Print
Share
How to Cut U.S. Funding for Multilaterals? The UK Way.
July 27, 2011
This is a joint post with Stephanie Majerowicz.
As Congress looks for cost savings, a logical first step would be to compare the various investments the USG makes to figure out what gets taxpayers the highest returns. One debate is bilateral versus multilateral, and the administration has signaled a preference toward the latter wherever possible (this is debatable, but an argument for another day).
But what about choices among the two dozen or so multilateral development agencies that receive U.S. funding? The latest House bill slashes funding for several UN agencies. This might be a good or a bad thing, but how to think about these tradeoffs?
The British government tried to answer this very question with its Multilateral Aid Review which measured “value for money” by scoring each international agency that receives UK funding based on “organizational strength” and “contribution to British development objectives”. The result is this pretty figure.
Here’s the rub: the UK then used this scorecard to inform spending allocations. Partly based on the review, the Brits actually increased funding for top performers (e.g., IDA, UNICEF, GAVI) while those at the very bottom (UN-HABITAT, ILO, UNIDO, UNISDR) are being zeroed out. Sensible evidence-based cuts: How refreshing!
So, with an eye to U.S. budget battles, we asked what an American version might look like, and here is our answer:
Notes: Bubble sizes represent relative U.S. contributions to each organization in 2009; color-coding represents the quartiles of an overall index multiplying scores on both dimensions.
This is not a very precise exercise (more details on our methodology here, but it does give a first cut at some of the tradeoffs. If we are going to fund some multilaterals and not others, then this could, we hope, at least provoke a conversation about relative value.
Possibly Related Posts
- Held Hostage: Funding for a Proven Success in Global Development on Hold in Kenya
- DFID Still Serious about Results: DfID’s Aid Review
2 Responses to “How to Cut U.S. Funding for Multilaterals? The UK Way.”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
July 28th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I don’t think it is that easy. In the UK, one main department–DFID–funds the 43 multilaterals and quasi-multilaterals, thefore the MAR. In the US, funding the multilaterals in not from one homogenous organisation. How do you measure the quality or “Value for Money” for a UN agency supplied by State versus IDA which is funded by Treasury or GAVI funded by (I’m not sure who? HHS?)
August 3rd, 2011 at 1:53 am
It would be interesting to add, as an overlay, an objective assessment of US development agencies. One might expect them to score high (at least on alignment with US objectives), but this is not a given. Such an overlay could contribute to the bilateral/multilateral discussion.