Global Development: Views from the Center
« Aid Industry Calls for Focus on Basics: How Will it be Different This Time Than in the 1970s? | Main | Equatorial Guinea's Corruption Scandal: African Poverty, Mansions, and the California Sun? »
November 13, 2006
Midterm Election Impact: What the Thumpin' Means for Global Development
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 02:31 PM
President Bush called last week’s midterm election results “a thumpin’” as the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate. Since then, Republicans and Democrats have been promising to work in a “bipartisan way for all Americans.” But what does it mean for global development that the Republicans hold the presidency while the Democrats control the House and Senate?
According to recent CGD research by Markus Goldstein and CGD senior fellow Todd Moss, the relative priority of aid to Africa is the same under Republican or Democratic presidents, but more importantly their results show:
The relationship between the president and Congress is what matters: when both are controlled by the same party, aid to Africa is higher; when it is split, aid is lower--both in terms of absolute flows and as a percent of total aid.
If history is any guide then, we might expect U.S. aid flows to ebb in the next two years. Combined with rhetoric about reigning in federal spending amidst spiraling Iraq war costs, it is not hard to imagine a flat-lining of foreign aid budgets, including the Millennium Challenge Account and other presidential aid initiatives.
But the amount of foreign assistance is only one piece of the global development puzzle. How aid is delivered and corresponding implementation systems are likely to have a greater effect on development outcomes than are overall aid flows. With the presidency and Congress held by opposing parties, there is also greater potential for increased scrutiny of where and how we spend our development dollars, and of other policies such as trade and migration that have a significant impact on global development and poverty.
As the parties jockey for committee assignments and settle into their new roles, I suggest keeping a close eye on what the new split-power configuration will mean for:
- Aid: The potential for decreases in foreign aid spending is high, but so is the opportunity for increased scrutiny and with it, improvement in current assistance programs. Efforts to better define and coordinate U.S. foreign assistance under the new Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance also have potential to transform allocation and inform discussions of our foreign aid priorities. Notably, foreign aid is not on the Democrats' agenda for the first 100 hours in office and there is some legitimate concern that it will take a back seat to Iraq and domestic economy issues.
- Trade: Change in U.S. trade policies is expected. A thorough review of free trade agreements has been added to the Democrats' agenda for the first 100 hours. The president’s power to negotiate trade agreements without congressional amendments (known as “fast-track authority”) is up for renewal in July 2007 which is expected to spur discussions of “fair trade” including labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. These debates could make it tougher for developing countries that want to expand their U.S. market access. And discussions pertaining to the farm bill will provide another opportunity to address how rich country support for development-friendly trade policy can reduce global poverty.
- Migration: Many see the election results as a rebuttal against incumbents who took a hard-line approach to migration issues and are now touting “comprehensive immigration legislation” that would include a guest-worker program, some sort of legalization for workers illegally in the U.S. and a tougher enforcement system. At the Center for Global Development, we’ll be looking to bring solid evidence about the impact of labor mobility on global development to the U.S. migration policy debate thorough our new initiative on migration and development.
What do you think the thumpin' will mean for global development?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/mt/mt-tb.cgi/696
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Midterm Election Impact: What the Thumpin' Means for Global Development:
» Democrats, trade protectionism and Latin America from Pienso...
In light of the most recent US elections, many have been questioning what a win for the democrats will mean for US trade policy. The Washington Post’s Sebastian Mallaby: The two parties have opposing attitudes on the subject of trade: [Read More]
Tracked on November 22, 2006 09:18 PM
Comments
Bilateral trade deals, that were at the cornerstone of Mr. Bush trade agenda, are gone for good and one can only be happy for that. Unluckily, the multilateral agenda (WTO's Doha Round) will also suffer...
Posted by: Enrique at November 13, 2006 05:45 PM
The trade vote on "normal trade relations" with Vietnam yesterday (November 13) was a pretty bad indication of where trade politics are headed. A majority of Democrats opposed what was generally seen as a non-controversial bill to facilitate Vietnam's accession to the WTO and have standard relations. Free trade agreements are one thing - and Oxfam agrees they are very problematic. But normal trade relations and trade preferences for developing countries are another.
Posted by: Gawain Kripke at November 14, 2006 12:38 PM
Enrique, I agree on the bilateral free trade agreements but I'm not so sure about the multilateral agenda. And if it does remain stalled, it will not be solely or even largely the fault of the new Democratic majority. Although the US proposal on agriculture from a year ago clearly did not go far enough to close the deal, it was at least a serious offer that would force changes in US farm policies. That is in stark contrast to the EU proposal, which would have provided no additional market access for Brazilian or American or anyone else's farm products.
Nevertheless, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab allowed herself to be put on the defensive this past summer by showing no flexibility in the negotiations. Now, she and President Bush must make the first move to get the negotiations restarted. If they do so, and if the EU, Japan, Brazil, India and others reciprocate with new or improved offers, I think that the Democratic leadership is prepared to extend trade promotion authority so that the Doha Round can conclude over the next year or so.
Posted by: Kimberly Elliott at November 14, 2006 02:07 PM
What President Bush calls the 'thumpin' is a true test of democracy,patriotism and foreign policy. To have a congress dominated by Democrats and a Republican presidency means that very important domestic and foreign policies will not be implemented based on party loyalty but rather patriotism. Policies will have to undergo intense scrutiny and possibly this may include withdraw from Iraq.
As for global development, it will depend on what United States wants to achieve in foreign policy. Already China is strongly dating Africa and i think the 'thumpin' needs to study this and the implications it will have on the U.S interests-interventions and markets in Africa. The moment should prepare the Democrats to use this chance in Republican leadership to create more ties in foreign relations, excercise realistic policies and goals that will convince the U.S voting public that the next presidency, which am sure the democrats have an upper hand to take, will have tremendous postive results in both doestic policy and global development.
Posted by: Paul Mayende at November 15, 2006 12:43 AM
The problem with the current Dems on trade is that they are disingenuously hiding behind labor and environmental standards as a reason to kill FTAs mostly just to back the unions-- and even though they know it hurts everyone else, including Americans and the poor overseas. Sebastian Mallaby in his Nov 20 column I think hits it right: "The real reason Democrats oppose trade has little to do with foreigners’ stance on union rights or endangered species and a lot to do with the fact that trade harms some US workers. Mexico could abide by every convention of the ILO and still undercut US wages—and democrats who represent displaced American workers would still detest NAFTA."
Posted by: Todd Moss at November 20, 2006 05:07 PM