E-mail updates

Sign up to receive updates from CGD:

  
Buy CGD books

Global Development: Views from the Center

« For Doha Round, nothing left but the blame game? | Main | Zoellick Approved As Next World Bank President: What Challenges Ahead? »

June 25, 2007

Can "Vanity" Lead to Global "Fair"ness?

Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 02:17 PM

Can “Vanity” Lead to Global “Fair”ness?The July edition of Vanity Fair guest edited by Bono puts Africa and global development back on newsstands around the country. Americans can choose from one of twenty different covers featuring prominent people--from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Oprah Winfrey, George W. Bush, Queen Rania of Jordan and others--having conversations about Africa. The hope, one assumes, is that we, the arguably less glamorous Americans, start doing the same.

Senator Lugar (R-IN) prompted such a conversation at a June 12th Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing on "Foreign Assistance Reform: Successes, Failures and Next Steps." Following testimony from acting director of foreign assistance and acting administrator for USAID Henrietta Hoslman Fore, Senator Lugar asked a private panel comprising CGD's Steve Radelet, Brooking's Lael Brainard, and InterAction's Sam Worthington: how do we build in this country a constituency for development in other countries?

Not so long ago, panelists would have struggled to answer this question. In 2007 the witnesses had no difficultly identifying a growing American constituency for international development. Lael Brainard referred to the missives Americans get from Bono, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, polling that shows growing support for global development for moral reasons, and an explosion of volunteering overseas. Sam Worthington acknowledged the ONE Campaign, an InterAction member organization, and their launch of ONE Vote '08 designed to mobilize their 2.4 million members and make global health and extreme poverty foreign policy priorities in the 2008 presidential election. And CGD's Steve Radelet emphasized that with growing support for global development--including from the Americans reading about foreign assistance in Vanity Fair--comes a need to know that the money is spent well and is having the impact desired.

This is where hope for a better world meets Washington policy. Reform of our foreign aid organizations and legislation are not just of interest to a handful of congressional staffers and policy wonks, but critical to fulfilling Americans' hopes for reducing poverty, helping countries grow and improving lives.

Support for global development may be the right thing to do, but getting it right also matters. Among Steve Radelet's recommendations for getting it right are:


  1. Develop a National Foreign Assistance Strategic Framework. Such a document would outline our principal foreign assistance priorities and how the full range of executive branch agencies (State, USAID, Treasury, Agriculture, MCC, Defense and others) plans to deal with them as part of our broader policies for engaging with the world.

  2. Rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). The FAA of 1961 is badly out of date, nearly 2,000 pages long and includes a complex web of rules, regulations, multiple objectives and directives. A new FAA is central to clarifying the central objectives and methods of foreign assistance to meet U.S. foreign policy goals in the 21st century.

  3. Create a new Department for International Development under the direction of one cabinet official for all U.S. foreign aid programs. This step would streamline the bureaucracy, reduce duplication, and strengthen our ability to align major programs with our key objectives. The United Kingdom took this step several years ago, and its foreign aid programs are now considered among the best of the bilateral donors.

  4. Strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation of U.S. foreign aid programs generally focuses on ensuring that funds are spent according to plan, rather than on their contribution to development or to achieving other objectives. The U.S. needs a strong monitoring and evaluation processes that measures impact of programs.



BonoFixing our arcane foreign policy organization and legislation in the U.S. requires interest and support from the American people and the politicians who represent them. Bono learned this long ago when he traded his MacPhisto image to become the "dean of the global poverati" and who now asks the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates what they would do for Africa if they were elected.

Perhaps like Bono, the next time we look at ourselves in the mirror we should pause to ask ourselves whether the image staring back is the one we'd like reflected in the rest of the world. Are we doing what we can to ensure that U.S. development policy represents our values of freedom, hope and opportunity? Are we being smart about how we use our power to help prevent 10 million children dying each year of preventable diseases; help 77 million children not in school become providers for their families and perhaps even future leaders; and bring clean water to the more than one billion people currently without it? Are we helping countries grow their economies, draw private sector investment and provide jobs for people looking to earn their way out of poverty? Does it show our own $200 billion dreams for ending global poverty? Does it recognize, as Bill Gates' mother did, that "from those to whom much is given, much is expected?"

My guess is that many of us will conclude that we don't look as good as we might. And for this, we need to start the conversations with each other and the politicians who represent us about our hopes for a better world and the need for real foreign aid reform in the U.S. to get us there.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/mt/mt-tb.cgi/902

Comments

The Vanity Fair shows all that is wrong with the current fad around Africa and charity. It is more about well-intentioned westerners talking about the poor Africans than Africans themselves discussing their own destinies. The popular interest in Africa is more about people feeling good about "doing the right thing" than in getting our foreign aid tools right. Hence, we are more likely to see increased contributions to charities (especially child-sponsorship charities) than a more informed debate on foreign aid policies. Don't give Bono more credit than he deserves.

Posted by: Jeffrey Barnes at June 26, 2007 09:51 AM

Fads such as the RED campaign (giving a tiny slice of corporate profits to good causes) and sponsorship are a distraction from the big changes that are required, and dilute the strength of the bigger messages coming from figures such as Bono. However, even if RED was a poor decision on his part, we shouldn't undermine the amount of policy work and negotiation that 'some' of these figures are undertaking, including Bono. Encouraging US citizens to challenge their representatives on foreign aid and foreign policy is exactly what is needed, and if a large proportion of people only (sadly) respond to superstar encouragement, then we need figures like Bono.

Posted by: Fiona at June 27, 2007 03:24 AM

“Growing support for global development for moral reasons”.

Yes, there can be moral element as well but if somebody tries to understand globalization, it becomes crystal clear that gone are the days when comparative advantage included cheap labor. Why only Africa? Why not whole peripheral world and economic peripherals. If you invest in poor, weak and downtrodden, it will serve the globalization. Make these poor and peripherals prosperous to do business with you, to support your industry as outsourced units and to create future markets for you. Even profit maximization requires that approach so to invest in people living in poor countries, rural areas and slums is the call of the hour for the rich and main actors of global world.

Posted by: Murtaza Ghulam Khuhro at June 27, 2007 12:26 PM

I see this Vanity Fair edition as part of the process that moves the powerbrokers in Western countries to action. Africans are very busy discussing their own destinies. But all destinies are entangled and it behoves the other players in the system to look to the part THEY play in the system.

If you get past the headlines and read what Bono actually says, you'll find this in Vanity Fair...

"As you read this edition of Vanity Fair, the Global Fund is benefiting, but that's not the main reason we kidnapped this publication's extraordinary photographers and storytellers. We needed help in describing the continent of Africa as an opportunity, as an adventure, not a burden."

Don't give Bono less credit than he deserves -- he is driving debate on policy just as strongly as he is encouraging donations to charities.

See the 22-page section in Vanity Fair that features the "less publicised stories of African courage, imagination, brains and grit through vignettes of leaders -- activists, artists, doctors, athletes, entrepreneurs, economists -- Africa's hidden wealth". This magazine is trying to shine the spotlight on African stories told by African voices.

Posted by: Gillian at June 27, 2007 08:08 PM

Bono's best idea was creating DATA to advocate for fairer trade. Unfortunately, there haven't been any substantive achievements there as the DOHA round is a shambles. Even reductions of cotton subsidies that could make a huge difference to poor farmers in the Sahel is not being discussed. Bono has been successful in getting people to give more money to the Global Fund and PEPFAR for the right causes. Unfortunately, although these programs are doing significant short term good, they are overwhelming and disempowering African governments and creating long term dependence.

Posted by: Jeffrey Barnes at July 1, 2007 09:38 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)