Print
Share
Get Out Your Calendar, Get Out Your Vote: Will We Have a USAID Administrator by Year’s End?
October 27, 2009
By Sheila Herrling
It is entirely possible that the U.S. will ring in the new year without a USAID Administrator in place. What was hard to believe at the 100 day mark (already behind the prior five Administrations) is now astonishing. So many pressing issues desperately in need of a full-time development voice at the White House decision making table from the very broad – how to restore America’s reputation in the world – to the very specific – how to seriously integrate an economic growth scenario into our Af-Pak strategy and how to execute our new promises in global health, food security and (soon) climate change.
No USAID Administrator in place at the end of the Obama Administration’s first year? It is indeed possible. Take out your calendar and work backwards with me. The last possible week for a confirmation in 2009 would be December 14th. This requires a Senate Foreign Relations Committee Business Meeting to vote the nominee through, the earliest of which would then be December 8th. Which means the actual confirmation hearing would need to occur the week of December 1st. Confirmation hearings are generally preceded by a two-week period of paperwork and vetting review by Congress, and “meet and greet” sessions with Congressional members and staffers, putting us at November 9th/10th (allowing for Thanksgiving recess week) for the Administration to send up a nominee. Which, given what we all now know about the vetting process, means if we are to have a USAID Administrator nominee by November 10th, it will likely need to be a candidate who has completed or is close to completing the vetting process.
Is it possible? What do you think? Are there risks to rushing to instate an already-vetted candidate? Are there already-vetted candidates you think could do the job? Send a message with your vote.
UPDATE: Due to a high number of write-in votes, Jack Lew and Rick Barton have been added to the poll.
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.
23 Responses to “Get Out Your Calendar, Get Out Your Vote: Will We Have a USAID Administrator by Year’s End?”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:44 am
The USAID is a joke–more for achieving strategic goals rather than international development.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:53 am
The different nominees have already been vetted. The Obama administration must finalize the screening and nominate someone now! There is very little time left to get the confirmation process going so that an Administrator is in place before 2009 ends.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
let’s get a nominee soon and the confirmation process started!
October 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
The Obama Administration is right to seek a “Big Name” that can bring a new type of attention, perhaps esteem, to USAID. All of the people on your list are terrific, talented individuals — but also are largely unknown to the American People. Paul Farmer would have been an interesting choice. Can Obama find someone who is well known to Americans, can inspire general public domestic support for development and global health, AND has a clue how to fix and run USAID? Not before the Administration One Year Mark, that’s for sure.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:24 am
I do not see the ambiguity of USAID not having an administrator. The question we need to ask ourselves is: What is the role of USAID in developping countries? If USAID(United States Agency for International development) was realy an agent of development of the third world countries, it is necessary for the Obama administration to find someone within the year; but, if USAID belongs to the group of U.S. companies like Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, Brown & Root, the Obama administration sould take all the time needed to find a talented individual to restore America’s reputation in the world.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Might as well cancel the USAID and use the MCC which is even more rigid and no so favourable to development
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
On a related topic.
I have been working on development issues for over 20 year, on policy, program design and execution. I understand that the Obama administration wants to use almost exclusively NGOS for the implementation of USAID projects. I think this could be a disaster, as they do not have the capabilities for execution of many projects, especially those for technical assistance and policy advice.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
It would be much more significant if the Obama administration used the opportunity they have now (without a USAID Administrator getting comfortable in the role) to sincerely explore options for foreign assistance reform. This would include a thorough assessment – and potentially an overall – of the way that US policy on international development is developed, set, communicated and implemented. This might point to the need for a different organizational and management structure – possibly without a “USAID Administrator” as such.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
It is a terrible shame and disappointment that the Obama administration has not appointed a USAID administrator yet. What message does this send about the place of development in U.S. foreign policy? Perhaps the message we should be taking away from this is the role of USAID in foreign policy, which is that of a small player. A greater role for State, and a lesser role for USAID. Maybe fine in the short run, but not a good precedent.
In any case, I don’t believe that the administration should stick to an already-vetted candidate in order to appoint someone pronto. I think they should choose the best candidate out there, even if it takes us into 2010. At this point, I think we’re looking at 2010 anyway.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Considering that the United States still does not have a new and confirmed Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs, and the negative long term reprecussions this is already having for U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere, I fail to see why appointing someone to head USAID is so important.
Given the pressing need to overhaul USAID so as to convert it into an agency that truly assists economic development and is not simply a cash machine for “beltway bandit” consulting firms, it is better that the post remain empty rather than just filling it with a bureaucrat who does not have a vision for how to effectuate long overdue reforms or is 100% committed to a genuine reform agenda.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by aidpost: the Obama administration – almost one year down, and still no USAID admin. http://bit.ly/NkwFO…
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Poor AID and poor aid. One doesn’t know whether to cry or be indifferent. The last success of AID was to drastically reduce aid to Korea in the early 1960s (it had been running at well over 10% of their GDP), resulting in the transformation of what appeared from Foggy Bottom (I was there at the time) to be a basket case into one of the two or three biggest development success stories of the post-WWII period. The MMC is just as bad or worse — instead of failure-destined projects designed by the donors, it deals with graft-purposed projects designed by the thieves. MMC sounded good on paper but in practice its main virtue is that it does very little.
Now that the aid-eligible world is pretty much down to the real basket cases of sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, Guyana, and a very few others — leaving out the Israel/Egypt cases –the rest having done well to moderately well on their own efforts plus increased trade and increased FDI (which were both causes and effects of those successes), any true development purposes could be much better met by some kind of scheme, maybe implemented by the World Bank which ain’t perfect either but at least functions, to support basic education and health care in these places and hope that the brain drain will be low enough that in one or two more generations maybe they can also improve their own situations.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
A strong and visionary leader is needed to transform USAID. It has been a moribund agency and lacks the ability to promote the cooperation for development between the United States and world. America is world’s largest knowledge economy and what the world wants to share is our knowledge. Unfortunately, what USAID puts on display for the world is only our mercantile interest disguised in development garb. USAID needs to be the thought leader for international cooperation for development. It is not our money but the power of ideas that will help change the world.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
The Administration should \fix\ USAID before trying to recruit an Administrator. (Horses for courses). USAID has been pulled in so many directions, the organization has lost its culture and sense of mission. Is it supporting idealistic and unsustainable global efforts in health, PepFar, education, etc., or is it making country specific, sustainable investments that attempt, over time, to assist developing countries to balance economic growth, cultural evolution and modernization stresses, corruption and governance tensions, etc. while incorporating themselves more closely into the international community? We need to decide!
An observation based on experience. Other developed countries have bilateral development programs. Some report to foreign ministries, some report to economic ministries. OECD/DAC attempts to review all member countries performance and policies in delivering foreign assistance. On the whole, bilateral assistance organizations reporting to foreign ministries perform much less well than do those led by economic ministries.
Another observation based on experience. A successful aid program requires an organization that adheres to business and relationship principles that we want developing countries to emulate and use as models. The organization has to know enough about each country in which it is financing projects (doing business) to conform to its business environment (even,perhaps while trying to improve it}; follow local personnel rules and expectations, understand the local contract environment, legal rules etc. It should be able to negotiate in that environment, deal with local contract issues, tort claims etc. without having the habit of relying on \diplomatic immunity\. That’s the foreign ministry model, but is not a model we would want the host country to assert – would we?
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
The Administration should take its time and finish its foreign aid review process and then hire the appropriate person that is knowledgeable on development, innovative, a real problem solver, deal maker, an able manager, and more importantly able and willing to use the influence of the whole USG as well as its allies to remove the same key development obstacles that have been around for decades (i.e. corruption,poor governance, and selfish elites). This person would need to be able to 1) implement the needed reform and energize the USAID staff support them, 2)focus on programs and partnerships that seek to transform rather than improve a development sector or problem, 3)focus less on service delivery which is something tha can be done through a congressional foundation and implemented by grants to PVOs and NGOs and more on USAID/USG staff/task forces implementing smaller more highly effective interventions 4)make the agency again a global development leader; and 5)know how to how to utilize all of the USG resources, skills, knowledge and influence to achieve the desired results and behavior needed establish good competent and committed goverments that are needed to lead and implement their countries national development strategies and programs to help develop their people.
More foreign aid/assistance doesn’t equal development. If it did, many NGOs and contractors getting billions of dollars to treat the symptons and not the causes of underdevelopment if they developing countries would be developed by now. More competent and innovative people, less funds, and more transformational strategies.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:55 am
It is a shame that there is no Administrator in place yet. But it would be a worse shame to limit the choice to already vetted candidates just to get someone in place as soon as possible. I am somewhat surprised that your tick tock ‘get out the calendar’ tone suggests otherwise.
USAID is a deeply discredited institution — that needs a visionary and strategic leader with clout, and informed backup from the Administration, to lead a radical and substantive transformation. If it takes another 6 months to get there, so be it.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I would prefer someone who has managed a large international aid agency and who has some direct experience on the ground. I’d prefer someone who has a passion to get things done quickly and who will buck the system to streamline how we do things and support AID doing things separate from State. Would be nice to see someone who isn’t all about the bureaucracy and more about the results.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
My vote would be for Admiral Tim Ziemer to be appointed to head USAID. He has had a stellar career including being a very successful head of the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)since its inception under President Bush.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Tim Zeimer, who heads the PMI has been successful in 2 Presidential administrations. He has shon the leadership characteristics in international affairs and has shown his abilities and understanding of foriegn affairs and needs both necessary qualities for this important position. He is not a politician and does remember that he is using US tax payer monies for the diplomatic and health needs of the world. I am very surprised that he was not listed by name.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Several brief comments. First, we do not have a clear development policy, and have been reactive rather than pro-active for years. Second, development policy should not be an arm of security policy, as it has been for yers. Third, USAID has become incestuous, as much in term sof policy and tactics as in the process of contracting (from firms with former USAID employees at their head). Vetted candidates for other pocitions, and non-development positions (such as homeland security), don´t necessarily make good development candidates.
Establish a development policy, set clear development goals (MCC as a model?), break away from the security mentality to development policy, seek innovative yet decisive candidates, outside the incestuous pool, and then nominate a candidate who embodies the heart and soul of what development ought to be about.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I agree with Garrett’s comment: nominating Paul Farmer would make a very powerful statement of the administration’s will to strengthen USAID.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Thank God we seem to have dodged the Paul Farmer bullet. The man is a saint, but would have been a disaster as USAID’s leader. Countries cannot medicate themselves to prosperity. Only economic growth can provide the resources necessary for good health.
A methodological point on the survey. The question on already-vetted candidates should have followed the list of those already vetted. I saw at least four people on that list who would be great leaders for USAID.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am
To all the people that posted wanting AID to be strengthened/reorganized prior to getting a leader in place – that won’t happen while State is running them during the current vacuum. It’s not malicious, but State’s priorities, goals, and culture are simply different than AID’s and they will, thus, continue to eviscerate and sideline them.
And any real restructuring on how AID administers aid money is impossible while they’re still a) at the mercy of earmarks and b) not at the decision-making table (i.e. cabinet level).