|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
|
|
Independent research & practical ideas for global prosperity
|
|
Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Blog
Posts Tagged: AfghanistanAf-Pak Hands for USAIDNovember 29, 2011Posted by Daniel Cutherell in Pakistan, Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance, USAID Tags: Afghanistan, Pakistan, USAID
It’s hard to get anything done in most developing countries if you don’t know your way around. Although it seems obvious, aid agencies often overlook the basic fact that effective development programs require experienced staff who know the local context and who have forged working relationships with key interlocutors. It was in this spirit that the report of our study group on the U.S. development strategy in Pakistan criticized USAID, claiming that it was “neither empowered nor equipped to succeed”. One major problem the study group identified was that America’s aid workers often rotate in and out of the country so quickly (most are on one-year rotations), that they are unable to create the kind of meaningful relationships with Pakistani partners that are crucial to the success of development activities. Read More… 1 Comment »Aid, WHAM, and AfghanistanNovember 28, 2011Posted by Justin Sandefur in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance, USAID Tags: Afghanistan, CERP, USAID
Bill Easterly stirred up the blogosphere last week with a call for USAID to get out of the national security business, declare that “aid is for poverty relief and only for poverty relief,” and “build a firewall between USAID and the defense department.” Nancy Birdsall replied on this blog that Easterly is too quick to jettison Pakistan. But in CGD’s spirit of open debate, I want to argue that Easterly’s critique is much harder to dismiss in Afghanistan. The rhetoric of aid to Afghanistan is about “winning hearts and minds,” aka WHAM. Clearly WHAM is not development. But the question remains, within a national security context, does the model work? 1 Comment »The Pakistan Development Hearing That Could BeJune 22, 2011Posted by Wren Elhai in Aid Effectiveness, Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance, USAID Tags: Afghanistan, Pakistan
Tomorrow, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will convene for a much-anticipated hearing in which secretary of state Hillary Clinton will testify on U.S. goals and progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Coincidentally (?), this hearing will start barely 12 hours after President Obama finishes telling the nation and the world about his plans to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. As we have pointed out (see, e.g. p12 here), in contexts where Afghanistan and Pakistan are considered together, the immediate concerns of Afghanistan—where, after all, the lives of U.S. troops are at stake—usually absorb 90% of the time and energy. The remainder is mostly spent discussing security issues in Pakistan, leaving hardly any time at all to discuss the important long-term challenge of development in Pakistan. Given the timing, it is not likely that tomorrow’s hearing will break the mold. Comment »What Do Pakistan and Afghanistan Have in Common? Two Really Good Studies on How to Improve U.S. AssistanceJune 13, 2011Posted by Connie Veillette in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Tags: Afghanistan, Pakistan
In the space of one week, two studies – one on Pakistan and the other on Afghanistan – were released by two separate entities. The first study, Beyond Bullets and Bombs: Fixing the U.S. Approach to Development in Pakistan by Nancy Birdsall, Wren Elhai and Molly Kinder, was released after more than a year of work by a CGD-led study group on Pakistan. The second study, Evaluating U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan, came out one week later by the majority staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Even though the environment of Pakistan and Afghanistan differ markedly, as do U.S. goals in each country, it was remarkable to note the similarities in the two sets of recommendations. And it was reassuring to see that many of those recommendations reflect aid reform concepts that many of us have been advocating. 1 Comment »Seeing Our Pakistan Report through Other EyesJune 9, 2011Posted by Wren Elhai in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Tags: Afghanistan, aid, Ambassador Husain Haqqani, development program, Pakistan, USAID
In the week since our study group released its report on U.S. development programs in Pakistan, I’ve been fascinated with the range of opinions on what our most important message was. Two of our recommendations have gotten most of the attention. The first is our emphasis on non-aid tools of development policy. This is the idea that, as Reuters put it, “trade might succeed where aid has not in developing a vibrant economy and stable partner.” I think we made the strongest case we could that a development strategy cannot be an aid strategy alone—trade and investment are part of the equation. We’ll hope the administration and members of Congress are persuaded. Comment »A New Strategy for Aid to PakistanJune 2, 2011Posted by Nancy Birdsall in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance, USAID Tags: Afghanistan, AfPak, aid, Molly Kinder, Nancy Birdsall, Pakistan, Wren Elhai
This is a joint post with Wren Elhai and Molly Kinder and first appeared on ForeignPolicy.com’s AfPak Channel blog. Read the report of the Study Group on U.S. Development Strategy in Pakistan here. A response from Alexander Thier, head of USAID’s Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs can be found here. For nearly two years, the United States has been trying something completely new in Pakistan. In 2009, with President Obama’s backing, Congress passed a bold piece of legislation that committed the United States to support Pakistan’s people and its economy, as opposed to focusing almost exclusively on the country’s military. The United States would try to help Pakistanis consolidate the transition to democracy they won in 2008, and — for the first time — it seemed the United States would place an equal emphasis on long-term development and short-term stability in Pakistan. So far, however, this new approach has not lived up to its potential. During a recent trip to Pakistan, we listened to dozens of Pakistanis in and out of government tell us of their frustrations with the U.S. aid program and American inaction on trade and investment policies (just look at the ongoing debate about lifting tariffs on the Pakistani textile trade with the United States) that would naturally complement aid. Over the past year, a study group of American and Pakistani experts convened by the Center for Global Development have gathered to figure out what’s amiss—and how to put it right. In a report released today, we sum up the problem this way: 1 Comment »House Cuts President’s FY2011 Development BudgetJuly 1, 2010Posted by Sarah Jane Staats in Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Tags: Afghanistan, Budget, Food & Agriculture, Food Security, HIV/AIDS, MCA/MCC, On the Hill, Pakistan
House appropriators marked up the FY2011 foreign affairs spending bill at $52.656 billion yesterday. The subcommittee mark up is roughly $4 billion above last year’s enacted levels, but also $4 billion below the president’s request for FY2011. My takeaway: this budget looks like more of the same and is a long way from a new approach to global development. The only areas increased above the president’s FY2011 request levels are: HIV/AIDS, refugees, education (including basic education and cultural exchanges) and water. There is no change in funding for Israel, Egypt, Jordan or the Peace Corps. All other programs are cut below the president’s request. On the flip side, the bill contains modest increases above last year’s enacted levels for everything except: Afghanistan, Iraq, counter narcotics, refugees, and voluntary peacekeeping operations. Read More… 2 Comments » |
|
|
CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Third Floor
Washington DC 20036
Tel 202.416.4000 | Fax 202.416.4050
|
|
|
Print
Share
