Print
Share
Special Op-Ed From Senator Lugar: Strong Voice for Development Needed
July 23, 2009
CGD was delighted to be asked by Senator Richard Lugar to post his op-ed on the urgent need to elevate global development and strengthen U.S. foreign assistance programs. Together with Senators Kerry, Menendez and Corker, Lugar plans to introduce legislation this month that bolsters USAID and promotes capacity, accountability and transparency in U.S. foreign assistance programs. He says a strong, independent foreign aid agency is critical to our long-term security and urges the Obama administration to support the forthcoming, bipartisan Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act. The full text of his op-ed follows:
[UPDATE 7/28/09: Today, Sens. Kerry, Lugar, Menendez, Corker, Risch, and Cardin introduced the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009, bill number S. 1524 available here: ]
Needed: A Stronger Voice for Development
In recent years we have seen a welcome renaissance in American foreign assistance, which was starved for funds during the 1990s. Members of both parties have supported new programs and new spending, and American efforts overseas today are helping to fight disease and hunger and end the poverty that can be a seedbed for terrorism. Development, along with defense and diplomacy, is now a pillar of our national security policy.
But even as we have rediscovered the importance of foreign assistance, we find ourselves with a frail foundation to support this robust development strategy. We have increased funds for development and elevated its priority, while allowing the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—the agency housing most of our development expertise—to atrophy.
USAID’s staff, which numbered nearly 3,300 in 1990, fell to below 2,000 by 2001, and last year stood at just 2,367. There are only five engineers left; twenty-three education officers are tasked with overseeing different programs in 84 countries, one analysis found. The agency has lost to the State Department its own capacity for budgeting, policy, planning and evaluation. Much of the work of running America’s development programs is now farmed out to private contractors.
As a result of USAID’s diminished strength, foreign assistance programs have diffused throughout some two dozen other agencies and government departments, including the Pentagon, and USAID directly manages less than half our foreign assistance spending. Each of these agencies naturally considers itself the lead agency in its sector, provoking competition among agencies rather than coordination and coherence. We don’t really know whether these programs are complementary or working at cross-purposes.
For development to play its full role in our national security structure, the implementing agency must be a strong one. As Secretary of State Clinton recently said, USAID should “be seen as the premier development agency in the world.” To make that happen, we must start with three important changes that I and my Senate colleagues John Kerry, Bob Corker and Robert Menendez have incorporated into legislation we will soon introduce, the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act.
–First, create a new “knowledge center” and internal evaluation system so the agency can take a comprehensive look at what programs work and why. This would supplement the current monitoring system which measures simple outputs—were the schoolbooks purchased and delivered on time?—with one that looks at policy outcomes—what impact did this education program have on literacy rates? Also, re-establish a policy and strategic planning bureau within USAID to apply lessons learned across countries and regions and project future needs and opportunities.
As Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has been successful in large part because it set clear objectives and regularly evaluates progress. Prof. Sachs urged re-organizing our development effort strategically around a few key pillars—from agriculture to sustainable energy to promotion of sustainable businesses—in order to clarify our long-term aims and rigorously ensure that each specific program is contributing toward meeting them.
These changes will help eliminate ineffective programs and assure Congress and taxpayers that our money is supporting our humanitarian and national security goals.
–Second, make each USAID in-country mission director the coordinator for all U.S. assistance within the country, require all government agencies with foreign aid programs to make the details publicly available in a timely fashion, and create an independent evaluation and research group to analyze the effectiveness of foreign assistance programs across the government and promote best practices. USAID does not have to manage everything, but it must be the locus of expertise that can provide guidance on development policy.
–Third, replenish the troops. The bill calls for a new human resource strategy and high-level task force to advise on critical personnel issues, strengthens USAID’s hiring and personnel systems, and encourages innovative steps to build expertise and effectiveness.
These common-sense—and low-cost—improvements have the support of both liberals and conservatives in the Senate, and have been applauded by humanitarian and relief organizations. They are just first steps that do not pre-judge or conflict with the State Department’s current review of our diplomatic and development policy. A strong, independent foreign aid agency is critical to our long-term security, and my colleagues and I urge the Obama administration to give its full support to this legislation.
–Richard Lugar (R, Indiana) is the former chairman and current ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Share 
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
14 Responses to “Special Op-Ed From Senator Lugar: Strong Voice for Development Needed”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Senator Lugar and co-sponsors are proposing an excellent forward-moving step with this Revitalization bill. But surely the need is high and the time is now for bolder leaps? Perhaps it is time to spin USAID out of State, weave it together with PEPFAR and MCC, and give them all proper status and independence as a full Department of Development — one on equal footing with Defense and State — and all that this entails.
July 25th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Senator Lugar’s introduction of a bill to revitalize the foreign aid system in the US is truly commendable, and I applaud his efforts on this front. In particular, focusing on “outcomes” rather than “simple outputs” is a crucial and necessary step towards improving aid effectiveness. Although focusing on outcomes seems obvious to those working outside the field, in water and sanitation, the field in which I work, the aid and donor community has long focused on outputs – e.g. how many household water filter units delivered – rather than outcomes – whether these units treat water and improve health in the long-term. Sadly, countless examples show that a successful output does not often correlate with a successful outcome. Gearing up the US aid system to include a formal evaluation process based on outcomes is a great step towards improving the way we go about development.
To this first step, I would like to add that aid administrators should begin to think about synergies, using multi-pronged approaches and tackling multiple problems simultaneously. Why not mass distribute ivermectin and spray for black-fly larvae control to eliminate river-blindness, instead of simply focusing on ivermectin? Insect control will help with other diseases. Why focus on one disease when the same communities, indeed the same individuals, often suffer from multiple problems? The current fad to ‘eradicate’ one problem, e.g. AIDS or tuberculosis, too often ignores closely associated problems. Individuals are concerned with their total health, not just eliminating one problem, and a clinic that is setup to deal with only one problem, whether it is for malaria or water treatment, does not address the full needs of its patients and, as a result, may have little impact on improving public health. Focusing on only one problem at a time results in redundancies and parallel systems that could be integrated at low cost, resulting in higher efficacy.
The thinking behind Senator Lugar’s op-ed surely aligns with a multi-pronged, synergistic approach to development and public health. Senator Lugar suggests that we “comprehensive look at what programs work and why,” focusing on outcomes, and a truly comprehensive evaluation will reveal that piggybacking several intervention strategies is a sure path to positive outcomes.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
USAID has to be an independent agency… anything short of it would be a waste of time. And this needs to happen sooner rather than later.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
if there are only 5 engineers and 23 eds coild you inform us what some of the other 2339 do?
July 28th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Senator Lugar’s bill is a welcome initiative that USAID officers, current and retired, will welcome. As one of those former officers (and Mission Director), I believe the bill addresses the critical need to devolve responsibility and authority to USAID managers in the field. But it needs to go further; USAID Directors also need the flexibility to implement to meet exigent situations that arise in the course of project activity, and the ability to take manageable risks to achieve outcomes that are demand driven and country owned. Accountability needs to support the principle of demand driven development, not control it.
Finally, I would have welcomed a statement from Sen. Lugar directed to the Administration as to why it is taking so long to name USAID leadership. Perhaps it is inappropriate for the Hill to ask the Administration to send a nominee before vetting is complete, but the Hill is moving forward in setting agendas for USAID without the Agency having political leadership engaged in shaping that agenda. If we can name the head of the SBA by now, why not USAID?
July 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Are these guys nuts. We are going into debt for programs we neither need nor can afford at home. Now they want to spend more overseas! It is pure madness! Beyond which, any organization that gives away tax payer money has no business being independent from the people elected to oversee such expenditures.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Senator Lugar’s bill that calls for a “new human resource strategy” is most timely. The USAID in-house training program called the “Development Studies Program” (DSP) that trained mid-career professionals for senior management positions was dismantled in 1994 under the Clinton budget cuts. The goal of DSP was to impart cutting edge knowledge to the USAID professional staff. An independent evaluation in 1992 found the DSP to be superior to any alternative graduate-level development studies program that then existed in top level universities in the country. The DSP faculty was also responsible for training the first set of “Democracy and Governance” officials of the Agency in the early 1990s. I very much hope that the new legislation would pave the way to a first rate training program for USAID career officials.
Dr. Stanley W (Sam) Samarasinghe, Payson Center for International Development, Tulane University (Former member of the DSP Faculty)
July 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
The US time and time again has gotten it wrong on development. Look to the UK’s independent Department for International Development–free from political or strategic battles and full tasked with helping combat poverty, disasters, and improving livelihoods.
Larry Miller–helping other countries naturally in the long run will help the US. Get out of the selfish mentality.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:34 am
add to message: To Larry, it’s hypocritical that you’re politicalchristian but not wanting to care about development
July 31st, 2009 at 10:17 am
Here we go again. An attempt at conducting ongoing M&E of USAID’s programming beyond the monitoring and measuring of outputs was attempted in the past but it got watered down and finally killed by the weak-of-heart and whiners. And, didn’t Dr. Sachs have a less than remarkable record of achievement concerning his proposed solutions to the problems of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union when those areas of intervention were in vogue. His continuing influence reminds me of our current oversight of the shenanigans of Wall Street by financial industry insiders. Despite the foregoing, we do need what Senator Lugar is prescribing and the sooner the better if we are going to play a meaningful role in international development – which we are not currently doing.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:38 am
A central problem, at which the bill hints, is making more effective use of non-career USAID staff. USAID career staff (direct hires) often seem more concerned about protecting their position than in making use of expertise available through non-career staff. Part of revitalizing USAID will be providing career rewards for direct hires that make better use of non-career expertise.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Nice rhetoric. But what is the point? This bill might be well intentioned, but it hasn’t passed and it is clearly DOA already. State Department is gobbling up USAID left and right in ways that will allow it to control USAID come what may. State already has taken control of all administrative services for USAID. Jack Lew has made the decision to have State take over USAID’s IT and communications network. And State has said it intends to take over USAID’s personnel functions. If State owns USAID’s back office, it really doesn’t matter what that bill says. Senator Lugar has been around Washington a long time. It is surprising he is so naive about how Executive Branch bureaucracies really work.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Jiesheng,
There is a place for charity and that is with the individual giving to help someone else. There is such a long history of money given to enrich corrupt regimes around the world that it is of questionable value in the first place. Beyond that, for politicians to get together in their ivory towers and decide to take money from the tax payers who have worked for it and give it to someone else is just plain wrong… there is a word for it… chose one: extortion or stealing.
The other long history we have is of two bit dictators coming to us for our dollars and then thumbing their nose at us once we give them the money. If anyone believes that a country giving away taxpayers money (or in the case, the money of the taxpayers children and grandchildren) with no political (elected) oversight lives in a socialist fantasy world.
The US had a system that worked until the govt decided to mess with it. Other nations chose other paths. There is no reason we have to subsidize failures. I believe in giving to agencies (private) that get food, etc. directly to children or others in need, but governments are too inefficient and too corrupt to handle the task and it is poor stewardship to trust them to do it.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Action taken on the hill towards Foreign Assistance reform is exciting and commendable but dialogue must begin on the grassroots level about the necessity of this action in order to convince the millions of Americans who think inline with Larry and other skeptics. Please support with your time and perspectives Students for Effective Foreign Assistance, a group dedicated to the advancement of legislation dealing with Foreign Assistance reform. To learn more email Lily Olson at lrolson@gwmail.gwu.edu.