Global Development: Views from the Center
« Sec. Rice's Aid Reform Plan Falls Short | Main | Transformational Diplomacy or Tweaking? »
January 20, 2006
Carol Lancaster: USAID and State = FEMA and Homeland Security
Posted by Lawrence MacDonald at 02:23 PM
Carol Lancaster, a former US deputy assistant secretary of state and deputy administrator of USAID, who is currently a professor at Georgetown University and (full disclosure) a member of the CGD Board of Directors, has written for the Financial Times (subscription required) an Op-Ed about the Bush/Rice aid reorganization plan that deserves to be read by any American interested in global development or the U.S. role in the world. Voicing concerns similar to Steve Radelet's posting to this blog yesterday, she writes:
The day-to-day decisions on how USAID uses its funds for development - which countries receive the aid, how much they get and how it is used - can be very different from the priorities of the State Department, which often involve managing crises in foreign countries.
For example, she says, the campaign against terror can mean giving money to countries whose standards of human rights, democracy and free markets might not make them good prospects for development.
The planners in the Kennedy administration created USAID as semi-independent of the state department for this very reason - where two agencies have different goals and modes of operation, the mission of the bigger, stronger agency will almost always overwhelm that of the smaller agency and undercut its effectiveness. There are two recent examples of this very problem. The merger in the late 1990s of the US Information Service into the Department of State is widely regarded as a disaster for the effectiveness of US public diplomacy. And the merger of the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the Department of Homeland Security is another case of a once well-regarded, effective agency failing to respond to the Hurricane Katrina disaster after being absorbed by a much larger department.To make US foreign aid more effective in supporting development in poor countries, the two large aid agencies - USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation - should be merged into a new development agency. It is no secret that the MCC - set up by the Bush administration to provide aid to countries deemed "good performers" - has struggled to get up and running. USAID has also had its own problems of bureaucratic sclerosis. They are both in the development business and their work is complementary. Merging them in a new and streamlined development agency could strengthen them both - and in the process, greatly enhance America's development efforts abroad.
Carol's examples of USIS and State, and of FEMA and Homeland Security, should give the development community, and Congress, plenty of reason to wonder if pulling USAID into State is the right way to go.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/mt/mt-tb.cgi/263
Comments
Carol is surely right that USAID and MCA should be merged into a single agency, and that there are dangers in situating control over the US foreign assistance program within State Department.
But as with many commentators on the reform of US foreign assistance, Carol underestimates one of the key lessons of the DFID experience, which is that reform is only effective if there is a clear consensus about a new mandate, which is then reflected in the changed bureaucratic structures.
For US foreign assistance to be really effective requires a consensus, understood in the Administration and Congress as well as the broader public, that it is in the long term security and economic interests of the US for poor countries to move out of poverty, and that it is a good investment for the US to support longer term development, even if this means pursuing priorities which are different from, and sometimes in tension with, shorter term strategic, commercial or political interests.
With an understanding of a diferent mandate for the agencies of US foreign assistance, it would then be relatively easy for reforms of the institutional arrangemens to be well designed and properly executed. Without a clear vision of the mandate, no amount of changing reporting lines or budgetary responsibilities is likely to clear through the muddle that now exists.
Posted by: Owen Barder at January 20, 2006 03:11 PM