Developing countries are experiencing unprecedented levels of economic growth. As a result, they will be responsible for most of the future growth in energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. The development, transfer and use of renewable energy technologies are promising ways towards low-carbon development in these countries.

This paper revisits, with new data, the changes in the distribution of global poverty towards middle-income countries (MICs). It outlines the distribution of global poverty as follows: half of the world’s poor live in India and China, a quarter of the world’s poor live in other MICs (primarily populous lower MICs such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia) and a quarter of the world’s poor live in the remaining 35 low-income countries.

In order to accelerate progress on undernutrition reduction we need to understand how the governance of nutrition programmes leads to successful outcomes.

This paper offers a new perspective on global poverty. It does so by estimating the distribution of poverty across countries, regions and income categories based on national poverty lines (NPLs).

This issue of insights is the result of a collaborative process involving experts working in policy, research and practice on gender and food security in four global regions.

Underpinning the new approach was the recognition that climate change posed a serious threat to Bangladesh's desire to become a middle income country by 2021i.

Electricity generation is important for powering economic growth.

How are Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches (SLAs) relevant to current and future development challenges? What has been learnt from the experience of using SLAs to date?

This paper outlines a rationale for improved integration of gender into climate change and seeks to support donors in this endeavour by investigating the challenges and opportunities donors are facing, updating the wider body of work and knowledge on gender and climate change and the status of gender in global and national climate policies.

The Indian state of Bihar has long been a byword for bad governance. It was however governed particularly badly between 1990 and 2005, and has since experienced something of a ‘governance miracle’. How can we account for the 1990–2005 deterioration? The answer lies in the interaction of three factors.