|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
|
|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
 Kimberly Ann Elliott is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Full BioShowing posts on the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance blog. View author posts on: G-20 Agriculture Ministers Summit: Everyone Is For Food Security, As Long As It Doesn’t Cost AnythingJune 27, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Poverty Tags: Food Security, G-20
This is a joint post with Connie Veillette The G20 agriculture ministers seem to agree: they’re all for food security, as long as it doesn’t cost anything. The communiqué from last week’s summit in Paris has lots of nice rhetoric and some good ideas, but no resources to implement them. In some cases, new priorities duplicate other efforts; in others, the ministers overlooked policy options that would have a big impact and cost little – or even save money – as with increased trade access or ending export restrictions and biofuel subsidies. For example, take the proposed new Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) “to improve the quality, reliability, accuracy, timeliness and comparability of data on agricultural markets (production, consumption and stocks);” who could disagree with that? But the UN Food and Agricultural Organization already collates and publishes much of the available data (as well as regularly reporting on the outlook for food and individual commodity markets), and USAID’s Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) reports on a wide range of conditions that could lead to famine. So is the need really for a new system to do pretty much the same thing or is the need for resources to help developing countries build the capacity to improve local data collection that can then be fed into the FAO system? Read More… Comment »How’s the Obama Administration Doing on Agricultural Development and Food Security So Far?March 21, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Tags: Food Security
That’s the question the Chicago Council on Global Affairs is asking and they are inviting you to weigh in by answering a brief survey here. As I went through the survey, I found myself filling in the “neutral” circle a lot and wishing there was an option for “too soon to tell.” On the good news front, Julie Howard, widely respected around town for making the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa the go-to place on these issues, was just appointed Deputy Coordinator for Development for the Feed the Future initiative. Although the process of filling top jobs at USAID, especially those requiring confirmation, has been far slower than most of us would wish, at least the quality is stellar, including, of course, our own former colleagues Steve Radelet and Ruth Levine at USAID and Sheila Herrling at MCC. Comment »Foreign Aid and the Public: Interests and Ethics ReduxMarch 10, 2011By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Tags: Budget
Especially in times of budget pressure, the debate over rationales for foreign assistance revive. Last night on PBS’ Newshour, former First Lady Laura Bush, Melinda Gates, and Helene Gayle, president of CARE, spoke eloquently about the importance of Congress maintaining funding for maternal and child health. I was heartened and impressed by their commitment, but also a little discomfited by the emphasis on national security as a key motivation for aid. Then, this morning, I stumbled across this month-old post by Owen Barder where he nails the analysis on why this is risky and why development advocates should not overplay the national interest card. He sums up the argument:
To be fair, the trio on the Newshour also made some of these points, but Owen’s analysis is well worth reading in full. 1 Comment »Congressionally Mandated Robbery on the High SeasDecember 3, 2010By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Aid Effectiveness, Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance
I just want to give a quick shout-out to Christopher Barrett and his Cornell University colleagues for their new study of the outdated and costly cargo preference requirements in U.S. food aid policy. This is a clear example of the importance (and unintended consequences) of the organization and implementation of U.S. foreign assistance programs. They estimate that the requirement to ship a portion of U.S. food aid on U.S.-flagged ships costs taxpayers nearly $150 million in 2006 (roughly equal to the 2006 value of non-emergency food aid to Africa), robbing the development budget, but with little or no benefit in terms of national security interests. I wrote about the costly inefficiencies in U.S. food aid in my book on the Doha Round agricultural negotiations several years ago. This report adds new evidence of the urgent need for reform. You can get a preview of their conclusions from their Washington Post op-ed this morning and there will be a discussion with the authors at the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa next week. Particularly in today’s political and economic environment, reforming cargo preferences for food aid seems to be a win-win for both political parties, American taxpayers, and aid recipients. Comment »Trade for Development: All Talk and No Action in the New Development Strategy?September 27, 2010By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Aid Effectiveness, Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance
While Connie Veillette pointed to many promising elements in President Obama’s speech to the UN MDG Summit and in the new presidential directive on development (PDD), trade remains one of the, mostly, missing elements. President Obama said that the new strategy would “harness all the tools at our disposal — from our diplomacy to our trade policies to our investment policies,” but when it came to specifics, it was mainly the actions of others that were highlighted: Read More… 1 Comment »Helping Pakistan Help Itself: Why America Should Open Its Markets (Not Just its Purse) to PakistanAugust 26, 2010By Kimberly Ann Elliott in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Tags: On the Hill, Pakistan, Trade
This is a joint post with Molly Kinder. The United States and the international community have finally begun to open their wallets and provide humanitarian aid to help Pakistan’s flood victims, but that is just the beginning. To help Pakistan rebuild and create jobs for the millions displaced, the United States could do far more by fully opening its market to Pakistani exports. Last week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon , Secretary Clinton, and other world leaders beseeched the international community to do more to help Pakistan cope with its catastrophic floods. With donor contributions initially trickling in at anemic levels, newspaper headlines questioned why the world seemed not to care about Pakistan’s humanitarian disaster. Under pressure, donors at last responded and the relief effort seems to have finally found its legs. By early this week, donor commitments had nearly quadrupled to $800 million. Read More… 3 Comments »
|
|
|
|
CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Third Floor
Washington DC 20036
Tel 202.416.4000 | Fax 202.416.4050
|
|
|
Print
Share
