Print
Share
CGD President Nancy Birdsall on Raj Shah Nomination as USAID Administrator
November 10, 2009
As we reported earlier today, Raj Shah has been nominated by the President to the USAID Administrator. And so starts the press feeding frenzy looking for opinions on his credentials for the job. Views from the development community, who have been pushing hard for a nominee, have been purely positive: see MFAN; U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, ONE. And comments from Senators Kerry and Lugar, Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that will need to schedule Dr. Shah’s confirmation hearing and clear him through Committee, suggest Dr. Shah will have safe and swift passage on his ride from Independence Avenue to 14th Street.
“That ride ticket couldn’t have come at a more timely moment,” says CGD President Nancy Birdsall, “Shah will bring tremendous talents – smarts, passion for development and strategic thinking — to the helm of USAID. “ When pushed on the issue of sufficient stature to carry out the massive reform agenda at the agency, Birdsall responded, “While a year ago, we all may have been focusing on the issue of high-profile stature, at this point the question should be: what does Raj need to succeed? And what he needs is the Administration to bolster his capacity and authorities to successfully elevate and empower a distinct development perspective and voice in the important interagency debates happening right now – the PSD, the QDDR, rethinking our approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan.” So, concretely, what does that mean? Says Birdsall, “that means the White House needs to give him a seat at the National Security Council and the State Department needs to give him back policy and budget authority of USAID operations.”
Nancy has this wonderful approach here at CGD of encouraging disagreement because she believes better thinking comes from the creative tension in that process. It is that sort of approach that should exist between the USAID Administrator and the Secretary of State and the biggest test to Shah will be the degree to which he can independently represent the development voice and drive the reforms required to tackle today’s global challenges. It just so happens that on the set of issues Nancy and I discussed here for this blog, I couldn’t agree with her more.
Share 
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
7 Responses to “CGD President Nancy Birdsall on Raj Shah Nomination as USAID Administrator”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Finally we have a U.S. AID Administrator. At least nominated. But, since Raj Shah has already gone through the ridiculous vetting process, his confirmation should be swift. Nancy raises the right points. In Raj Shah, the Obama Administration has again shown its willingness to pick smart,accomplished professionals who on the face of it may not have the “credentials” that the Washington “community” (such that it is), expects. However, since so many of us continue to advocate for shaking things up on the delelopment front, Raj Shah likely does not come to this post with pre-conceived notions about how AID and the State Department should operate together. And, from what I understand from people who know him, he is clearly willing to seek out the expertise of others. Perhaps one of his biggest challenges will be navigating the cumbersome congressional processes, but, this is something that anyone with intelligence and intution can learn. So, now we can finally move on to the broader discussion of how U.S.foreign development policy fits in with U.S. foreign policy overall.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
He has more than just to promote development. He has to re shake the foundations of USAID from its neo-liberal, strategic interest framework into that of using US Aid for constructive development
November 13th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
But wait:
http://washingtonindependent.com/67461/new-usaid-chief-faces-internal-skepticism
November 14th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
This issue of “an NSC seat” is a red herring. It is a too easy recommendation that is meaningless. USAID already HAS entree to the NSC decision processes. I never saw a Deputies Committee meeting without USAID. But I saw a lot of too-low-level people filling that seat. If USAID can’t put up the serious players, they can’t be serious players. USAID also often was invited to Principals Committee meetings. They should be and that’s an easy one the APNSA can do. I don’t know that it would make sense to add them to the National Security Council as those meetings are rare and deal primarily with high politics and security. USAID needs to decide if it wants to own development policy or if it wants to influence foreign policy.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“USAID needs to decide if it wants to own development policy or if it wants to influence foreign policy.”
The point is that without influencing foreign policy, USAID can’t own development policy. There are too many areas of overlap, where some national security/foreign policy decision affects development. If the development people aren’t at the table, involved in making those decisions, then you can get foreign policy that is several steps backward for development policy. I don’t think we can or should rely on people whose primary responsibility is diplomacy or security to think about the development angle.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
The issue is not the places where the administrator sits, but the outcomes he expects to achieve. Whats important is whether USG development assistance catalyzes change not how well it reports. The only need for the agency is to work itself out of existence.
The three d and f frameworks have robbed of us perspective and we have come to believe that the real result is reporting.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Why should development be subjected to foreign policy? The British DFID is a classic example of separation of interests.