Global Development: Views from the Center
« Misunderstanding the New Politics of Trade | Main | Blood Diamonds, Africa and Blockbusters »
December 06, 2006
So, What is the Future of U.S. Development Assistance?
Posted by Dennis de Tray at 11:30 AM
Yesterday at Carol Lancaster's launch of her new book on Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development and Domestic Politics a somewhat confusing exchange took place between Carol and Andrew Natsios, the "commentator" (in quotes because much of what Andrew had to say was pure Andrew) prompted by moderator Sebastian Mallaby's question: "So where do the two of you think levels of U.S. foreign assistance are going in the future?" The answer, if somewhat nuanced, that both gave was "up in trend but lots of noise around the trend" (my paraphrase).
This was interesting because Carol, in her summary of the book's main messages, made the point that the shortcomings in U.S. foreign assistance were due to the structure of the U.S.'s system of government, particularly the checks and balances inherent in a presidential-congressional system. Andrew agreed and added to the list the rise in recent times of a myriad of special interest groups in place of a formerly strong two party system. To this non-expert in the U.S. political system, their conclusions ring true. Carol argued, and Andrew agreed, that the U.S. system of government undermined the process of constituency building for development assistance and led to paralysis-by-earmarking even when appropriations are forthcoming.
So, why did both Carol and Andrew lean toward projecting an increase in U.S. development assistance over the medium term? Wishful thinking? I doubt it. Both are far too experienced and politically savvy for that. Carol and, I think, Andrew as well, felt that there was a growing recognition among the U.S. electorate that development assistance was in its own interest. While I am willing to accept that proposition, although with a large dose of skepticism, what I am not willing to accept is that this money will be well spent. Put differently, is "Whither U.S. assistance levels?" the right question
USAID and the broader U.S. development assistance system are suffering the equivalent of death by a thousand earmarks. What has changed in the U.S. system of government that will avoid this in the future? If I read her correctly, Carol thinks very little, as she worries about whether the one attempt to get out of this trap, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, will survive current budget discussions. My sense from hearing Carol and Andrew many times is that both have doubts about the ability of current reform efforts to solve or even limit the congressional micromanagement problem, which is consistent with the analysis in Carol's book. But unless the broader structural problem gets solved, it seems to me that whether the U.S. doubles or halves development assistance may be of little import to developing countries.
I left the discussion admiring Carol's work but deeply depressed about the future of U.S. development assistance. If the problem is as structurally deep-seated as Carol's analysis suggests, the prospect for real foreign assistance reform would seem to be somewhere between small and none.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/mt/mt-tb.cgi/717
Comments
Dennis, I agree with you that the question of more or less money isn't the best question. Beyond your good question of how will whatever amount of money be better spent is the question of what countries get the lion's share of so-called development assistance?
There is a lot of hoopla around the Director of Foreign Assistance Tobias' efforts to reform U.S. foreign assistance. But I fear that the results of all his good efforts will disappoint. Why? Because the lion's share will continue to go "The Big Eight" strategic allies -- Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. And, although there is some good development work being done in some of these countries, it's not really the objective of that aid. For those interested in reforming real development assistance to low-income countries, Tobias' team can play with only $2 billion of the $17 billion State and USAID foreign aid budget, and must spread it over some 60 developing countries.
It's hard not to be skeptical. My hope is that the unveiling of the "foreign assistance reform" budget in FY2008, because it won't be shockingly different, will inspire serious reform. That will require, in my view:
1. Real leadership, starting with the President and including Congress. Something akin to the "Wise Men" of the Marshall Plan. And that leadership needs to view development assistance as an investment and, like investments, have a higher risk threshold.
2. An informed and inspired American public. Recall the integral communications and outreach strategy to the Marshall Plan.
3. A total rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act which would define aid by purpose (strategic, development, humanitarian, crisis, etc.), scrap unjustifiable earmarks, and insist upon measurable results; and
4. Create a Cabinet-level Department of Development fully in charge of all foreign aid for development results.
Posted by: Sheila Herrling at December 11, 2006 11:53 AM