Global Development: Views from the Center
April 28, 2008
Debt Relief No Panacea, Birdsall Tells Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 01:26 PM
CGD President Nancy Birdsall praised the intent of new legislation (S. 2166) to expand debt relief to additional poor countries, but cautioned against the bill in its current form last week at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. She urged the U.S. to first pay nearly $900 million in arrears to the multilateral development banks and consider other mechanisms to help poor countries protect themselves from external shocks, including natural disasters and sudden increases in food, oil or other commodity prices.
In her testimony, Birdsall argued that debt relief is a highly efficient form of aid and has helped foster social progress and economic growth in low-income countries, but cautioned that debt relief itself is not a panacea:
Debt relief alone does not generate growth or guarantee an escape from poverty. Debt relief and aid can help support countries struggling to develop their own more accountable political and economic institutions -- but it is those institutions and a country's own policies that ultimately matter for generating sustained private sector-driven growth and shared development. Nor has or should debt relief be considered a substitute for traditional aid programs.
Birdsall raised concerns that the new legislation could put pressure on countries to opt into the program, potentially preventing them from obtaining access to private capital markets. She also said the legislation risks undermining already weakened U.S. credibility with its traditional allies in the donor community:
It assumes and calls for internal financing of new debt relief obligations by the multilateral banks that are owned in common with other nations at a time when the U.S. has not fulfilled its own commitments on existing debt relief programs and to the multilateral development banks themselves.
Birdsall said that U.S. arrears to the multilateral development banks total nearly $872 million, including $385 million to the World Bank's International Development Association, which provides grants and low-interest loans to the world’s poorest countries.
She argued that because new debt write-offs rely on internal financing by the World Bank and multilateral development banks, they could end up robbing Peter to pay Paul -- that is financing debt relief for some poor countries on the backs of other poor and relatively poor countries.
A similar balance of support for the intent of debt relief but strong caution against expanding the program before completing and paying for the first round of debt relief was struck by Clay Lowery, assistant secretary for international affairs with the Treasury Department, in his testimony on behalf of the administration. He argued "debt relief can be a valuable tool to help the poorest, most heavily indebted countries," but "is most appropriate when the debt itself is a barrier to development," which is not the case for the countries targeted in the latest Jubilee bill.
Rather than embark on expanded debt relief, the United States should focus on three things. First it should fulfill its commitments to current debt relief initiatives and meet our other multilateral commitments. Second, it should continue to provide direct development assistance to poor countries through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms aimed at increasing economic growth and reducing poverty. Finally, we need to find ways to work with countries to build their capacity to handle more open trade and investment.
Birdsall was joined by two other non-government witnesses at the hearing: Gerry Flood, counselor with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (see testimony) and Peter B. Henry, professor with the Stanford University Graduate School of Business (see testimony). Flood strongly endorsed the legislation, saying that the countries eligible for expanded debt relief "have high levels of poverty and thus need to maximize the amounts of resources they can marshal to promote human development." But he also acknowledged that debt relief alone was not a panacea.
Henry also praised the overall goal of the bill, but said "debt relief promotes investment and growth when debt overhang inhibits a country's economic performance" but that debt overhang -- owing more money to creditors than a country is able to pay -- was not the main impediment to growth and poverty reduction in the countries named in the new Jubilee bill. He argued that weak institutions and infrastructure were principle problems in these countries and that debt relief would not achieve the growth and poverty reduction desired and that it would ultimately amount to:
…a Pyrrhic victory: a symbolic win for advocates of debt relief that clears the conscience of the rich countries but leaves the real problems of the poor countries unaddressed.
Birdsall suggested three ways to improve the current legislation. The bill could:
1. Call on the U.S. Treasury to clarify the process for judging poor countries' ability to borrow, and provide grants, not loans, to countries with very low per capita incomes ($500 and less) who have not managed to sustain growth (see CGD report The Hardest Job in the World: Five Crucial Tasks for the New President of the World Bank).
2. Encourage Treasury to work with the World Bank and IMF to provide temporary financing to relieve debt service burdens in the case of shocks to low-income countries' economies beyond their own control. Such a mechanism would allow low-income countries with good growth prospects to borrow on reasonable terms, while minimizing the risk of a new round of debt relief due to bad luck (see CGD policy brief Delivering on Debt Relief).
3. Allow for the U.S. to unilaterally write-off the U.S. bilateral debt of eligible IDA countries; such a provision could be triggered once the U.S. has fulfilled its existing international commitments.
While the House version of the bill was passed on April 16 it is now in the hands of the Senate. There are eight Republican and seventeen Democratic co-sponsors of the Senate bill, and there continues to be immense support for debt relief from church groups and other advocates around the country. Unfortunately only Sen. Casey (D-PA) attended the hearing, raising some question as to how committed the other Senators on the committee are to the legislation (see Sen. Casey's opening remarks).
Birdsall closed her testimony by urging the committee to ensure that the strong constituency for debt relief be channeled into demand for an overhaul U.S. foreign aid:
I hope that the next administration, together with the Congress, will find a way to reflect Americans' growing commitment to better lives in poor countries not only in debt relief programs, which are reaching their limits in any case, but via a broader set of development-friendly policies consistent with our national values and our interest in global as well as American security and prosperity.
She encouraged the committee to read the CGD Senior Fellow Steve Radelet's April 23 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee detailing how the U.S. could modernize U.S. foreign assistance. (For an account of that hearing, see Sheila Herrling’s blog posting).
Congressional Hearing Highlights Growing Consensus for Retooling U.S. Foreign Assistance
Posted by Sheila Herrling at 01:24 PM
Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, opened the first of a series of hearings on foreign assistance reform with a bold statement last Wednesday calling for major overhaul of the system. Says Berman:
It is painfully obvious to Congress, the Administration, foreign aid experts, and NGOs alike, that our foreign assistance program is fragmented and broken and in critical need of overhaul. I strongly believe that America's foreign assistance program is not in need of some minor changes, but, rather, it needs to be reinvented and retooled in order to respond to the significant challenges our country and the world faces in the 21st century.
Chairman Berman then laid out an ambitious agenda of issues and actions for the Committee over the next year, including working with the incoming Administration to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, a bill that has not been reauthorized since 1985 and is not crafted to meet the challenges and the opportunities of the 21st century.
CGD Senior Fellow Steve Radelet was among four experts to testify before the Committee, urging Congress and the Executive branch to seize the moment for modernizing U.S. foreign assistance. Says Radelet:
The recognition of today's great foreign policy challenges, the broad agreement on the importance of foreign assistance as a critical foreign policy tool, the successes we are seeing around the world in economic and social development, and the upcoming change in administration creates the best opportunity in decades for modernizing and strengthening our foreign assistance programs… Taking up this important challenge will enhance the leadership role of the United States in the world, strengthen our ability to forge alliances to achieve our broader goals, enhance our security, and help fight poverty around the world.
Testimony from other witnesses -- Lael Brainard of Brookings, Ray Offenheiser of Oxfam and former Congressman Jim Kolbe -- similarly pushed for a major overhaul of U.S. foreign assistance, including the need for a national strategy for global development and a new foreign assistance Act.
The hearing was an important first step by the Committee to build awareness, build bridges -- both bipartisan and bicameral -- and build a 21st century strategy that elevates global development and foreign assistance in our national interest. Key take-aways:
- The large turnout (more than 20 members of Congress) gives reason for optimism that foreign assistance modernization has a growing constituency. However, the relatively few Republicans in attendance (two stayed for the full hearing), suggests that additional efforts are needed to build a bipartisan coalition for change.
- Among those who attended, there was surprisingly strong consensus on the need for reform, with particular emphasis on redefining priorities for foreign assistance. Most members focused on the merits of rewriting (or at least revising through reauthorization) the Foreign Assistance Act; most members supported the need for organizational improvement and inter-departmental collaboration but believed the political lift required for a new Cabinet-level Department might prove too much given competing demands.
- There were several calls for strong monitoring, evaluation and results reporting of U.S. foreign assistance. Indeed, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen raised the need for an independent evaluation agency. (Sounded an awful lot like CGD's International Initiative for Impact Evaluation -- "3IE").
All in all, a good turn-out and a good dialogue on the key elements of a comprehensive effort to modernize U.S. foreign assistance. For CGD's research and analysis on this issue, visit our Modernizing U.S. Foreign Assistance Initiative site.
April 04, 2008
Note to Senator Clinton: A Poverty Czar Not Just for the United States but for the World!
Posted by Vijaya Ramachandran at 05:30 PM
In Memphis today, Senator Clinton called for a Cabinet-level poverty czar. This person would be "solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it, that will focus the attention of our nation on this issue and never let it go."
Why not make this a position that would focus on ending poverty both in the United States and around the world? My CGD colleagues, Steve Radelet and Nancy Birdsall, make a strong case for a cabinet level position on international development . We know that the future of the United States is inextricably linked with the fortunes of the rest of the world, so perhaps the two positions could be combined? Just something to ponder on a day when we remember Dr. King and his legacy.
March 12, 2008
New House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman Vows to Reassert Authorizers Role in Overhaul of U.S. Foreign Assistance
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 03:13 PM
Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) was officially appointed chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, filling the vacancy left by former chairman Tom Lantos who passed away in February. In a press release from the committee, Berman says his highest priority will be to reassert the role of Congress, and specifically the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in developing a foreign policy that reflects U.S. national interests and is true to its values. He explains:
I believe it is extremely important for the Foreign Affairs Committee to increase its legislative activity. I intend, in the next Congress, to work with the Senate to resume the practice of passing foreign aid and State Department authorizations bills, both of which are essential for strengthening the tools of effective diplomacy. I also expect to begin laying the groundwork for a major overhaul of U.S. assistance to other countries. I want to explore how we can make foreign aid more effective, ensure that our money isn't wasted or diverted, and make sure we get the best bang for our buck.
For those needing a quick refresher, congressional authorizers (i.e. the House Foreign Affairs Committee) are traditionally meant to set policy while appropriators (i.e. the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs) are meant to allocate dollars. However, the U.S. has not passed a comprehensive foreign assistance authorization bill since 1985. In the absence of an authorization bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill has been the primary tool for congressional oversight and involvement in U.S. foreign affairs. A Congressional Research Service report explains the result:
Foreign operations spending measures developed by the appropriations committees increasingly have expanded their scope beyond spending issues and played a major role in shaping, authorizing, and guiding both executive and congressional foreign aid and broader foreign policy initiatives. It has been largely through foreign operations appropriations that the United States has modified aid policy and resource allocation priorities since the end of the Cold War.
The diminished role of congressional authorizers in U.S. foreign assistance policy has been cited in the numerous reports, including the recent HELP Commission report and in CGD's Modernizing U.S. Foreign Assistance initiative. Berman's commitment to address these issues and reassert the House Foreign Affairs Committee's role in authorizing U.S. foreign assistance policy is welcome news to many of those tracking efforts to make U.S. foreign assistance policy smarter and stronger.
March 06, 2008
Retired Military "Brasstops" Call for Elevation of Development and Diplomacy in U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 05:40 PM
This morning, the House Foreign Affairs Committee convened its members to discuss with Defense Secretary Robert Gates the "persistent imbalance between U.S. funding for defense and diplomacy." According to a House Foreign Affairs Committee press release Chairman Berman referred to President Bush's 2002 National Security which affirmed that diplomacy and development are as important as defense. Berman said:
We cannot win the fight against extremists by proverbially tying one arm behind our back. We need to deploy America's finest engineers, development experts and diplomats in the campaign for reconstruction and stabilization in vulnerable countries. I welcome Secretary Gates' advocacy to help bolster the civilian agencies best suited for that fight.
As my colleagues reported in a January blog, Secretary Gates has called for more resources and a new approach to development in which the United States would devote more resources and create new institutions for nonmilitary means of influence abroad: diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development.
Secretary Gates is no longer the only member of the military community calling for the elevation of development and diplomacy as cornerstones of U.S. global engagement. Yesterday, retired U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni and retired U.S. Navy Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr. spent the morning testifying for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on "Strengthening National Security through Smart Power -- A Military Perspective," and later that afternoon launched the Center for U.S. Global Engagement’s National Security Advisory Council comprising more than 50 retired three and four-star generals and admirals representing all branches of the armed forces who call for the use of "smart power" which would strengthen America's national security strategy with increased use of non-military tools.
In their joint testimony, Zinni and Smith ask:
Why would a Marine and a former Navy attack pilot come to this committee to support the budget for the State Department, for USAID, and the civilian activities of our government that impact the lives of people around the world?
We are here because from our time on the front line of America's presence in the world, we know that the U.S. cannot rely on military power alone to keep us safe from terrorism, infectious disease and other global threats that recognize no borders.
They cite the military's strengths, such as logistics and organization to respond to humanitarian crises and maintain security, but argue it "cannot reform government, improve as struggling nation's economic problems, or redress political grievances," and that the U.S. urgently needs a new and vibrant strategic direction for its national security and foreign policy which is "not only the right thing to do, but is squarely in our national interest."
Zinni and Smith urge the U.S. Congress and presidential candidates to start considering now the many options for modernizing the U.S. foreign assistance and national security apparatus that have been posited in the bipartisan reports from RAND, the 9-11 Commission, the HELP Commission, the CSIS Smart Power Commission study, and the Center for U.S. Global Engagement’s Smart Power Policy Framework. In their closing statement at the Senate hearing, Zinni and Smith say:
It is time to rethink and rebalance our investments to create a better, safer world. It is time to deploy smart power, and increase our support for global health, development and diplomacy. We and our military colleagues stand ready to support you in this effort. We look forward to the day when both the Senate and the House come together with the president and his/her administration to see the Defense Authorization, the State Department Authorization and the Foreign Assistance Act as three equally vital components of a new strategic triad for our country's leadership in the world.
Liz Schrayer, executive director of the Center for U.S. Global Engagement, coined a new term for these military voices: brasstops. Distinct from the "grassroots" and "grasstops" many development groups are used to working with, these "brasstops" are now being referred to by some congressional staff as "the development community's strongest advocates for modernizing U.S. foreign assistance." With statements like those above, it's hard to imagine more powerful endorsements. The question is: will Congress and the next administration heed the call?
UPDATE
[Update Friday, March 7, 2008: My CGD colleague Stewart Patrick and Susan E. Rice (a senior fellow on leave from the Brookings Institution) wrote an op-ed in today's Washington Post called "The ‘Weak States' Gap" which discusses their recent "Index of State Weakness in the Developing World" and further iterates the call for strengthening U.S. civilian agencies.
Unfortunately, the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday approved only $35.7 billion in funding for the FY09 international affairs budget. This is a $4.1 billion decrease from the administration's $39.8 billion request, a $2.6 billion decreases from the FY09 House Budget Resolution level of $38.3 billion and a $1 billion decrease from the FY08 enacted level of $36.7 billion. The U.S. Global Leadership Campaign explains this is "the largest total dollar and percentage decrease from the administration's request in over a decade." While the House and Senate will debate the budget resolutions next week, these initial numbers indicate that the Senate has yet to heed the calls from the brasstops and other "smart power" advocates, and even the administration, in terms of increasing resources as one means to elevate development and diplomacy in U.S. foreign affairs. ]
February 27, 2008
President Bush's African Slide Show
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 09:13 AM
Yesterday President George Bush reported on his recent trip to Africa to members of the diplomatic corps, NGOs, and development policymakers at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. at an event hosted by the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation. President Bush relayed the details of what he called his "most exciting, exhilarating and uplifting trip" since becoming president and showed slides from his visits to Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia. He argued Americans should be "mighty proud" of the work the U.S. is doing in Africa and made a final plea for Congress to fully and promptly fund U.S. development programs and for presidential candidates of both parties to make engagement with Africa an enduring priority of the United States. (See full remarks and video)
As the president narrated the photos with anecdotes from his trip, there were mentions of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief PEPFAR), malaria initiative and the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) amidst commentary on the photos of the stuffed lion given to him by Tanzanian President Kikwete (Bush worried that his dog Barney might be "slightly intimidated"); the stylish dresses worn by several Tanzanian women (bearing images of George Bush); and how happy their audience in Accra was to see him (but, according to Bush, "even more excited to see [their] surprise guest, reigning American Idol Jordin Sparks"). All this made for an entertaining presentation but a major policy speech it was not.
When a U.S. president travels to Africa and then takes time to deliver a speech devoted entirely to U.S. relations with the continent, it somehow seems churlish to be critical. After all, this sort of prioritization of development issues is exactly what the development community would like to see.
Still, I suspect that, like me, many of the 400+ people who attended the speech left feeling ambivalent. On the one hand, it's great that the president is talking about global development, the U.S. relationship with Africa and his signature assistance programs. No one doubts that these programs have significantly increased the flow of resources to Africa and provided opportunity for experiments with innovative delivery mechanisms. On the other hand, there was little if any new information or agenda and there was something vaguely unsettling about the broad brushstrokes and glossy pictures. Listening to the speech felt like looking over vacation photos with the president. I sensed that much of the audience, who were either from Africa or know the continent very well, appreciated the president's attention but had been hoping for something more: a coherent vision of the reasons for U.S.engagement with Africa and the development process more broadly, and a clear sense of what should be done next.
Though few new announcements came out of the presentation, President Bush iterated his administration's calls for Congress to:
Reauthorize PEPFAR and double the initial commitment to $30 billion over the next 5 years; Provide 5.2 million new insecticide-treated bednets to prevent malaria; Offer $100 million for "African nations willing to step forward and serve the cause of peace in Darfur"; Spend $350 million to target neglected tropical diseases like river blindness and hookworm; and Ensure full and prompt funding for U.S. development programs (in the FY09 budget).
President Bush also said that it is in the U.S. interest to "open up trade and deal with subsidies and trade-distorting tariffs" and that he is "firmly dedicated to coming up with a successful Doha Round to make trade freer and fairer." He noted that Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf had come to the U.S. for some of her schooling and that "the more people who come to get educated in the United States from abroad, the better off our country will be." Again, while I am thrilled to see U.S. trade and migration policies raised as policies affecting global development, I was disappointed that there seemed to be an assumption that all our aid, trade, migration and other policies related to Africa automatically add up to one big good. In reality, the U.S. gives some assistance with one hand, takes some back with some trade policies, and does a little of both with migration policies. I left wanting a little more vision of how to make U.S. foreign assistance, trade, migration and other policies compliment each other and add up to a real development strategy.
For me it comes down to a question of how much expertise, nuance and leadership it is reasonable for an audience of development policymakers and practitioners to expect from a presidential speech. President Bush deserves credit for his work on Africa, the new programs created during his administration, and for raising other rich world policies like trade and migration that affect developing countries. But just as President Bush urged presidential candidates of both parties to make engagement with Africa an enduring priority of the United States, I urge them to take advantage of an audience that is eager for more substantive leadership on the complex and competing development policy issues, and for a more comprehensive approach to U.S. foreign assistance.
Clearly there are readers out there who are from, have lived in, or have worked with the African countries President Bush visited. You are doing the real work beyond the red carpets and greetings that accompany a presidential trip. How would you like to see the next American president make engagement with Africa and global development an enduring priority of the United States?
February 04, 2008
Henrietta Fore Announces Plan to Overhaul U.S. Foreign Assistance
Posted by Sheila Herrling at 01:17 PM
On Friday, USAID Administrator and Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance Henrietta Fore unveiled to a standing-room-only CGD audience her much-awaited strategy for revitalizing our outdated foreign assistance apparatus in a speech titled Foreign Assistance: An Agenda for Reform. Four major actions drive her modernization plan:
- Increasing the foreign assistance budget to meet the challenges of the 21st century to ensure "that development is an equal and essential element of our national security strategy and budget";
- Rebuilding the capacity of USAID -- the FY09 budget released today requests the largest personnel increase ever, a doubling of the USAID training budget and a "surge capacity" to respond rapidly in crisis situations;
- Streamlining budget and planning processes, with a shifting of emphasis to the field; and
- Reestablishing U.S. intellectual leadership on foreign assistance.
This last item is particularly important. However the organizational boxes are eventually arrayed, having a clearly articulated strategy that enjoys broad public support across the political spectrum will be crucial to any successful reform effort. Fore described her program this way:
We need to reclaim the mantle of foreign assistance intellectual leadership. This will include activities such as developing a multi-year Global Assistance Strategy, developing multi-year country strategies and developing the first Economic Growth Strategy for USAID… A common framework and definitions supports better program coordination, clearer communication as to what we budget and plan to achieve across agencies and a more productive discussion over competing priorities....(1 minute 50 seconds).
The new Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance seems to believe, like a growing number of development experts and policymakers, that now is the time to seize the opportunity of many voices together calling to elevate global development and foreign assistance as national interest priorities. What will it take? Fore seems to suggest that organizational structure (see, for example, the Birdsall and Radelet call for a Cabinet-level Department of Global Development), isn't the most important element of reform. More important in her view is forging a new alliance between the Executive branch, Congress and special interest groups to change the way we do our foreign aid business:
We are ALL accountable for being a part of the solution -- focusing less on defending specific regions, specific sectors, and specific programs -- and more on reform priorities that meet the most critical needs at ground level. I believe we have an opportunity, right here and now, to build a new American constituency for global development (30 seconds).
Modernizing U.S. foreign assistance is a tall order with a short delivery time for Fore and her team. But I think they are teeing up a respectable effort for the next administration to run with. And while the debate will certainly continue over how to structure the organization for managing foreign assistance, it is remarkable that there is such broad agreement on a set of modernization principles that can be pursued regardless of the organizational structure: elevating global development's status as a national interest priority; aligning foreign assistance policy, operations, and budgets; committing sufficient and flexible resources with accountability for results; and rationalizing organizational structures.
We at CGD are vitally interested in this process. Indeed, it is at the core of our mission to improve the rich world's development policies and practice. To this end -- and to bring together in a single place our ongoing work, information, and advice on U.S. foreign assistance reform efforts, CGD launched a new initiative last week, Modernizing U.S. Foreign Assistance. Let us know what you think!
January 28, 2008
Why the Next U.S. President Should Create a Cabinet-Level Department of Global Development
Posted by Nancy Birdsall at 01:28 PM
*This is a joint post with Steve Radelet
The extraordinary challenges and opportunities of today require a new vision of American global leadership based on the strength of our core values, ideas and ingenuity. They call for an integrated foreign policy that promotes our values, enhances our security, helps create economic and political opportunities for people around the world, and restores America's faltering image abroad. We cannot rely exclusively or even primarily on military might to meet these goals. Instead, we must make greater use of all the tools of statecraft through "smart power," including diplomacy, trade, investment, intelligence, and a strong and effective foreign assistance strategy.
In today's world, foreign assistance is a vital tool for strengthening U.S. foreign policy and restoring American global leadership. Foreign policy experts on both sides of the political aisle now recognize the importance of strong foreign assistance programs. But they also recognize that our foreign assistance programs are out of date and badly in need of overhaul to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
In 2004, as members of the CGD-sponsored Commission on Weak States and US National Security, we recognized the need for rebuilding the mission, mandate and organizational structure of our outdated foreign assistance apparatus to meet today's foreign policy challenges, particularly our institutions and policies focusing on global development. We called for it then, welcome the more recent calls, and say again: It's time for the United States to establish a new Cabinet-level Department of Global Development.
We hope that our next President will believe, as we do, that investing in global development is an investment in America's future -- strengthening its security, its economic opportunities, and its moral values. And that establishing a Department of Global Development to manage our foreign assistance -- both bilateral and multilateral -- and other development policy instruments would streamline the currently fragmented bureaucracy, reduce duplication, strengthen our ability to align major programs with our key objectives, and leverage U.S. dollars and influence to get results. It would establish development as the primary mission of US foreign assistance, elevating development to equal standing with diplomacy and defense as the three key pillars of U.S. foreign policy.
Because development is about more than development assistance, the new Department would have a mandate for policy coherence on the full range of US policies affecting poor countries, such as trade, environment, migration, and debt. It would facilitate the professionalization of a core of development expertise within the U.S. government on issues of public health, climate change, agriculture, institutional development, education, infrastructure, clean water, and other development issues. It would allow for the independence necessary to ensure that short-term political goals do not crowd out long-term development objectives.
Creating a new Department will be a heavy lift politically, and will take significant efforts on the part of both the new administration and Congress. But it would create a powerful new instrument for U.S. global leadership. We hope that momentum continues to build and that these ideas feature prominently in the 2008 presidential campaigns. It's time for the U.S. to take a smarter and stronger approach to building a better, safer world.
January 18, 2008
Pentagon Chief Robert Gates Calls for More Resources, New Approach to Development
Posted by Sheila Herrling at 03:23 PM
*This is a joint post with Steve Radelet
Yesterday in an interview with NPR, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a strong and smart argument for supporting American troops. No surprises there, right? Except for the fact that he is defending the build-up of civilian troops -- our diplomatic and development corps -- to be America's front line of defense in fighting global poverty and insecurity. Much as he did in his brilliant speech at Kansas State University in November, Gates encourages the United States to devote more resources and create new institutions for nonmilitary means of influence abroad: diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. His message:
If we are to meet the myriad challenges around the world in the coming decades, this country must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially, and create the capability to integrate and apply all of the elements of national power to problems and challenges abroad.
And, how specifically do we elevate global development policy in the national interest? Says Gates:
What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security -- diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development....The way to institutionalize these capabilities is probably not to recreate or repopulate institutions of the past such as AID or USIA. On the other hand, just adding more people to existing government departments such as Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Justice and so on is not a sufficient answer either -- even if they were to be more deployable overseas. New institutions are needed for the 21st century, new organizations with a 21st century mind-set.
Gates's clarion call is the latest and most high-profile expression of growing consensus among development, foreign policy, and security experts that new institutions are needed to address 21st Century challenges. Others who have urged structural changes in the U.S. government to strengthen development and diplomacy include: the CGD-sponsored Commission on Weak States and National Security (2003); the Center for U.S. Global Engagement's Smart Power: Building a Better, Safer World (July, 2007); a press release from some dozen members of the Council on Foreign Relations (November, 2007); the CSIS Smart Power Commission (November, 2007); and, most recently, the long-awaited HELP Commission Report on Foreign Assistance Reform (December, 2007).
What is remarkable, and long overdue, is for the Secretary of Defense to be calling for greater resources and new institutions for non-defense foreign policy tools. It is the one of the clearest signs yet that momentum is building to elevate development as a national interest priority and to give that priority the stature, resources, organizational structure, and legislative backbone that it needs to succeed.
December 12, 2007
Beyond the HELP Commission
Posted by Sheila Herrling at 10:57 AM
*This is a joint post with Sarah Jane Hise
On Monday, the HELP Commission released its much-anticipated final report, "Beyond Assistance." The Commission, created by an Act of Congress spearheaded by Congressman Wolf (R-VA) in January 2004, certainly achieved its mission -- to conduct a thorough review of current U.S. foreign assistance efforts and make bold recommendations for mechanisms, structures and incentives to empower recipients and meet U.S. national security and foreign policy goals and objectives. The fact that such a diverse group of political and other interests could agree that foreign assistance is vital to U.S. interests but is broken and needs to be rebuilt in a way that elevates development to more equal footing with diplomacy and defense is music to our ears. As were most of the guiding principles and specific recommendations put forth by the Commission, including:
- consolidating the disarray of organizations, purposes and accounts of assistance;
- rewriting the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to establish a new compact on foreign assistance;
- enhancing policy coherence, particularly by aligning U.S. trade and development policies;
- increasing resources -- staff, management training, and budget -- for foreign aid;
- ring-fencing long-term development assistance from redirection to short-term security and policy needs;
- encouraging greater investment in economic growth, agriculture and infrastructure programs;
- removing trade restrictions that hamper development, including reducing U.S. agricultural subsidies and providing duty-free/quota-free access for Millennium Challenge Account countries and for countries with $2000 per capita GDP;
- reestablishing an independent Office of Monitoring and Evaluation to track performance and report results; and
- instituting a Quadrennial Development and Humanitarian Assistance Review.
As good as these recommendations are, and as good as it is that a diverse group of influential individuals support them, most have already been captured in other efforts that launched throughout the two-year life span of the HELP Commission -- Brookings/CSIS' Security By Other Means, CSIS's Smart Power Commission, the Center for U.S. Global Engagement's Impact '08, and Senator Lugar's Committee Staff Report, Embassies Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid -- as well as CGD's Commission on Weak States and National Security that preceded it. And so at the report's launch the majority of discussion centered on the few areas of dissent instead of the many and rich areas of agreement.
Regrettably, though not surprisingly, the diverse group could not reach consensus on the organizational structure to manage the reformed foreign aid strategy.
The report ended up with three options:
- A majority position supporting a "super State Department" with four functional under secretaries -- political and security affairs; economic affairs, development and trade; humanitarian services and stabilization; and public diplomacy and consular affairs;
- A minority report by three commissioners who argue for a cabinet-level department for international development; and
- An option of folding development programs into the Department of State.
While neither of us are fans of the majority position -- nor the recommendation in the report to create a unified national security budget that combines the current defense (050 account) and international affairs (150 account) budgets in order to secure more support and more resources for foreign assistance in the short run -- perhaps what is most regrettable is that it is yet another report that does great good in terms of raising the profile of foreign assistance but that falls short of a unanimously supported, core set of policy proposals linked to a targeted advocacy and political strategy to unite the development community and lead to meaningful foreign aid reform.
The HELP Commission and Lugar reports signal, yet again, interest in foreign aid reform in Congress, however the HELP Commission closed up shop on December 7 and Republican and Democratic congressional staff alike seem to be placing their bets on the next U.S. president for leading the charge on foreign aid reform. While some presidential candidates are starting to roll out positions on exactly this topic, as reported in prior CGD blog posts on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, the next president will need leaders in not only the executive branch, but also champions in the U.S. Congress and support from the American people.
For us, the question comes down to this: is there something different about the present moment? Unlike past attempts at reform, have we finally reached the point where executive and legislative branches and vested interests in the development community are really open to making bold changes in the status quo of government operations and foreign assistance to bring about real reform? And are the American people, the Congress, and the next president ready and willing to take the agenda forward, recognize and position foreign assistance at the heart of U.S. government and national interests for a better, safer world? Or will we risk sacrificing the bulk of recommendations we all agree on for the one where disputes remain?
Getting it right this time is at the top of our holiday wish lists. Here's hoping for a widely-shared New Year's resolution that we’ll let "auld" disputes be forgot, we'll take a cup of kindness yet, and work for real foreign aid reform.
December 06, 2007
Hillary Clinton Releases Her Global Development Agenda
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 02:41 PM
Late last week, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her global development agenda, promising to fight HIV/AIDS, end malaria deaths, continue her leadership on basic education for all, expand women's opportunity and children's health, eliminate poor country debt, and improve U.S. development assistance. Advance market commitments for vaccines and consideration of a cabinet-level poverty and international development agency are also part of her global development agenda.
The Clinton campaign says:
America has a long and proud history of fighting poverty and encouraging economic development around the world. But that commitment has lagged relative to our own wealth, and in comparison with other prosperous nations. We need again to reclaim this great tradition, which is a testament to the kindness, generosity, and wisdom of the American people. America has long represented the ideal of opportunity. We must once again reclaim our leadership in promoting opportunity around the world. We do this first and foremost because it is right. And we do it also because it is smart. Gnawing hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair. Globalization is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within societies and between them. Today, there are more than two billion people living on less than $2 a day.
Committing to global development because it is right and it is smart are dual rationales echoed in the Center for U.S. Global Engagement's Impact 08 framework, Smart Power: Building a Better, Safer World, ONE Vote 08's campaign, and CGD's own Global Development Matters website.
Other highlights of Clinton's global development agenda include:
1. Investing $50 billion for global HIV/AIDS by 2013 to ensure universal access to treatment, prevention and care.
2. Committing to the goal of ending all deaths from malaria in Africa, beginning with a $1 billion per year investment in addition to U.S. commitments to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and encouraging the use of research prizes and advance market commitments to spur innovation to address diseases in poor countries.
3. Continuing Hillary Clinton's leadership in achieving free basic education for all, with a specific focus on girls in poor countries and the opportunities created through secondary as well as primary education.
4. Increasing women's involvement in economic, political, and social sectors around the world as a tool for development and expanding access to health care, reducing maternal mortality and improving access to reproductive health and family planning services.
5. Improving health and opportunity for children through investments in nutrition, vaccines, public health and anti-trafficking.
6. Eliminating debts of the poorest countries including complete debt cancellation for all Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and expanding HIPC to an additional 20 poor countries.
7. Maximize the impact of U.S. development assistance by spending an additional 1% of the U.S. budget on foreign assistance; reviewing all U.S. foreign assistance efforts, in consultation with field experts, and considering consolidating program authority under a single cabinet-level poverty and international development agency; improving coordination with other donor countries; and better tracking, monitoring and evaluating U.S. funds for development assistance.
I again encourage my colleagues to comment further on the specifics of Clinton's proposals. I know they will applaud her support for advance market commitments for vaccines, and idea born out of CGD research, and will be interested in her consideration of a cabinet-level agency for development, and focus on girls' secondary as well as primary education. CGD senior fellow Kim Elliott has also taken notice of Clinton's trade policies that are not mentioned as part of her global development agenda, but will have a strong impact on poor countries (See: Senator Clinton's Disappointing Stance on Trade).
Clinton's global development agenda, released last Thursday, is a welcome addition to the proposals Obama announced two days earlier. I am reminded that John Edwards too put forward a global poverty proposal in March this year. So, we have three candidates talking about global development so far and three agendas we can now compare, discuss, and debate. I invite readers to send me any other statements they hear from the presidential candidates, and am hopeful that we will see similar announcements from the rest of the presidential hopefuls, on what we know is not a partisan issue.
December 03, 2007
Obama's Uncommon Commitment to Global Development
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 03:57 PM
The security and well-being of each and every American is tied to the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders, according to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The theme of global interdependence is the bedrock of Obama's new strategy for America's engagement in the world, in which global development matters, a lot.
Obama unveiled his new strategy (download full strategy document, PDF, 71k) for “Strengthening Our Common Security by Investing in Our Common Humanity” at a foreign policy forum in New Hampshire last week (video footage available here and news coverage in the Concord Monitor). The new strategy explains:
The United States should provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and common humanity. We must lead not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner. Extending an outstretched hand to others must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality, dignity, and worth of all people. It will require American leadership that leverages engagement and resources from our traditional allies in the G-8 as well as new actors, including emerging economies (e.g. India, China, Brazil and South Africa), the private sector and global philanthropy. Yet, while America and our friends and allies can help developing countries build more secure and prosperous societies, we much never forget that only the citizens of these nations can sustain them.
Obama's strategy reiterates a promise to double U.S. foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012 that my colleague Steve Radelet discussed in a CGD blog several months ago. Also of note are commitments to:
- Expand prosperity through investments in agriculture, infrastructure and economic growth so the benefits and burdens of globalization are shared equally and economic policy is seen as central to security policy;
- Create an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative to promote a Green Revolution in Africa in addition to other measures to increase poor farmers' access to agricultural markets;
- Establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund for primary education to help eliminate the “global education deficit”;
- Launch a Global Energy and Environment Initiative, create an Emerging Market Energy Fund, and spur the creation of an open-source, real-time mapping system to forecast the impacts of climate change country-by-county to address climate change and other global environmental challenges;
- Lead efforts to reform the International Monetary Fund and World Bank;
- Develop a rapid response fund for societies in transition;
- Invest in global health infrastructure, including creating health care systems that train and retain health care workers; and (last but not least)
- Coordinate and consolidate the twenty-some U.S. agencies currently involved in U.S. foreign assistance (including the Millennium Challenge Account and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) in a restructured and empowered U.S. Agency for International Development.
Obama was joined at the forum by his foreign policy advisers including Richard Danzig, former secretary of the Navy; Tony Lake, former national security adviser; Adm, John Hutson, former U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General; Samantha Power, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor of human rights and foreign policy; and Susan Rice, former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs. Together they discussed these and other ideas for U.S. global engagement should Obama become the next president.
Long before Obama's speech, the Center for Global Development and many other organizations including the ONE Campaign and Center for U.S. Global Engagement have been working to put global development onto the agenda of the 2008 presidential campaigns. This is indeed the focus of our Global Development Matters website and the documentary film footage it uses to tell the story of why global development matters for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
I encourage my CGD colleagues and others to comment further on the details of Obama's proposals and extend my own applause for the Obama campaign's vision and as yet uncommon commitment to addressing global development in the 2008 presidential campaigns. Sadly, Obama's foreign policy goals are no longer the headline on his campaign website, nor did they seem to make national press coverage this weekend. Here's hoping that other candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, start saying as much and more about their commitment to global development and their vision for America's role in the world, and that the media and others start taking notice.
November 08, 2007
AFRICOM: Can The Military Make Foreign Aid More Effective And Win Hearts And Minds?
Posted by Chris Blattman at 04:50 PM
Robert Kaplan of The Coming Anarchy fame (how scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism, and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of the planet, especially Africa) has a new short piece in The Atlantic on the US military's development of a central Africa Command, or AFRICOM.
Kaplan, like AFRICOM's sponsors, sees it as a basis for launching anti-terrorism operations, for promoting of good governance abroad, and (most significantly) for civilian-military cooperation in foreign aid. Such civil-military coordination in aid, it is argued, brings at least two key benefits: coordination of foreign policy goals and investments, and military expertise in logistics and security.
What is keeping us from realizing these gains? According to Kaplan, it is not the leaders of non-governmental organizations (or NGOs), but their "young and idealistic volunteers who must get over their inherent distrust of the American military." After seven years of working with humanitarian and development organizations in the field, I can confirm the widespread misgivings about the military among NGO volunteers, employees, and leaders--young and old alike. Let us consider, however, that these experienced men and women may have a point. In my personal blog, I take a close look at Kaplan's argument. Here let me focus on just two main points.
First, the delivery of aid and assistance does indeed require complex logistics. What these humanitarian workers know from experience, however, is that speed and efficiency are not the hallmarks of effective and sustainable aid. Rather, effective assistance requires close community ownership and participation--itself largely a function of empowerment, trust, and participation. While the average aid agency often performs these tasks all too poorly, humanitarian workers fear that the military is not equipped to build such relationships (and may even undermine NGO efforts by association).
Second, we should be even more cautious of further co-mingling of humanitarian and foreign policy goals. Foreign aid can (and, according to the rules of realpolitik, should) work to promote American interests abroad. We should first ask, however, whether short-term military and foreign policy objectives are often or even sometimes consistent with our society's ideals of using aid to alleviate suffering and foster freedom.
For instance, recently I blogged about a USAID official who resigned from his position, disappointed that the U.S. aid machine was more focused on exporting the Homeland Security Act that is was with actual empowerment, development, or democratization. If true, is this the direction in which we want to further steer U.S. humanitarian policy?
More importantly, we should worry that further fueling the belief that U.S. aid is a tool for promoting American interests will taint that assistance with an aura of self-interest and manipulation rather than one of generosity. We must honestly ask ourselves if any loss in the trust and effectiveness of U.S. assistance is worth whatever individual security objectives are accomplished.
Overall, I worry that the U.S. military is trying to burnish its image by fastening itself to the one of last remaining American programs of esteem, support, and credibility abroad.
Let AFRICOM open. Let us celebrate its efforts to counter terrorism, to coordinate and support peacekeeping efforts, and to train and shore up professionalism in African militaries. Let us leave, however, the winning of hearts and minds to those most experienced and capable, and those unencumbered by weapons and the whiff of self-interest.
November 07, 2007
Templeton Foundation's Next Big Question Should Be: "How Can the Rich World Do Better?"
Posted by Nancy Birdsall at 02:07 PM
The Templeton Foundation's ad in Sunday's NYTimes, and the associated postings on the foundation's Web site asked "Will Money Solve Africa's Development Problems?" A quick glance at the distribution of answers is bound to cause some chagrin in the development aid world. Of the eight men asked, two said "yes," five said "no" or "no way" or "I thought so" (which I took as a 'no") and one hedged his bet with "only if."
But don't be deceived. The balance of the replies was not so much anti-aid as anti-official aid, and aid that supports free enterprise and entrepreneurial initiative. Except for James Shikwati CEO of The African Executive business magazine, none explicitly argued that that outsiders--or their money--should withdraw altogether.
For example, James Tooley (a "Yes") wants money to support private schools, not big public education bureaucracies.
Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank, seemed a surprise with his "No." But it turns out he was clever (for a Templeton Foundation sponsored conversation) to start with "No" and then segue into why "we must realize money is still needed" -- for infrastructure, education and to fight AIDs.
Michael Fairbanks ("I thought so"), co-founder of a group that provides grants for enterprise solutions to poverty, implied that helping works, but only if local leaders are really in charge (such as President Kagame in Rwanda).
Iqbal Quadir ("Only if"), founder of GrameenPhone in Bangladesh, suggested giving the money directly to citizens.
Edward Green ("No") was a real no. The Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard said that all the externally financed AIDS programs are on the wrong track because the Western biomedical model ignores "multiple, concurrent sexual partners" -- he cited Uganda's local initiative to change sexual norms as the alternative. (If you want to know how aid for AIDS is being spent, see Following the Funding for HIV/AIDS: A Comparative Analysis of the Funding Practices of PEPFAR, the Global Fund and World Bank MAP in Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia, a new report from CGD's HIV/AIDS Monitor team.
Ashraf Ghani, who served as finance minister in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban, said "Yes." He called for outside investment to focus on credible leaders and managers, local institutions, and regional infrastructure. But even Ghani started by decrying the current "uncoordinated and ineffective aid system," calling for reallocation of the $5 billion donors currently provide annually in technical assistance simply "to meet donor requirements."
Bill Easterly, a professor at NYU and a non-resident fellow here at the Center for Global Development, repeated his critique of the aid system -- but from other writing, such as The White Man's Burden, we know he favors some kind of aid under some circumstances.
Unfortunately the Templeton ad is more likely to sow more confusion than to create momentum for reform of the official aid business. Private initiatives are healthy. But the real challenge is how to fix official aid -- so it complements rather than undermining entrepreneurship in Africa. For more on that see my working paper: Do No Harm: Aid, Weak Institutions, and the Missing Middle in Africa and An Aid-Institutions Paradox?
A Review Essay on Aid Dependency and State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Todd Moss, Gunilla Pettersson, and Nicolas van de Walle.
October 03, 2007
More Reasons That Congress Should Reform US Food Aid
Posted by Kimberly Ann Elliott at 04:39 PM
This year's decline in food aid [due to high food prices] follows a period when the sharply escalating costs of shipping American-grown food aid to Africa and Asia already reduced the tonnage supplied. The United States Government Accountability Office reported this year that the number of people being fed by American food aid had declined to 70 million in 2006 from 105 million in 2002, mainly because of rising transportation and logistical costs.U.S spending on food aid doesn’t go as far as it used to. The ethanol and Chinese economic booms have caused commodity prices to soar; meanwhile; U.S. policy remains stubbornly rooted in the 1950s. Food aid began, in part, as a means of disposing of the surpluses the government accumulated when it was forced to buy up surplus crops to support farm prices. Though the government now pays billions of dollars in direct subsidies to farmers, instead, Congress still insists that the food aid budget be used to buy U.S. crops, which must be delivered to needy countries on U.S.-flagged ships. With prices for many agricultural commodities booming, the arguments for reforming U.S. food aid programs to ensure that limited dollars stretch as far as possible are stronger than ever. The Bush administration proposed putting $300 million from the food aid budget into a pilot program to buy food locally or regionally, so that more money goes to actually feeding hungry people. Some NGOs that benefited from receiving US food aid by reselling it to raise funds for development projects, have joined the chorus for reform.
Yet the House-passed bill contains no provision allowing for local purchases and it is not yet clear what the Senate will do on this issue. With commodity prices so high, farmers receive little or no benefit from the small amount of food bought by the government for food aid programs. But the third leg of the iron triangle against reform is not budging so far. Emmy Simmons, who has worked with the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa on a project to reform food aid put it succinctly in the New York Times, article quoted above:
"[T]he shipping guys are hanging tough.... They're defending that little chunk of revenue. They aren't super concerned whether you feed less people."
Apparently, neither do the key players in the U.S. Congress and that's a shame.
August 20, 2007
The Economics and Politics of CARE's Decision to Pass Up Millions in U.S. Food Aid
Posted by Steve Radelet at 04:17 PM
I join my colleague Rachel Nugent in offering Three Cheers for CARE Decision to Forego U.S. Food Aid!
U.S. food aid has a long and complicated history. Most people think of food aid as "doing good"—feeding the starving—and it is often used for this purpose. However, large amounts of food aid are sold to finance development projects, often administered by the U.S. or by NGOs. And, in the process, food aid can actually do harm.
Understanding the complexities of the issue is hugely important in general and, specifically, now. Congress is mid-way through debating a new five-year Farm Bill: the House passed a Farm Bill in July that did not address calls for reform in food aid to “do best” and the Senate will take up the bill this fall. For those interested in understanding the underlying issues on food aid, read on:
There are two critical issues—where it is bought and where it is sold. The U.S. government purchases food in the U.S. for food aid abroad and is required to ship it on U.S. carriers. This is obviously popular with farm states and with shipping lines, but it makes U.S. food aid much more expensive than if purchased in developing countries or shipped cost-effectively, adding as much as 30% to the cost. It can also lead to months-long delivery delays, which, during a humanitarian crisis, is ineffective. Two years ago, then USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios brought the issue of the purchase site to the forefront when he pushed for a policy that would allow USAID to allocate 25% of the food aid budget to buy food in developing countries. His proposal caused a political firestorm and ultimately was scrapped.
The second issue (and the focus of the NYT article) was the impact of the sale of food aid in developing countries. As the article points out, some see food sales as helping developing countries and others see it as hurting them. From an economic perspective, the answer depends to a significant degree on the extent to which food is imported into the local economy.
One situation is a country where very little food is imported and prices are determined by local supply and demand, where an increase in food aid in effect shifts out the supply of food and lowers its price (Figure 1). This can be good for consumers, particularly in a food shortage crisis—a point not emphasized in the NYT article—but it can undermine the income of local farmers. It is this situation that led to CARE's decision to phase out its receipt of food aid.
The second situation is a country that produces relatively little food (Figure 2). Here the vast majority of food is imported and the local price is determined by the price of imports. In this situation, food aid simply displaces imports and does not have a significant effect on either consumption or local farm production. In effect, it saves the country's foreign exchange since it doesn't have to pay for the imported food. In this situation, an NGO that receives U.S. food aid can sell it to a local trader and the money can be used to fund local development initiatives with little effect on food markets.
So, when can food aid make sense? First is when there is a humanitarian crisis and food is urgently needed to save lives. In this situation, it would be better if the U.S. had the flexibility to buy locally so its aid money could go further to save lives. For a nation that prides itself as a moral leader, it is ironic that this may not be politically feasible. The second situation is when sales of food aid displaces imports and does not adversely affect farmer income. This is an inefficient way to finance local development projects and it provides misleading data on the financial value of foreign aid. But, under these circumstances food aid doesn't damage local production and once again, inefficiency may be the price we pay to maintain political support within the U.S. Let's hope that the combination of the Natsios proposal last year and CARE's decision this year can spark a re-thinking of U.S. food aid so that it can better serve the purposes of saving lives and financing development.
August 13, 2007
Bill Easterly and Development
Posted by Dennis de Tray at 04:06 PM
Bill Easterly, in a recent Foreign Policy article, The Ideology of Development (subscription required), writes ominously that "a dark ideological specter in haunting the world," one in which "unelected outsiders imposing rigid doctrines on the xenophobic unwilling" and "favors collective goals such as national poverty reduction, national economic growth, and the global Millennium Development Goals, over the aspirations of individuals." He concludes that "Development ideology has a dismal record of helping any country actually develop." And finally that, "the only 'answer' to poverty reduction is freedom from being told the answer."
I've always wondered if Bill Easterly really thought the world would be a better place it there were no official development assistance. Having read this piece I'm pretty sure I know the answer: he does. Easterly's Foreign Policy article will convince most readers that Bill, along with the likes of Adam Lerrick and other critics of the aid business, believes that the only good development agency is a dead development agency. Put in a less incendiary way, as Nancy Birdsall says in a forthcoming review of Bill's most recent book, The White Man's Burden, "[r]eaders may conclude that…the only good option is to reduce aid altogether."
While I am an on-the-record critic of "business as usual" in doing development, I am truly puzzled by how anyone familiar with the developing world could reach this conclusion.
Finding the development community's record for the past 40 years wanting and concluding that the best development assistance is no development assistance, that all the world's poor need is the freedom to make their own mistakes, is simplistic and unsupported by fact or common sense. Bill is a researcher and I am a practitioner, so, I won't try to fight him on the historical evidence front. However, I have spent a great deal of time sitting in countries that were (and still are) struggling to develop, and I do know that the international community can help. No, it cannot run countries. No, it cannot, should not, and does not have a one-size-fits-all approach. No, it does not have "one correct answer." But it does have money and experience, and poor countries lack both.
Bill Easterly believes in incentives, and so do I. What's wrong with the international aid system is that the incentives that drive it are screwed up. If the international community wants something (better governance, gender equality, environmental protection, the Millennium Development Goals, equity, privatization, whatever) more than developing countries and their leaders do, expect bad outcomes. When donors set the agenda, they, not countries, become accountable. So, let's change the game. Let's make countries accountable. What we hold countries and countries' leadership accountable for will be different for the very poor and institutionally weak than for better off developing countries, but holding countries accountable for producing something with the money the rich countries and their agents supply is essential to fixing the aid system.
Bill wants a world where "poor counties are forging their own path toward greater freedom and prosperity…." I want that as well, because I believe it is the only practical way forward. But I also want a world in which the fortunate help the less fortunate find and forge that path. Quoting Nancy's review again, "[t]his is the moment to try to channel [a wave of enthusiasm for increasing aid] toward improving [the] aid system, not going around it."
July 27, 2007
U.S. Foreign Assistance Triumvirate Confirms Bolder Steps Needed; Fore Confirmation Uncertain
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 07:54 AM
At the first joint public appearance of the U.S. foreign assistance triumvirate this week, Henrietta Fore, acting director of foreign assistance and acting administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, John Danilovich, CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and Mark Dybul, U.S. global AIDS coordinator, argued U.S. foreign assistance reform is just beginning and this administration and the next must do more to fix our foreign assistance architecture. Fore's confirmation hearing, however, suggests this process may be slower than anticipated.
Speaking together at the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign and Center for U.S. Global Engagement's annual conference, the top three leaders of U.S. foreign assistance responded to questions from Brookings' Lael Brainard about the growing role of the Department of Defense in development (notably absent from the panel), the impact of expanding involvement of foundations and celebrities on the global poverty agenda, and what further steps must be taken to reform our foreign assistance.
The following stood out for me:
- Success of U.S. foreign assistance reform may depend on its communications strategy. The three foreign aid leaders were surprised to learn they had never before appeared together in public, speaking volumes about the attention they've given to outwardly portraying a more unified, strategic approach as the top spokespeople of three major U.S. foreign aid efforts. It also struck me that the strong support the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has from Congress and their constituents may be in part because Dybul positions the program as not just saving lives, but building health systems, creating broader development impacts such as child survival, and promoting economic prosperity, peace and security for the U.S. and developing countries--and he uses a hefty amount of data to back it all up. A similarly strong communications technique might serve the broader foreign assistance efforts well.
- As has been said before, bolder steps are needed to reform U.S. foreign assistance and those steps may depend on the next administration. CGD's Steve Radelet and others have argued deeper structural reforms of U.S. foreign assistance are needed (see Radelet's congressional testimony on foreign assistance reform). At the event this week, Fore said she was focused on leaving behind a "strong foundation for furthering foreign assistance." Jim Kunder, acting deputy administrator for USAID who filled in for Fore later in the panel, argued that we must clarify the "multiplicity of objectives" we currently have for foreign assistance including revising the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, considering creating a cabinet-level Department for Development Assistance, and mobilizing public understanding and support for U.S. foreign assistance. (Watch Jim Kunder and other conference footage).
At Fore's confirmation hearing, however, there was little discussion of these next steps outside a brief mention of the need for increased USAID operating expenses for the agency to regain its intellectual leadership (see Fore's remarks). The foreign assistance crowd in the audience appeared disappointed that much of the hearing focused more on Fore's past than on her future plans for foreign assistance reform. Specifically, questions examined:
- Allegations that twenty to thirty USAID employees attended two White House-organized political briefings focused on the domestic electoral landscape ("at risk" congressional districts, etc.). (See Washington Post article on briefings.)
- Fore's past management experience and specifically her diversity record and the passport fiasco. (See Washington Post articles on diversity record and passports.)
Senator Casey (D-PA) did question Fore on the fragmented U.S. foreign assistance structure, referencing a "spider chart" of the many agencies and organizations involved in foreign assistance as well as the Washington Post article on "Hill, Aid Groups: One Opaque System Replaced Another." Chairman Menendez (D-NJ) asked Fore to discuss the balance between counter-terrorism and poverty-alleviation priorities, how the poverty-alleviation goal would be evaluated and potential closing of USAID missions, but little was revealed in response. Senator Hagel (R-NE) focused on Iraqi resettlement in the U.S. and USAID programs in Afghanistan (and was disappointed to hear Fore list poppy eradication among the successes in Afghanistan). Both Menendez and Hagel demanded stronger, better answers from Fore and her confirmation clearly hinges on providing them.
If I were a betting woman, I'd put my chips on a slow confirmation process at best. What this means is that the U.S. foreign assistance process lacks momentum and much of the hope for significant progress may depend on the platforms of the 2008 presidential candidates. Efforts like Impact 08 recognize this and are urging the presidential candidates to put forth a bolder agenda for U.S. foreign assistance so that it can help build a better, safer, more prosperous America and world.
July 23, 2007
U.S. Foreign Assistance Reform Takes Center Stage
Posted by Sarah Jane Staats at 05:27 PM
Tomorrow will be a big day for U.S. foreign assistance reform. The day begins with a panel on "The Future of Foreign Assistance" at the annual conference of the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign and the Center for U.S. Global Leadership featuring the top three U.S. aid officials: Henrietta Fore, acting director of foreign assistance and acting administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development; John Danilovich, CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation; and Mark Dybul, U.S. global AIDS coordinator. In the afternoon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Henrietta Fore's appointment as USAID administrator.
Foreign assistance aficionados and skeptics alike are hoping that the double header will provide fresh insight into where U.S. foreign assistance reform efforts stand following Director of Foreign Assistance and USAID Administrator Randall Tobias's departure in April and recent congressional hearings highlighting concerns about the reform process, much of which was captured in a Washington Post article by Glenn Kessler on "Hill, Aid Groups: One Opaque System Replaced Another."
Among the concerns expressed by Congress and others about the reform process is that the administration-appointed director of foreign assistance lacked authority over two of the U.S.'s biggest foreign aid programs--the Millennium Challenge Account and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The morning joint appearance by Fore, Danilovich and Dybul may be part of an administration effort to address these concerns.
Further scrutiny of the foreign assistance reform efforts is expected in the afternoon during Fore's Senate confirmation hearing. Notably, the director of foreign assistance is not a Senate confirmed position, so the hearing is limited to Fore's confirmation to become administrator of USAID. Even so, the hearing is expected to focus on broader foreign assistance reform efforts. Among the questions that may be asked:
- What steps will Fore and the administration take to ensure our foreign assistance programs meet the challenges of the 21st century and strengthen America’s role in the world?
- Will Fore and the administration consider changes in the U.S. foreign assistance architecture, such as rewriting the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and/or creating a cabinet-level development agency?
- Will USAID shift its programmatic focus, towards weak states for example, and/or consider closing USAID missions?
- How does the current foreign assistance system ensure that U.S. policies for foreign assistance are aligned and not working at cross-purposes with U.S. policies for defense and security as well as trade, environment, and investment?
- Are the top ten recipients of U.S. foreign assistance in the FY2008 budget the right countries on which the U.S should be focusing the majority of its foreign assistance resources and what further steps will be taken to rationalize a budget based on country priorities, rather than sector-based approaches?
- How will U.S. foreign assistance efforts improve monitoring and evaluation so that it moves beyond tracking how money is spent to measure impact of U.S. development programs?
I’ll be at both events, and will report back with what I learn.
May 08, 2007
Administration Moves Quickly to Fill Behind Tobias
Posted by Sheila Herrling at 11:45 AM
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appointed Undersecretary of Management Henrietta Holsman Fore as acting Director of Foreign Assistance. The White House announced that the President has designated Ms. Fore acting USAID Administrator and his intent to nominate her for that post.
She's got a big job ahead of her to move forward the Adminstration's foreign aid reform agenda.