Explore the vast range of titles available.

The impact of good governance on investment management and performance is immense. Several key factors contribute to good governance within pension funds, appropriate governance structures; well-defined accountabilities, policies, and procedures; and suitable processes for the selection and operation of governing bodies and managing institutions. Not surprisingly, good governance requires leadership by individuals with the expertise, professionalism, and integrity to navigate a fund's direction and withstand pressures from multiple constituencies. In the current context of aging populations in many countries, fiscal burdens on pension funds are increasing. At the same time, the necessity of delivering on pension commitments in contributory schemes means that governance, transparency, and accountability should be of utmost importance to pension fund managers. With these concerns in mind, part three of this book provides useful perspectives from senior managers of public pension funds, international pension authorities, and multilateral institution representatives on the structures, policies, and processes that aim to support good governance. Principally reflecting on the characteristics that have been conducive to good governance, including reform measures undertaken, they also consider policy and investment management measures taken to effectively manage fiscal risks, including those that emerged from the financial crisis.

Due diligence on SunPower Corporation's USD 300mn takeover bid for SunRay Renewable Energy (SunRay) would cement SunPower's vertical integration strategy by increasing its pipeline of solar photovoltaic (PV) generation projects by 1,200 megawatts (MW) in Southern Europe. The private equity solution became available when Yoram Amiga, a serial entrepreneur in private equity and property investments, pitched SunRay to Denham Capital. Denham was a global private equity firm focused on energy and commodities with over USD 4.25bn in assets under management in 2008. Denham structured its investment as preferred equity, the return on which would be realized entirely upon exit. SunRay estimated that it would have to pre‐fund up to 25% of the entire cost of each project with equity capital before funding with project finance. SunPower had supported the Montalto di Castro project throughout, and SunRay's management team had shown itself capable of delivering on its promises.

Background During the first year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVAX has been the world’s most prominent effort to ensure equitable access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Launched as part of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (Act-A) in June 2020, COVAX suggested to serve as a vaccine buyers’ and distribution club for countries around the world. It also aimed to support the pharmaceutical industry in speeding up and broadening vaccine development. While COVAX has recently come under critique for failing to bring about global vaccine equity, influential politicians and public health advocates insist that future iterations of it will improve pandemic preparedness. So far COVAX’s role in the ongoing financialization of global health, i.e. in the rise of financial concepts, motives, practices and institutions has not been analyzed. Methods This article describes and critically assesses COVAX’s financial logics, i.e. the concepts, arguments and financing flows on which COVAX relies. It is based on a review of over 109 COVAX related reports, ten in-depth interviews with global health experts working either in or with COVAX, as well as participant observation in 18 webinars and online meetings concerned with global pandemic financing, between September 2020 and August 2021. Results The article finds that COVAX expands the scale and scope of financial instruments in global health governance, and that this is done by conflating different understandings of risk. Specifically, COVAX conflates public health risk and corporate financial risk, leading it to privilege concerns of pharmaceutical companies over those of most participating countries – especially low and lower-middle income countries (LICs and LMICs). COVAX thus drives the financialization of global health and ends up constituting a risk itself - that of perpetuating the downsides of financialization (e.g. heightened inequality, secrecy, complexity in governance, an ineffective and slow use of aid), whilst insufficiently realising its potential benefits (pandemic risk reduction, increased public access to emergency funding, indirect price control over essential goods and services). Conclusion Future iterations of vaccine buyers’ and distribution clubs as well as public vaccine development efforts should work towards reducing all aspects of public health risk rather than privileging its corporate financial aspects. This will include reassessing the interplay of aid and corporate subsidies in global health.

Foreign direct investment and private capital flows are highly concentrated geographically, with almost half of them reaching five top destinations. These flows tend to evade many high-risk countries. Regulatory and contractual risks, particularly in infrastructure, have inhibited investments in many parts of the developing world. A core objective of the World Bank Group (WBG) has been to support the flow of private investment for development; guarantees and insurance have been among the instruments that the WBG has used to pursue this objective. This study examines three main questions: • Should the WBG be in the guarantee business? • Have guarantee instruments in the three WBG institutions been used to their potential as reflected in WBG expectations and perceived demand? • Is the WBG appropriately organized to deliver its range of guarantee products in an effective and efficient manner?

Background Public–private partnerships (PPP) are often how health improvement programs are implemented in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). We therefore aimed to systematically review the literature about the aim and impacts of quality improvement (QI) approaches in PPP in LMICs. Methods We searched SCOPUS and grey literature for studies published before March 2022. One reviewer screened abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion. The study characteristics, setting, design, outcomes, and lessons learned were abstracted using a standard tool and reviewed in detail by a second author. Results We identified 9,457 citations, of which 144 met the inclusion criteria and underwent full-text abstraction. We identified five key themes for successful QI projects in LMICs: 1) leadership support and alignment with overarching priorities, 2) local ownership and engagement of frontline teams, 3) shared authentic learning across teams, 4) resilience in managing external challenges, and 5) robust data and data visualization to track progress. We found great heterogeneity in QI tools, study designs, participants, and outcome measures. Most studies had diffuse aims and poor descriptions of the intervention components and their follow-up. Few papers formally reported on actual deployment of private-sector capital, and either provided insufficient information or did not follow the formal PPP model, which involves capital investment for a explicit return on investment. Few studies discussed the response to their findings and the organizational willingness to change. Conclusions Many of the same factors that impact the success of QI in healthcare in high-income countries are relevant for PPP in LMICs. Vague descriptions of the structure and financial arrangements of the PPPs, and the roles of public and private entities made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the impacts of the organizational governance on the outcomes of QI programs in LMICs. While we found many articles in the published literature on PPP-funded QI partnerships in LMICs, there is a dire need for research that more clearly describes the intervention details, implementation challenges, contextual factors, leadership and organizational structures. These details are needed to better align incentives to support the kinds of collaboration needed for guiding accountability in advancing global health. More ownership and power needs to be shifted to local leaders and researchers to improve research equity and sustainability.

Private equity (PE) represents the acquisition of stakes in non-listed companies, often long-term, with the objective of improving the performance and value of the company to obtain significant benefits at time of disinvestment. PE has gained particular importance in the global financial system for delivering superior risk-adjusted returns. Knowing the PE return drivers has been of great interest among researchers and academics, and some studies have developed statistical models to determine PE return drivers. Still, the explanatory capacity of these models has certain limitations related to their precision levels and exclusive focus on groups of countries located in Europe and the EE.UU. Therefore, in the current literature, new models of analysis of the PE return drivers are demanded to provide a better fit in worldwide scenarios. This study contributes to the accuracy of the models that identify the PE return drivers using computational methods and a sample of 1606 PE funds with a geographical focus on the world ’ s five regions. The results have provided a unique set of PE return drivers with a precision level above 86%. The conclusions obtained present important theoretical and practical implications, expanding knowledge about PE and financial forecasting from a global perspective.

[...]dozens of countries have yet to administer a single dose, whereas others have already immunised large proportions of their populations. Clearer leadership and oversight are also needed to bring greater cohesion to the complex patchwork of national governments, technical organisations (including GAVI, CEPI, WHO, UNICEF, and the World Bank), the private sector, and civil society that is aiming to ensure global access to vaccines. The Elders, a group of varied political leaders formed by Nelson Mandela to use public and private diplomacy to advance justice and human rights, have successfully championed causes such as universal health coverage, and have the requisite experience.

We are in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This crisis is the latest phase of the evolution of financial markets under the radical financial deregulation process that began in the late 1970s. This evolution has taken the form of cycles in which deregulation accompanied by rapid financial innovation stimulates powerful financial booms that end in crises. Governments respond to crises with bailouts that allow new expansions to begin. As a result, financial markets have become ever larger and financial crises have become more threatening to society, which forces governments to enact ever larger bailouts. This process culminated in the current global financial crisis, which is so deeply rooted that even unprecedented interventions by affected governments have, thus far, failed to contain it. In this paper we analyse the structural flaws in the financial system that helped bring on the current crisis and discuss prospects for financial reform.

Background In 2021, donor countries, the pharmaceutical industry, and the COVAX initiative promoted vaccine donation or “dose-sharing” as a main solution to the inequitable global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. COVAX positioned itself as a global vaccine-sharing hub that promised to share doses “equitably, effectively and transparently,” according to rational criteria overseen by independent scientists. This article provides a critical analysis of the principles and practice of “dose-sharing,” showing how it reveals the politics at play within COVAX. Results Donated doses were an important source of COVAX’s vaccine supply in 2021, accounting for 60% of the doses the initiative delivered (543 million out of 910 million). However, donations could not compensate fully for COVAX’s persistent procurement struggles: it delivered less than half of the two billion doses it originally projected for 2021, a fraction of the 9.25 billion doses that were administered globally in 2021. Donor countries and vaccine manufacturers systematically broke COVAX’s principles for maximizing the impact of dose-sharing, delivering doses late, in smaller quantities than promised, and in ad hoc ways that made roll-out in recipient countries difficult. Some donors even earmarked doses for specific recipients, complicating and potentially undermining COVAX’s equitable allocation mechanism. Conclusions COVAX’s pivot from global vaccine procurement mechanism to dose-sharing hub can be seen as a “win-win-win” solution for COVAX itself (who could claim success by having access to more doses), for donor countries (who could rebrand themselves as charitable donors rather than “vaccine hoarders”), and for the pharmaceutical industry (maintaining the status quo on intellectual property rights and protecting their commercial interests). Although dose-sharing helped COVAX’s vaccine delivery, its impact was undermined by donors’ and industry’s pursuit of national security, diplomatic and commercial interests, which COVAX largely accommodated. The lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms within COVAX’s overly complex governance structure as a global public-private partnership enabled these practices.

Power imbalances are embedded across funding opportunities, research management and coordination, knowledge production and transfer, access to training resources and most technical and political aspects of global health.1 The current pandemic, which has further highlighted these inequities, is an opportunity to acknowledge and rectify these gaps.2 The changes needed include ensuring that partnerships between HIC and LMIC institutions are equitable and that benefits from those arrangements accrue equally to all parties. Overcoming the research to policy gap is critical to addressing health challenges.3 However, knowledge generated and reported in scientific publications is largely inaccessible to LMIC researchers even when they play a significant role in the research process.4 HIC research institutions should provide free access to their academic libraries to their LMIC partners. [...]research findings must be shared with equity, fairness, and respect for the work of LMIC and HIC collaborators. Research has shown that LMIC representation in first and last author positions is low, even when all necessary data almost exclusively has been collected and produced by local staff in their own country.9 Whenever needed, HIC institutions should provide senior support and training in article writing as well as ensure fair and equitable authorship of research papers between participating scientists from LMICs and HICs.