in the last two years.

Elsewhere, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has climbed sevenseven7 places to 32nd out of 40 countries assessed. They come in top for development-friendly technology and knowledge sharing policies, while traditional global leaders lag behind in this area. The UAE accepts more foreign students than any other country, with over 70 percent of its student population coming from abroad; most of these coming from relatively poor countries. Saudi Arabia and South Africa are this year’s leaders on research collaboration. EU member states and the US score poorly for the restrictive intellectual property rights restrictionsright clauses included in their free tradeinvestment agreements with poor countries. These are stricter even than existing World Trade Organisation standards, which most countries have already signed on to.. China and Indonesia score highly here, since their trade agreements tend to be more liberal.

China and Indonesia come top for intellectual property policies, while EU countries and the United States are much more restrictive on this.

The CDI also assesses how powerful countries’ policies support (or hinder) global climate goals. The 40 countries included account for almost three quarters of current global greenhouse gas emissions. While emissions fell during the period measured, government subsidies for fossil fuels rose significantly, even before the most recent spikes in energy costs. The CDI also now assesses countries’ “climate ambitions” for 2030. Though the average CDI country plans to reduce emissions by 17 percent relative to projections, some countries—including Indonesia, Türkiye, Russia, India, and China— show little to no ambition, as the targets they have set themselves will be easily achievable, or exceeded, even if no action is taken to reduce emissions.

Mitchell added:

“Global development depends on much more than just how foreign aid budgets are spent. As countries respond to global challenges—climate change, Russia’s war, and hosting refugees—they must recognise that lower income countries are often facing even greater needs. The CDI will continue to show us how well they are doing at balancing priorities and stepping up to the challenge.”

“The CDI shows that there are many ways countries can drive forward development, from policies on trade to research and security; and some countries are succeeding in balancing priorities and stepping up to the challenge.”