Live from the World Bank annual meetings: The debates dominating Washington

Summary

---

Live from the World Bank Annual Meetings: The Debates Dominating Washington

This Week in Global Development
Hosts: Adva Saldinger, David Ainsworth, Rumbi Chakamba
Special Guests: Michael Igoe, Alyssa Miolini
Date: October 16, 2025

---

Episode Overview

Broadcast live from Washington, D.C., this special episode covers the mood, debates, and headline issues at the 2025 World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) annual meetings. The conversation, taking place at the Devex Impact House, brings together leading development journalists to decode the interplay of politics, funding, climate priorities, institutional reforms, and the evolving roles of global financial actors. The episode is lively, candid, and rich with on-the-ground insights, making it a must for anyone seeking a window into the state of global development in a tumultuous year.

---

The Atmosphere: Uncertainty, Fatigue, and Realignment

00:04–03:09

• Political Tensions and Logistical Hurdles:
  • The ongoing U.S. government shutdown casts a shadow over the meetings, resulting in reduced participation, last-minute cancellations, and a more muted energy compared to events like UNGA.
    • “It kind of was a downgrading of, whether it be going from... ministers of X to vice ministers because of the situation here.” — Rumbi Chakamba [02:59]
  • Visa issues and fatigue among regular attendees further limited this year’s scale.
• Mood Shift:
  • Optimism about institutional “rethinking” is counterbalanced by a sense of weary realism as stakeholders wade through uncertainty.
    • “People are weaving through or wading through uncertainty. I think that came out a little bit, too, in just conversations with some folks that we were, you know, talking this week…” — Chakamba [02:44]
  • The meeting’s “vibe” is described as subdued but not defeated.

---

U.S. Politics and Multilateralism: Navigating Chaos

04:05–08:53

• Congressman French Hill Insights:

  • Notably, Rep. Hill’s appearance stood out during the shutdown as he articulated a Republican view: critical of so-called “mission creep” at multilateral institutions and supportive of a sharper focus on measurable results.
    • “So much of the changes that we've witnessed in the global development foreign policy space over the last nine months have been pretty unilaterally driven by the White House…” — Michael Igoe [06:37]
  • Tensions remain between America First policies (less emphasis on foreign aid, skepticism toward multilateral action) versus efforts to reengage multilaterals but with greater scrutiny and control.

• Europe vs. U.S. Split on Climate Mandates:

  • European shareholders strongly resist any deprioritization of climate action, while the U.S. pushes against expanding the World Bank’s mission. The World Bank is caught in the middle.
    • “There is a significant push from a large group of shareholders to keep that as a priority of the bank.” — Adva Saldinger [08:02]

---

Climate Debate: Framing, Flexibility & Wording

08:53–12:50

• Redefining “Climate” in Development:
  • New linguistic strategies frame projects as having “climate co-benefits” rather than as outright climate initiatives—offering political cover across constituencies.
    • “What we heard from Axel yesterday was that they're hitting the climate targets, but they talk about them not as like this is a climate project. It's like this project had climate co benefits is the new, I think, turn of phrase that is everybody wins…” — Saldinger [11:46]
  • Debate persists over natural gas and nuclear as part of “all of the above” energy strategies.
    • “A lot of people talk about sustainable development, what about actual development?” — Attributed to Rep. French Hill, quoted by Igoe [09:33]
• The Difficulty of Balance:
  • As African leaders argue for energy access, a binary approach is eschewed in favor of nuance.
    • “What leaders in this space right now are trying to avoid is a sort of binary where they're either this or they're that.” — Igoe [12:52]

---

Institutional Overhaul: Merging Operations & Streamlining

13:59–16:36

• World Bank Reorganization:
  • Ajay Banga’s new push to merge knowledge, treasury, HR, IT, and legal functions is described as the latest in a series of “efficiency” reforms (with a tinge of déjà vu).
  • Guarantees across IBRD, IDA, IFC, and MIGA have been consolidated, streamlining support for clients and fostering innovation (e.g., dual guarantees and new lending models).
    • “So they brought those all together and they've actually been doing some interesting sort of experiments where because they're now all under one roof...” — Saldinger [15:05]
• Integration vs. Reality:
  • Despite talk of jobs as a top-level priority, practical application and measurable impact remain elusive.

---

The “Jobs” North Star and Migration Dilemma

16:36–19:45

• Jobs as Guiding Principle—Or Fuzzy Metric?
  • While World Bank leadership touts jobs as a “North Star,” actual discussions and metrics lag; the Bank’s new scorecard still lacks a jobs indicator.
    • “The one metric that's still missing is actually jobs, like they're still working on the methodology.” — Saldinger [19:45]
• Migration as a Solution:
  • In a candid panel, economist Lant Pritchett and Maryland’s Kamal Asaheb challenge U.S. political taboos by arguing for migration as central to balancing labor markets globally.
    • “Now, to say that in D.C. in 2025 is like kind of insane… But it was a really interesting conversation to just kind of start digging away at.” — Chakamba [17:46]
  • The discussion underscores the tension between local employment imperatives and broader demographic shifts.

---

Private Capital Mobilization: Hopes, Doubts, and New Instruments

19:45–23:53

• ODA Declines, Private Capital Needed:

  • Collapse in Official Development Assistance (ODA) has forced the World Bank and development actors to pivot sharply to private capital.
    • “...the conversation that used to be about, you know, we have development assistance, how do we mobilize the private sector to fill... the remaining gap, has really turned into a conversation that's like, we don't have development assistance, so, like, how do we solve this problem immediately?” — Igoe [22:37]
  • Announcements around new securitizations and instrument innovation (e.g., by the IFC) are heralded, but panelists urge caution in overestimating impact, especially in low-income, fragile states.

• Fundamental Questions:

  • Is mobilization serving local jobs and sustainable development or ticking boxes for capital-raising reports?
  • There is growing realism about the limits and specific contexts in which private capital can deliver development outcomes.

• Small-Scale Nonprofit Innovation:

  • Movement to inject private capital in small doses by NGOs and agencies (via microfinance, microinsurance, impact investing) is highlighted as an emerging trend, reflecting a necessity-driven creativity across the sector.

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Political Mood:
  • “This week feels a little bit more like people are weaving through or wading through uncertainty.” — Rumbi Chakamba [02:42]
• On Institutional Change:
  • "World Bank staff love reorganizations too." — Michael Igoe [14:18]
• On Climate Rhetoric:
  • “Climate is big and it's related to many, many different things... you're looking at, okay, how do we phrase different programs to make them work in this environment..." — Alyssa Miolini [10:22]
• On Jobs and Migration:
  • “To say that in D.C. in 2025 is like kind of insane. Right.” — Alyssa Miolini [17:45]
• On ODA Collapse:
  • “It's just the alternatives have sort of dried up... how do we solve this problem immediately?” — Michael Igoe [22:37]

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• Atmosphere and Mood at the Meetings: 00:04–03:09
• U.S. Domestic Politics, Shutdown Impact: 03:10–04:29
• Rep. French Hill, America First, Multilaterals: 04:30–08:53
• EU vs. U.S. on Climate, World Bank’s Dilemma: 07:33–12:50
• World Bank Reorganization Details: 13:59–16:36
• Jobs/Migration and Labour Markets: 16:36–19:45
• Private Capital Mobilization Debate: 19:45–23:53

---

Conclusion

The episode provides a nuanced snapshot of global development at a pivotal, turbulent juncture. Stakeholders at the World Bank meetings are grappling with mounting uncertainty and resource constraints amid shifting U.S. political winds, competing views on climate and development, and the urgent search for new funding models and metrics. While tensions and challenges dominate, the spirit is one of pragmatic adaptation and searching for innovative—if sometimes imperfect—solutions.

---

For more insights and episodes, subscribe to This Week in Global Development or visit devex.com/newsletters.

---

Transcript

[A]

My name is Advaas Saldinger, and you're listening to this Week in Global Development, hosted by myself, Rumby Chikamba and David Ainsworth. Welcome to a special edition episode of this Week in Global Development, which is our weekly podcast discussing the top issues in global development. We are coming to you live from Washington, D.C. just around the corner from the World Bank International Monetary Fund meetings and at our own Devex Impact House event. Really excited to be joined by my colleagues Michael Igoe and Alyssa Miolini. I think it's probably fitting to start our conversation by just talking a little bit about the vibes. What are you sort of picking up? What. What's the mood? What are you sort of getting a sense of the sort of atmosphere at the meetings this year?

[B]

Yeah, I don't. There's a lot going on. I feel like a lot of things have collided this week. Right. Like we're in Washington. It's sort of a time when folks seem a little stressed by the shutdown and the broader political context. The bank itself is at this sort of pivot point where it's thinking about its role in a new way with the collapse of official development assistance all around it. So I've found it to be a lot to make sense of. I feel like there's been a sort of spirit of optimism around this big rethink that's happening, but also a sort of level of realism and, you know, kind of facing the music. That's all just been kind of accentuated by the chaotic, confusing environment in this particular city at this particular moment. So I don't know. I'm not really sure what to make of the vibes, as you put it. How are you? How do you guys think the vibes are? The vibes in here are pretty good.

[C]

Yeah. It's funny, that was the first question Michael asked Adva and I when we. He was coming in from his.

[B]

I did my vibe check. He did my check. I don't live here anymore. So I was. I was wondering what I was getting into.

[C]

Yeah. And I think what we said to him on. What was it, Monday or Tuesday was. I don't. I think it's okay, but we're not sure. I feel like everything kind of hangs, as Michael was saying, in the balance in D.C. at the moment. I feel like it's much more muted from Unga, for example, where it seemed like there was a lot more energy. Obviously, this is also dependent on what rooms you're in, what events you go to. And there was more of a. I think a vibrancy, whether it be on the positive, you know, we're working ahead, we're pushing forward, or on the negative, what's going on. We have to do something. This week feels a little bit more like people are weaving through or wading through uncertainty. I think that came out a little bit, too, in just conversations with some folks that we were, you know, talking this week at the bank and here at our DEVEX event, just saying, you know, meetings were canceled. Some many people in the US Aren't able to work right now because of the government shutdown. So it kind of was a downgrading of whether it be going from, let's say, ministers of X to vice ministers because of the situation here. So I wonder how that's bleeding into the conversations and whether or not that's having an impact on kind of the scale that are the scale that is able to come out of these conversations this week.

[A]

Yeah, and I think I've heard also, I think some people said maybe a little subdued, and I don't know whether that's because of the sort of atmosphere in D.C. around a period of shutdown or, or not very rosy global economic picture or a number of other things that are happening and that maybe there are not quite as many people here. I heard that some places maybe had visa issues, so who's in the room maybe was dictated by who already had a visa and could actually be here. So I think that there is, maybe it's a little bit of a different feel than some past meetings. But I think with some of these things, a lot of it just feels like, oh, yeah, okay, there's still a lot of the same conversations that we're, that we're having. And I think there are some of the same issues that we sort of expect to hear about at the World bank and IMF meetings that we are still talking about this week, though maybe in somewhat different ways in certain cases, I think.

[C]

Maybe.

[A]

Why don't we talk about a little bit about what, what you guys are hearing. What sort of struck you in terms of, I mean, we're talking a little bit about, you know, we're sitting here in D.C. so I know yesterday at our DEVEX event, we heard from Congressman French Hill sort a little bit about the US Position towards these institutions. Michael, I'm wondering what your sort of thoughts were on that conversation and what you make of sort of where the US Stands now.

[B]

Yeah, it was, it was wonderful to get a US politician who was willing to come and speak in public during a shutdown. So that was a good opportunity to hear from, you know, an influential US Representative with direct bearing over sort of conversations related to the World bank and imf. You know, I think what we heard from Representative French Hill yesterday was a pretty nuanced articulation of how the chaos that we've witnessed over the last eight months, you know, stemming from the Trump administration's imposition of an America first foreign policy and the associated dismantling of USAID and a lot of the rhetoric around, if not withdrawing, then at least drawing a much firmer line in the sand around multilateral organizations and what U.S. engagement is going to look like there. I mean, translating that into re engagement in some form or fashion, but a re engagement that really focuses on demonstrable results, getting institutions back to the basics of what they're supposed to be doing in the eyes of a conservative administration or a conservative member of Congress, and pushing back on what a lot of Republicans have described as sort of a trend of mission creep by particularly the IMF and World bank in their eyes. So in some ways, it felt like a description of a return to normalcy after so much abnormalcy that we've witnessed over the last eight months. But I think what still remains to be seen is what it looks like when Congress, when people like Representative French Hill come back to work and start to turn some of those arguments into more of a reality, frankly. So much of the changes that we've witnessed in the global development foreign policy space over the last nine months have been pretty unilaterally driven by the White House without much firm pushback, at least not public pushback from Congress. So I think there are sort of two paths. One is that the administration has done what it's going to do in terms of radical changes to US Engagement and global development, and now we're sort of entering a little bit of a new normal or returning to some stability. The other path is that at some point, if the administration keeps pushing ahead with more cuts, more withdrawals from multilateral organizations, which I don't think we've got a strong indication that that's going to happen, but somewhere down the road, there's a reckoning. We've talked about this before. Something comes to a head between the White House and Congress and. And certainly Representative Hill didn't give us any reason to think that that's happening. I think his was a pretty measured, you know, articulation of what America for America first foreign policy looks like and what it means for global development. But there's still a lot of unanswered questions, I think about how that plays out over the next few months.

[A]

And one of the things that I think is interesting is that we're, I think what we didn't see, for example, at the spring meetings is sort of more public, sort of tension between the demands of the US which is obviously the largest shareholder, and, and this sort of, you know, where we heard Bessant articulate, you know, we think these institutions are important, but we, but we want them to avoid this mission creep. And by mission creep, they're largely talking about a focus on climate and gender and other issues like that. But one of the things we're seeing and we've seen last week sort of more publicly is significant pushback, particularly by European Union shareholders on this issue of climate, because they want the World bank to keep investing in climate and keep it as a priority. Because what we saw actually over the last few years, you know, in the previous administration, a lot of the reforms were pushing the bank to really integrate climate and development as sort of twin goals. And I think that there is a significant push from a large group of shareholders to keep that as a priority of the bank. And you know, we've heard Ajay Bonga, the World bank president, talk a little bit about that, but I think we're starting to see some of that more public tension and certainly puts the bank, I think, in a tricky position to sort of manage the different interests.

[B]

I think you're right. But I think it also depends what you mean by climate change, not what you mean by climate change, but what you mean by the World bank doing something about climate change. Right. Like is addressing energy access, climate change action. And if so, like, that's not a black and white proposition. Like I was on this, I moderated a panel yesterday on energy access and renewable energy transition. And you know, there's, there are a lot of development oriented people who don't want to see technological options, energy options, severely limited for the world's poorest people. Right. And like, in a lot of ways that argument resonates with some of the things that you heard from French Hill yesterday up on the stage too, which is like, we shouldn't be. It's not about imposing choices, it's about, you know, the phrase that he used that really stuck with me. Like he was like, a lot of people talk about sustainable development, what about actual development? And you know, I think that's pretty glib and probably sustainable development is a concept worth holding onto, but I do think that there's sort of a space for that conversation to exist where the bank doesn't have to give up any sort of, any sort of commitment or consciousness about the risks of climate change in order to continue doing work.

[C]

You know, I do think you've kind of seen that all year though, right? It's not just the development sector. It's also companies and the private sector who are kind of coding their climate work in different phrases, right? So one kind of example that I see of that, again, it's. It's climate is big and it's related to many, many different things. But on Tuesday, the bank kind of unveiled this big initiative called agriconnect, which is about agribusiness and really kind of funneling support across the banks, various different arms and avenues and partner organizations that are also international financial institutions or multilateral development banks to really inject support to agribusiness. Now, what do farmers deal with? In many cases, that's climate change. Right. So you had yesterday there, we had a panel with several folks who were, we were talking about this, including someone from the Somalian Prime Minister's office, just talking about, okay, what does that look like? What is agribusiness? What is food security? What does food security preparedness look like in Somalia? Well, droughts are a thing, conflict is a thing, crisis is a thing. And this is all kind of blended and interconnected. So I think you're looking at, okay, how do we phrase different programs to make them work in this environment in a way that doesn't completely give up our climate ambitions or perhaps what European partners want, but perhaps do it or talk about it in a slightly different way.

[B]

I think a lot of what is happening exactly along the lines of what you're saying is there's a way to talk about things that scores political points and there's a way to not talk about them as much that allows you to carry on with what you.

[A]

Which I think is exactly what the World bank is trying to do. Right? And what we heard from Axel yesterday was that they're hitting the climate targets, but they talk about them not as like this is a climate project. It's like this project had climate co benefits is the new, I think, turn of phrase that is everybody wins, Right? But I think, and you know, the bank has made policy changes that the US Pushed for and actually French Hill has really wanted for years around, you know, taking away its ban on nuclear energy. And I think what you said really rings true because there are a lot of African leaders who have been saying we want an all of the above energy strategy. If we have natural gas that can provide solid baseload energy. We need that to be able to develop. So this isn't a new debate or conversation. I think a lot of people talk about it as balance and I think that sort of fossil fuel conversation is maybe a next point of contention at the World Bank. Do they sort of change their policy on that? And so that's certainly something we'll be watching.

[B]

Yeah, that feels like time is a flat circle because I feel like that fight, I remember that fight happening over and over again 10 years ago and since then as well. So I agree. I mean, I think that's going to be the battle. And it's a push and pull. Right. I guess that's what I'm saying is like, I feel like what leaders in this space right now are trying to avoid is a sort of binary where they're either this or they're that. And you know, it's a tough one to a tough balancing act to pull off in this.

[C]

The world is facing a range of health threats, from an increase in disease outbreaks to the health impacts of climate change. I'm Jenniley Ravello, senior global health reporter for devex. Every Thursday we bring you exclusive news and insights on how the health sector is finding solutions to these challenges in our free weekly newsletter, Devex checkout. Visit devex.comnewsletters to subscribe.

[A]

I think in that spirit of everything new, old is new again, we're seeing a new sort of reorganization effort at the World bank in this sort of effort to become one World bank group. Not the first time we've sort of heard that. I know you've covered previous iterations of, of some of these transitions, but we.

[B]

World bank staff love reorganizations too.

[A]

Yeah, I think we're hearing a little bit of that this week because last week Ajay Banga announced in an email to staff that they were going to merge a lot of the operations of the bank, everything from sort of the knowledge operations to create a more robust knowledge bank and to treasury functions to HR and IT and legal departments and all of that. So I think there's a lot of change afoot and I think a lot of the things that they're talking about this week are really about integration of the bank and sort of towards that vision of being more efficient by operating across lines. And I think there are some interesting sort of examples of how the bank is doing. This one I would point to is like about a year and a half ago, they merged all of their guarantee instruments. It used to be that IBRD ida, ifc, miga, which is the guarantee arm, they had separate guarantee instruments. If you wanted to get a guarantee, you had to go to figure out which one to go to. So they brought those all together and they've actually been doing some interesting sort of experiments where because they're now all under one roof, it's allowing them to actually leverage two guarantees, one on top of each other or really push change, for example, in the way IBRD writes its loans, to allow for five years down the line, once the initial risk is sort of gone, those loans to be converted to sort of commercial loans that are backed by a World bank guarantee. And so I think that is sort of probably the direction that Ajibanga wants the bank to go. Right. Really looking at how, how do you use the different tools of the bank to sort of reach the objectives around. Well, we've seen, heard a lot of talk this week about private capital mobilization, but also sort of the north star of the bank, so to speak, these days on jobs. And I know, Alyssa, you know, talk to some folks on jobs this week, and sort of curious what you're hearing on that, because I think it's not always so clear. I was at a panel earlier this week that was about private sector mobilization for jobs, and no one in the entire panel actually said the word jobs. So I think there is maybe a slight disconnect sometimes between sort of the guiding principle and how, you know, some of these other objectives actually get you there. But curious what you're hearing.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, it's a, it's a really important point. I think jobs has been a headline and a lot of the conversations that the bank has kind of set at the, set at the top level. But the more that you go to the events and we're kind of like, okay, but are we talking about jobs Now? That being said, we did have a really interesting conversation here yesterday about kind of jobs and its link with migration and mobility. We had Lant Pritchard, who is the labor, he's from Labor Mobility Partnerships, and Kamal Asaheb, who is the works with the governor's governor of Maryland's office, Westmore. And we were just talking a little bit about, like, okay, linking this idea of jobs and what we need and knowing that, you know, in countries across the world there's going to be an explosion of young people and there already is. And in other countries there's, you know, because of fertility rates declining and a number of other issues, there's, there's a lack of jobs. Right. How to kind of square this really obvious. And the answer was migration. Now, to say that in D.C. in 2025 is like kind of insane. Right. And we were just kind of a little bit talking about that. You mean like immigrants come take the jobs. Like, that's not quite the vibe going back to that initial conversation that D.C. is having at the moment, but it was a really interesting conversation to just kind of start digging away at. Like, okay, can we look and reframe this in a different way? Again, goes back to conversations about how things are framed and if you talk about them or not at all. But the panelists that we had yesterday were really kind of pushing forward this different idea that, you know, with numbers. I think Lant is an economist, so he was kind of bringing that lens of the ways in which these gaps could be filled. Now, whether we're hearing that here at, you know, the Devex Impact House versus like whether Ajay Banga saying that is a different story. Right. But it's something interesting to consider. And these kinds of ideas that are being floated as the way in which we can look at jobs and job creation and gap filling in perhaps different avenues than we have.

[A]

But it's not only you have to solve the sort of local market problem, but if you look at the solution from a more global lens, which I think is interesting because I think a lot of what we're hearing is we need to create local jobs, which I think it's a yes and situation.

[C]

Right.

[A]

But that's a really interesting perspective.

[B]

Yeah. The thing I'm sort of puzzling through is the extent to which the, the jobs mission or agenda that Ajay Banga has championed and repeated multiple times. The extent to which that's sort of like this North Star that justifies the pursuit of a lot of other things, or whether it's really the kind of concrete, measurable metric that the World bank is now organizing itself around. And I think there's a big difference there. And I think that's where you mentioned private sector mobilization. We should probably go there. But I think what a lot of the concerns that I've heard are that as these institutions recognizing that ODA has suddenly collapsed, lean into private sector mobilization as the place to be. You start. Do you start seeing big numbers announced around capital mobilized without seeing big numbers announced of the actual jobs created in the bank, in the places where the bank is working?

[A]

And I think there are real questions about that. I think to your point, jobs, the World bank released a new scorecard for how it's measuring its impact and Progress. And the one metric that's still missing is actually jobs, like they're still working on the methodology. And so I think that that's sort of an interesting place to be when we don't have a baseline. And so it's going to be really hard to measure how the bank is sort of delivering on that goal without having that. I know they're working on it. Maybe we'll see it by the end of the year, I don't know. But I think on this private sector, private capital mobilization piece, I think you're really right. And I think the question is what is the underlying purpose of this mobilization? And if the idea is that, because I think that big picture people are like, we have to bring private capital in to solve these problems. There's not enough public money, certainly not today. Okay.

[B]

Or not enough willingness to put it forward.

[A]

Right. Not the political will to spend the public monies. But, but I think with the private capital there's a question of then also how do you structure what is the type of capital you're going after? In what contexts? Because I think there is a fundamental question. If your primary goal is private capital mobilization, you can mobilize a lot more capital in middle income countries than you can in low income countries and fragile states. The private sector in many cases, unless there's really significant de risking and even in those cases is going to be really hesitant to go into those markets. Maybe there is an argument to be made for local, you know, certainly building local capital markets to help fill some of those gaps. But I think it's a, it's a tricky situation. I think you have to have sort of a balance and it could be that the bank says for middle income countries we're going to set X targets on private capital mobilization with the intent of these outcomes. But I think we don't quite have the sort of sight lines into what some of those end goals are. And I think it's an important conversation that I've certainly heard some people having, you know, on, on the margins. Because, you know, the big picture is a celebration of IFC issuing its first securitization, which is, which is a big deal. And it could bring new institutional investors into these transactions, into these markets, free up space on IFC balance sheets to make additional investments. I think a lot of people agree that's good. The question is, what does IFC do with this new lending? Does it have the capability to do more lending? What is its risk appetite? So I think there are, we're sort of in an interesting Period of time where the conversation on private capital mobilization is sort of a big part of what everyone's talking about. And there is some more. I think one of the things I talked about with folks at the DEVEX event yesterday, there's a bit more practicality in the discussion than there used to be. Sort of a realism about where private capital can fit in and needing to design the sort of instruments that private capital understands. But I think there are still questions.

[B]

Yeah, practicality or necessity. Right. Like, it's the. Just the alternatives have sort of dried up. And so I feel like this conversation that used to be about, you know, we have development assistance, how do we mobilize the private sector to fill, you know, the remaining gap, has really turned into a conversation that's like, we don't have development assistance, so, like, how do we solve this problem immediately?

[C]

I do think there could be a pretty interesting kind of merge of the worlds here when you look smaller. I think something that I've increasingly been hearing about Both here in D.C. and just over the past couple months, is nonprofits agencies looking to inject private capital mobilization in different ways. For example, obviously, we all know about microfinance and the ways in which that can work, but also micro insurance, different ways in which organizations are looking at impact investing in their own, whether it be particular agency arms or spinning out another arm to then kind of get funds in. I think this conversation, at least this week and in weeks prior, has just. At least in my circle, so become a little louder. Like, okay, we really, really need to either ramp up existing efforts or think through new ways to bring the private sector in, perhaps in not as large scale as we're talking about at the bank or other IFI levels, but maybe smaller. Right. What can organizations do?

[A]

Yeah. And I think a piece of this is how do you figure out what to do with the limited official development assistance that exists? Right. And where do you leverage? Unfortunately, I think we're out of time. I know the three of us chat a lot about these issues and could probably.

[B]

This is way more fun than doing it through a screen, though.

[A]

It's very fun for us to get to do this in person. So, Michael and Alyssa, thank you so much for being with us and thank all of you for joining us in the audience today as well.

[B]

Thanks.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

Sam.