I could also quibble about some things (e.g., why focus on economic growth rather than governance), but my main point is: Why have the NSC make these decisions. That immediately puts security at the top of the pile. Seems to me we’re way too far along in that direction already.

This does sound like a sensible proposal, unless it is code for going back to the bad old days of destroying the forests, rivers and other natural resources of developing countries. When mis-guided efforts to promote “development” are implemented without understanding the consequences, such investments can actually make poor people destitute. The security, poverty and economic development objectives must always be implemented with full knowledge of the impacts and environmental and social safeguards.
Thus this proposal would benefit from clarifying that all strategic plans and activities for development and poverty aleviation would be properly vetted through internationally accepted processes of transparent public consultation (see e.g. the report of the World Commission on Dams).

Thanks for great comments.

re MCC: I still see value in leaving it on its own and not allowing their model to get sucked into national security concerns any more than they already, given the board structure. I think the USDB could borrow a lot from MCC governance.

Ben, I don’t think giving the NSC the delegation authority will elevate security any more than it already is. I think it will help clear up some of the muddle by forcing the selection of a lead agency.

Nilgun, thanks. I’m taking the long-term view on this idea and will keep plugging away.

Barbara, I don’t get how my proposal has an impact on the environment one way or the other. That’s a safeguards issue that seems unrelated to the interagency tensions I’m trying to untangle. I sure wouldn’t want EPA to be a lead agency on development!

Optimization and reorganization of any organization is prerequisite for dynamic, vibrant and successfully org. it is long due to reorganize international organizations as per the changing new challenges on the world. However it would be better to handover the security issue to relevant department rather than associating it with development organization. It seems putting cart ahead of bull. Development automatically ensures security. Anyhow, if security is more important than global development then instead of putting NSC a locak org why not putting Global Security council (GSC) under the leadership of USA government to make it more representative/digestive and keep NSC for internal/local assignments. As per ROI is concerned who is the guarantor in development process? Many development organizations use to loss resources due to lack of ROI guarantee by concerned parties. Assurance of ROI will automatically make development bank of America or such kind of development org an efficient one. Lack of ROI assurance simply means providing loan and financial supports to nonperforming business houses and wasting tax payers’ hard earned money. Here better ask the social engineers, technologist and parties concerned to develop organizational structure, workflow and efficient algorithms to ensure lossless development organization with assurance of ROI. Here ROI should not be considered only in monetary terms but any type should be realistic and on the ground NOT on the paper or philosophy only.