mca-monitor

SFRC Hearing: Moss Proposes Stronger OPIC and CODAid

bschwanke — Fri, 24 May 2013 13:52:05 +0000

The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Development held a hearing on “Different Perspectives on International Development Assistance” on Wednesday with CGD’s own Todd Moss testifying about why US development assistance matters, but also it can be improved—from limiting the number of agencies involved, to linking the budget process to goals and results while promoting innovation, to improving US development finance capabilities.

As I mentioned here in a hearing preview, it was great to see that Chairman Kaine (D-VA) and Ranking Member Barrasso (R-WY) are taking an expansive view of development assistance—one that includes looking at US trade policy and leveraging the private sector, not just bilateral foreign aid.

The hearing certainly played that out, particularly with the expertise of Caterpillar’s (and USGLC’s) Bill Lane and the US Chamber of Commerce’s John Murphy on trade and private sector issues. Bill and John made a strong business case for development. As Bill said, “Businesses succeed in overseas markets in conditions where there are stable governments, transparency, predictability, adequate financial infrastructure, free market economic policies that allow for competition, and rule of law. Those conditions are often lacking in many of today’s emerging nations and require a coordinated approach that includes the development programs, diplomatic efforts, and trade promotion activities of the U.S. government.”

Todd outlined what the US needs to do to ramp up US development finance to effectively engage in emerging markets. As he pointed out, emerging markets don’t really want nor need our traditional grant aid. Instead, the US can and should be providing more development finance.

“What countries want, and where the United States is really best placed to help, is with other types of development finance: debt, equity, venture, and other kinds of patient capital that can leverage private capital and be deployed for long-term development.”

Senator Kaine asked Todd what other countries are doing on development finance and why the US should act now to strengthen its own capabilities. G-7 development finance institutions generally have equity authority. This allows them more impact in developing countries and the ability to leverage private sector dollars more effectively. OPIC, however, does not have equity authority. And, if the US wants to do something big on development, like an electricity initiative in Africa, a strengthened OPIC is critical.

Todd suggested some doable fixes: we could strengthen OPIC by granting it equity authority, a modest grant window, and a multi-year (or permanent!) authorization; as well as bringing in some of the disparate tools spread across other agencies, such as pieces from TDA, USDA, USAID, etc. Todd, and our former colleague Ben Leo at ONE, have proposed something along these lines before, here and here, but you’ll be hearing a lot more from us on this over the next several months on how to make this a win for developing countries, the USG, and the US private sector.

On how we can make our traditional foreign assistance more effective, it was great to hear Senator Barrasso ask about how CODAid might work. As Todd explained,

“Congress could even provide USAID and other agencies space to experiment with innovative pay-for-performance contracts where US taxpayers would only be picking up the bills for actual achievements. We at the Center for Global Development call this Cash-on-Delivery and see it as an opportunity to make aid—and tax dollars—about outcomes, not inputs or even outputs, while also building local management capacity and innovation and reducing transaction costs.”

CODAid, long championed by CGD, is the “golden chalice” of effective aid because it focuses on outcomes. Todd used the example of girls’ education in Pakistan. Instead of paying for pencils (input) or the building of a school (output), USAID would pay for the number of girls who successfully stay in school and then pass a basic test (outcome).

There were lots of other great ideas, and more smart questions from Senators Coons (D-DE) and Murphy (D-CT). But as encouraging as both the fact and content of the hearing was, I’m somewhat pessimistic about the progress of changing US development assistance for the better in the immediate term. In the bigger picture of development assistance, it seems we’re moving slowly on the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development (has that Global Development Council meeting been rescheduled yet?) and a development perspective has yet to be integrated into US trade, immigration, and other policies that have dramatic impacts on the developing world. On the foreign assistance side, earmarks (ok, directives) and a lack of autonomy hamstring USAID. And tight budget times mean the 150 Account is a real target for cuts, despite being less than one percent of the total US budget.

But, that said, budget constraints can also lead to innovation, particularly along the lines of the proposals in Todd’s testimony. After all, how better to save money than to only pay for development programs that get the outcomes we want a la CODAid? And strengthening the capabilities of OPIC, which already returns hundreds of millions of dollars to the US treasury every year, would be a much-needed, no-cost way to bolster our development assistance.

Check out the webcast and prepared testimonies here.

Authors:

Beth Schwanke

View Profile

A Good Day to Bury Good News? US Foreign Assistance Dashboard Adds Defense and Treasury Data

Sarah Jane Staats — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:44:29 +0000

This is a joint post with Will McKitterick.

The US Foreign Assistance Dashboard has a habit of quietly releasing good news just before Washingtonians leave for long holiday weekends. It added Millennium Challenge Corporation data two days before Thanksgiving in 2011. State and USAID announced aid data standards and a reporting schedule the Thursday before the 2012 Christmas holiday. And lest you miss it before skipping town for this Memorial Day weekend holiday, the Foreign Assistance Dashboard has new data from the departments of Defense and Treasury.

Five US agencies that have a role in US foreign aid now have some—but not all—data on the Foreign Assistance Dashboard. These five agencies accounted for roughly eighty-six percent of aid spending in 2011. The Foreign Assistance Dashboard expects twenty-two separate US federal agencies and departments to report data.

_{Source: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (Greenbook). FY 2011 economic assistance obligations. http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/ *Other includes: Peace Corps, Department of Interior, Department of Labor, United States Trade Development Agency, United States African Development Foundation, Inter-America Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.}

It’s great to see Defense and Treasury data on the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, including Treasury’s planned technical assistance and multilateral development and trust fund contributions over a nine year period plus obligated and spent data from FY2006-FY2012. Defense data is limited to FY2011 and FY2012, but includes planned, spent and obligated numbers. The State Department, by contrast, has posted planning data but no obligated or spent data. Treasury also joins MCC in providing forward-looking FY2014 budget numbers—an important feature if the Foreign Assistance Dashboard aims to inform current spending decisions.

We’ll dig into the data in more detail over the coming days. There is still a long way to go before the Foreign Assistance Dashboard has the complete picture of where and how the United States invests its aid dollars, but new Treasury and Defense data are good steps in the right direction. I’ll be on the lookout for more good news to sneak out just before the next holiday. July 3rd, anyone?

Authors:

Sarah Jane Staats

View Profile

PEPFAR at 10

amandaglassman — Thu, 23 May 2013 14:32:26 +0000

This is a joint post with Jenny Ottenhoff.

Ten years ago – on May 27, 2003 – the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief was born with the stroke of a pen by President George W. Bush. Over the last decade, the program has experienced tremendous growth and made inroads against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in some of the world’s hardest hit areas. And through it all, PEPFAR managed to maintain bi-partisan support that bridged two US Administrations, six US congressional sessions, and one global economic crisis.

So we ask: how should we celebrate the world’s largest bilateral health initiative’s birthday?

Indeed, PEPFAR has already received plenty of gifts this year. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) released its congressionally mandated evaluation of the program in March. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released two reports on PEPFAR – one on treatment costing and one on treatment program quality (a third on supply chains will be released later this month). And PEPFAR’s own Scientific Advisory Board’s Data Working Group (DWG) is set to “gift” their recommendations to PEPFAR early this summer (my colleague Mead Over gave a preview of these recommendations last year).

So instead of piling on and giving PEPFAR our customary gift – unsolicited advice – we thought we’d amplify some major areas of consensus from these three institutions that we think are reflective of PEPARs past and future.

First, the IOM, GAO and DWG (and we!) agree PEPFAR has helped changed the equation on what was once – not too long ago – seen as an insurmountable plague. This is evident from looking at the change in treatment coverage over the last decade alone. In 2012, an estimated 8 million people were receiving treatment in low- and middle-income countries – of which PEPFAR directly supported 5.1 million. This represents a 20-fold increase in treatment coverage since PEPFAR was created in 2003.

Of course PEPFAR will need to make some major reforms as it matures from an emergency program to a sustainable, long-term response. And there is widespread agreement around one area in particular that should be at the top of PEPFAR’s agenda: data management and disclosure.

While the scopes of their recommendations differ, the IOM, GAO and DWG all suggest that PEPFAR’s indicators and measurement need to be strengthened (e.g. to better capture the retention as well as the enrollment of AIDS patients,) and also streamlined (to minimize the collection and reporting of unusable or unused indicators). They also propose that efforts around PEPFARs Expenditure Analysis Initiative should also be expanded to capture spending among different donors, so that these data are “harmonized,” or at least consistent and comparable. And finally, PEPFAR must share its program data – principally its financial data – with countries and multilateral partners for the transition to a sustainable and shared response to take place.

So while we mark PEPFAR’s 10^th birthday and applaud the program’s success, we’re pleased that PEPFAR has also received 800+ pages of recommendations for the future. After all, this milestone should be less about celebration, and more about reforms that will usher PEPFAR through another decade of progress marked by sustainable partnerships with countries.

And don’t worry – we plan to give PEPFAR “one to grow on” later this summer when we release our Value for Money working group report with recommendations on how global health donors can get more health for the money they invest.

Amanda Glassman (@glassmanamanda) is the director of global health policy and senior fellow, and Jenny Ottenhoff (@ottenvos) is a policy outreach associate for global health at the Center for Global Development.

Authors:

Amanda Glassman

View Profile

SFRC Development Assistance Hearing Preview: Moss on Amping Up US Development Finance—and More

bschwanke — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:48:52 +0000

As budget hearings wind down, the Senate Foreign Relations International Development Subcommittee is holding a complementary hearing titled "Different Perspectives on International Development Assistance" and CGD's own Todd Moss is testifying. Also testifying are Bill Lane from Caterpillar and John Murphy from the Chamber of Commerce.

Different perspectives indeed. It's great to see that Chairman Kaine (D-VA) and Ranking Member Barrasso (R-WY) are conceiving of US development assistance as much broader than the traditional foreign aid structure.

What can we expect from Todd?

It's no secret that US development assistance, particularly our foreign aid architecture, is dated and often painfully dysfunctional. I expect Todd to give a candid assessment of where the US is at on what Under Secretary for International Affairs Lael Brainard called the “Spaghetti Chart” of US foreign assistance before she headed into the Administration. But I also expect him to offer some solutions, particularly on a much-needed amp up of US development finance. And I hope we'll hear from him on just why development assistance is so important for the United States--an analysis that is easily lost in a difficult budget environment.

It's worth tuning in here to watch the hearing at 10:30 Wednesday.

Authors:

Beth Schwanke

View Profile

DoD and Global Health: Time for a Dose of Development Realism

kalmquist — Mon, 20 May 2013 17:58:44 +0000

I recently had the opportunity to participate on a panel hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation on DoD’s role in global health—check out the webcast and their excellent report, which identifies three major categories of DOD’s work in global health: 1) force health protection and readiness, 2) medical stability operations and partnership engagement, and 3) threat reduction. While I find the first and third categories relatively straightforward and welcome the ancillary benefits for global public health of DoD’s own health-related work (e.g., infectious disease research or military to military HIV prevention programs), it is the second category which alarms me.

U.S. Army Sgt. Renisha Perry teaches tooth brushing in Djibouti. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force

Medical stability operations are generally the activities of the Geographic Combatant Commands to provide technical assistance and other health-related activities to build trust, prevent conflict, and increase the capacity of partner governments. DoD’s argument goes something like this: since health is part of a community’s overall well-being, improving local health services supports the extension of good governance while making extremist groups less attractive to citizens. Or stated even more broadly by Dr. Kathleen Hicks, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, in her presentation at Kaiser, “The physical health of these poorer populations can have a profound impact on social and economic health. Expanding on this concept, actions to improve the health of a fragile state may prevent it from becoming a failed state."

Ever the skeptic about DoD’s value-added in development, I see six problems with medical stability operations:

Weak premise. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that improvement of local public health or delivery of health services to marginalized communities is relevant to preventing fragile states from becoming failed states or communities from providing support to violent extremist groups. Yes, effective governments are more legitimate in the eyes of their citizens, but the link between improving this one aspect of social service delivery and preventing states from failing is tenuous at best. Experience shows that improving citizen security, justice, and jobs are far more important to breaking cycles of violence. Engaging youth, reforming education, mitigating conflict, and countering extremist ideology are far more relevant to countering violent extremism [PDF].

Mismatched timelines. Effective development cooperation is a long-term proposition requiring local ownership, sustained engagement, and mutual accountability. DoD humanitarian activities—health or otherwise—are typically one-off, short-term, drop-ins of cash, technical assistance, or direct service delivery, resulting in fleeting improvements at best, inadvertent harm at worst. Development aid provided in accordance with internationally-accepted principles can produce results, even in unstable and insecure environments like Afghanistan. Aid projects to meet short-term security goals are much less likely to succeed in delivering either development or stabilization objectives, as my colleagues at CGD have documented.

Development naiveté. Even with its corps of highly trained medical specialists, the US military is not equipped to build indigenous institutional capacity to deliver services effectively, no matter the desire to render the state more legitimate in the eyes of its citizens. Development is a complex process not largely influenced by exogenous forces, however well intended. While aid can play a supporting role, it is far more challenging than merely transferring knowledge, providing resources, or building infrastructure. National security objectives for public health administration may be very different than development objectives, e.g. prioritization of communities based on perceived support for insurgency versus prioritization based on needs.

Coordination challenges. The United States’ civilian foreign assistance agencies spend more on global health than nearly any other sector of foreign assistance, second only to peace and security. In FY 2012, this amounted to more than $9 billion in assistance. (Health typically accounts for 60-70 percent annually of USAID’s development programs in Africa, for instance.) DoD, by the Kaiser Family Foundation’s best estimate, spent at least $580 million on global health related activities in FY 2012, though it is impossible to know the actual total or what part of this went to medical stability operations. While improvements have been made in aid coordination between DoD, State, and USAID, significant challenges remain in coordinating programs and budgets.

Mixed messages. Delivery of health services to civilian populations is a civilian role, not a military one, even in poorly governed or otherwise insecure areas; only in grave emergencies for finite periods of time is it appropriate for the military to step in (e.g., immediately after a massive natural disaster). The provision of normal health services through the US military or counterpart military forces or even direct US military engagement with national ministries of health and local health officials may send mixed messages about the role of military in society. This is particularly important in many fragile African states where the balance between civilian and military roles is not clearly delineated. A perceived or actual failure on the part of the civilian authorities is not justification for the military to step in and assume the role. This is how coups happen.

Ulterior motives. Most problematic is that DoD’s engagement in medical stability operations, or building partner health capacity, is not really about improving public health in remote and needy places; it is about preventing or mitigating terror or insurgencies that cause instability and are perceived to threaten US national security. DoD is explicit that gaining access to (and influence over) relevant populations and building relationships that will lead to better intelligence on insurgent threats is the first priority. And ultimately, DoD’s war-fighting focus render its motives suspect, with or without active intelligence operations. This is where DoD efforts in global health are far more harmful than helpful, as its activities destroy the trust humanitarians and development professionals depend upon to vaccinate children, deliver food, assist with educational reform, support livelihoods, or help mitigate conflict. Not only are aid workers killed out of suspicion of collecting intelligence, vaccination campaigns and other life-saving assistance are also thwarted or denied. The chilling effects are far-reaching and very hard to reverse.

If providing humanitarian aid and promoting development is in the United States’ national interest, then it should be done by those best-suited to do the job—civilian development experts. DoD should instead focus on its value added to development: promoting physical security so that civilians can do their jobs.

Authors:

Kate Almquist Knopf

View Profile

Hitching the Global Development Council and President Obama's Policy Vision

Sarah Jane Staats — Tue, 14 May 2013 16:57:27 +0000

President Obama’s Global Development Council was envisioned in the September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development and established by executive order in February 2012. This memo ahead of the Council’s inaugural meeting offers the chair, director, and members several ways to focus the Council’s mandate and inform US global development policy. Its first meeting was slated for May 17, 2013, but has been postponed.

Download PDF

To: Mohamed A. El-Erian, Chair, President’s Global Development Council

CC: Richard C. Blum, Member

Esther Duflo, Member
Sarah Beardsley Degnan Kambou, Member
James M. Manyika, Member
William K. Reilly, Member
Steven Schwager, Member
Smita Singh, Member
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Non-Voting Member
Secretary of State John Kerry, Non-Voting Member
Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew, Non-Voting Member
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, Non-Voting Member
MCC CEO Daniel W. Yohannes, Non-Voting Member
Jayne Thomisee, Executive Director

From: Sarah Jane Staats, Director, Center for Global Development Rethinking US Foreign Assistance Initiative

Re: Hitching the Global Development Council and President Obama’s Policy Vision

The Opportunity: America’s well-being is linked to the lives of others as never before. President Obama’s newly created Global Development Council shows the administration is eager to use development policy to tackle inequality, conflict, hunger, and disease to promote prosperity and security around the world and at home. When the Council meets for the first time this week, it will need to answer two questions: how can it inform US global development policy, and on what issues?

The Action: When the Global Development Council meets on May 17 it should identify three to five key moments when President Obama, with the advice of the Council, can make a development difference. Among the immediate possibilities: the June G-8 summit in the United Kingdom, the September G-20 summit in Russia, the UN General Assembly meeting, and President Obama’s upcoming trip to Africa.

The Global Development Council can’t cover every issue; it should focus its attention on a few specific areas and be clear about what it will do and what it will not do. One of these five approaches could help the Global Development Council walk President Obama’s policy vision down—and across—the aisle:

Something Old: Finish What the PPD Started. Select one or two promises from the President’s US Global Development Policy that require action across the government and craft an implementation strategy. For example, propose explicit choices about where to invest and how; concrete actions the administration could take to leverage the private sector, philanthropic, and nongovernmental organizations; or a plan to strengthen US leadership and engagement in the multilateral development institutions. Alternately, the Council could focus on next steps for the Partnership for Growth initiative, which aims to put the PPD principles into practice in Ghana, Tanzania, El Salvador, and the Philippines. Administration-endorsed implementation strategies could substitute for another full global development strategy process during Obama’s second term.
Something New: Go Big (Migration) or Bright (Energy). If the president is looking for something new, or the next President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), try migration. President George W. Bush’s PEPFAR announcement was possible because of an extraordinary alliance of interests: domestic activism, international advocacy, a sea change in evangelical Christian views, and a political moment. New technology—specifically the development of antiretroviral drugs—played a big role, too.

Migration has almost all the same features: a broad domestic constituency, a development and economic case for reform, a shift in evangelical Christian views, and it is a major US election issue. While there might not be a technology solution, technology firms (including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s new FWD.us political group) are becoming some of the biggest advocates for revamping migration policy. A development-friendly migration policy would be a clear way of using the “full range of our development tools and policies” as promised in President Obama’s Global Development Policy. And including development benefits in US migration reform legislation needn't require a huge price tag; on the contrary, it could actually help the US economy and boost tax revenue.

A more traditional but also worthwhile issue—previewed by former Deputy National Security Advisor Michael Froman in a CGD speech and with growing support from colleagues at CGD and ONE—would be to focus on reliable generation, transmission, and distribution of energy in sub-Saharan Africa. Electrifying sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly seven out of ten people do not have access to reliable energy, could have a tangible human benefit, increase economic growth, and increase demand for US business products.
Something Borrowed: Big (and Open) Data. Open data is a major theme of President Obama’s administration, visible most recently in a new open data policy. And the White House praises the use of big data in government decision-making, drawing heavily from business experience where big data is part of almost every industry function. The administration’s Foreign Assistance Dashboard was launched two years ago to be the one-stop-shop for US foreign aid data (big and open). The Global Development Council could identify ways President Obama and the Council can 1) encourage the 22 US agencies and departments involved to report their data and 2) start using the data to inform development policy decision-making.
Something Blue (and Red): Use the Bully Pulpit to Champion Development. The Council’s third explicit mandate is to “increase awareness and action in support of development.” The Council members are in ideal positions to champion development—from business, academic, and nonprofit perspectives—from their districts and beyond, including on Capitol Hill where more than half of Congress is new since the last major development legislation creating PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge Corporation was passed. A new partnership with Congress on development is vital to ensure President Obama’s development policies outlast his administration. The Council could use vibrant and visible communications tools to communicate with and solicit feedback on its development policy priorities.
A Sixpence in Your Shoe: Make Sense of the Aid Budget. The PPD vows to “focus,” “make hard choices,” and “reallocate resources in support of those efforts that yield the greatest impact” but did not take on major structure or budget reforms as part of the initial process. The FY2014 budget request shows shifts in foreign aid allocations: a food aid reform proposal and a reduction in USAID’s presence in 11 countries, eliminating some small foreign aid programs. The Council could help the administration go further by proposing a parallel US foreign aid spending plan, including possible increases in multilateral versus bilateral investments, to inform President Obama’s next budget request and Congress’s deliberations.

Authors:

Sarah Jane Staats

View Profile

Rethink Roundup

Sarah Jane Staats — Fri, 10 May 2013 16:16:40 +0000

Lots of Rethink-relevant news and announcements lately. Here’s our roundup:

White House issues exciting new open data policy.
MCC launches evaluation catalog with metadata (microdata forthcoming) from its independent evaluations. First up: food security.
The end of extreme poverty? The question, some data, and why it isn’t enough.
Kerry, Shah and Vilsack (the State-USAID-Department of Agriculture triumvirate) urge the United States to get with the times on food aid.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) gives the foreign assistance act rewrite another go.

Authors:

Sarah Jane Staats

View Profile

Foreign Assistance Dashboard Tweaks and New Data

wmckitterick — Thu, 02 May 2013 15:38:34 +0000

If you haven’t looked at the Foreign Assistance Dashboard lately, I’d suggest you do so. The government’s online platform and (eventual) one-stop-shop for storing and visualizing US aid data has some new features. There are new displays of existing data, plus the first set of USAID and MCC quarterly financial data. These tweaks and more timely information are a step in the right direction, but more US federal agencies need to leap onboard and start adding their data to the mix.

Launched in December 2010, the Foreign Assistance Dashboard is intended to serve as the clearinghouse for all US foreign assistance data. State Department’s F Bureau is in charge of coordinating, collecting, coding, and visualizing data from all 22+ agencies that disburse aid—no small feat. And while the project is still a work in progress, kudos to State for continuing to upgrade the site.

Here’s the list of new features:

Improved infographics on how funding from the primary foreign aid agencies (State, USAID, and MCC) is budgeted, obligated, and spent by sector (new version, old version).
An upgraded FAQ page adding some visual and organizational coherence to the long list of commonly asked questions on US foreign assistance (new version, old version).
Quick links to important policy documents on the United States’ commitment to aid transparency (new version, old version).
Data details on which agencies have what kinds of data published for what years(new version, old version).

Old Version

New Version

Beyond the new visuals, the Dashboard also incorporated its first quarterly update of FY2013 data from USAID and MCC. Last fall the White House issued OMB guidance requiring agencies to report aid data to the Dashboard on a quarterly basis (see pg. 5 section 3.2). USAID and MCC are the first to provide up-to-date data on their first quarter FY2013 obligations and disbursements as they currently stand. Bravo!

While the Dashboard information is still limited to financial data, the “timeliness” of the quarterly updates is important so users can track, throughout the year, how agencies allocate assistance. The challenge, of course, is that quarterly data from just two agencies doesn’t paint a complete picture of where and how the United States gives aid. I hope, though, that while USAID and MCC are leading the way, that other agency updates will soon follow. Perhaps Treasury or Department of Defense will be next? Even State?

Authors:

Will McKitterick

View Profile

Foreign Aid in Congress: Five Contradictions

Sarah Jane Staats — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:54:14 +0000

I was pleasantly surprised by the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last week on the FY2014 USAID and MCC budgets. I expected a remix of the partisan spats I watched two years ago. Instead, there was impressive congressional turnout plus serious questions and thorough answers. There was even some friendly competition between USAID and MCC. But five contradictions come up anytime foreign aid is on the Hill and the latest budget hearing was no exception.

It's worth watching the webcast to catch the high notes: calls for rethinking how and where and why the United States provides foreign assistance; concerns about the fragmented aid architecture; praise for the MCC approach to selecting and working with countries and evaluating programs; support for USAID's procurement, staffing and food aid reforms; and applause and pressure for USAID and MCC to share more and better data.

1. Foreign aid must support national security, but don't give it to anyone who doesn't like us. Republicans and Democrats alike say foreign aid must support national security interests. But more often than not, someone will also say the United States should not give aid anywhere there is hostility to the United States (this came from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) yesterday, but it's not the first time I've heard the sentiment, nor will it be the last). But how can the United States use aid to improve national security if it only gives it in places already wholly supportive of the United States?

2. Cut foreign aid spending, but not on x. Reducing federal spending is the name of the game on Capitol Hill. Everyone wants to see cuts as long as it isn't in their preferred sector or country or initiative. The debate between the administration and Congress on priorities is part of the process. But the attempt to please everyone results in a little bit of money in a lot of places and often not much to show in the way of results which, it turns out, isn't in anyone's interest.

3.You are responsible, but who is in charge? Hearings are designed to conduct oversight; government witnesses are expected to defend their budgets, programs and results. But as Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL) asked yesterday, "Who is in charge of development in the world?" Is it Defense? State? USAID? MCC? And if almost all of the aid budget is pre-allocated to presidential initiatives and congressional directives, how responsible is any agency head for overall spending choices or changes?

4. Brand it, damn it. The last time I heard so much about branding US foreign assistance with the American flag, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) were in charge of the House International Relations Committee. It was back in full force last week. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) called for a "big flag on the bag" and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) echoed the call. There are benefits to well-marked aid (in response to humanitarian emergencies, for example). But there are times when brand competition (between US government agencies and multiple NGOs and/or contractors) is just silly and other times the flag is counter-productive or dangerous to the people running the programs and receiving the benefits (think democracy and human rights programs or food aid in Syria; see also contradiction number 1 above). My former colleague Ruth Levine says to rebrand America, unbrand aid.

5. 85 percent of constituents want to cut foreign aid; 15 percent approve of Congress. Even when foreign aid budgets were growing and the United States was creating new agencies like the MCC and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, I'd sit in conversations with congressional staff who would say "you know I care about these issues, but they really don't sell in my district". Today, I hear it in starker terms, like "the only area Americans agree we should cut from the federal budget is foreign aid" (Americans also think foreign aid makes up 25 percent of the federal budget and think it should be more like 10 percent, but it’s really closer to one percent). Yesterday, it was Rep. Yoho who said 85 percent of the people in his district want to end foreign aid. Rep. Gerald Connelly (D-VA) said he hears this all the time at town hall meetings. I can't help but think congressional approval is also 15 percent. Maybe we can set aside numbers that don't really tell us very much and get on with things?

I know there are lots of reasons these contradictions exist, but if we could get past them--or even agree to set them aside--the administration might have more space to make difficult but necessary choices about where and how it invests development dollars. In return, Congress and the taxpayers might finally get the evidence they need that US development dollars get results and support America's economic, moral and security interests.

Authors:

Sarah Jane Staats

View Profile

Foreign Aid Remix: Yohannes and Shah Head Back to the Hill

Sarah Jane Staats — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:08:25 +0000

MCC CEO Daniel Yohannes and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah are heading back to Capitol Hill Thursday to testify together before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I expect Yohannes and Shah will sing different parts of the same tune: the United States is prepared to do more with less as it strives to fulfill the administration’s global development vision. But it should also be a remix of their joint hearing two years ago with questions on how Congress should prioritize among US development programs. Shah and Yohannes can hit some new high notes on how their agencies are being selective with aid dollars, sharing more aid data and doing better evaluation. They should also be clear about the differences between USAID and MCC. And let’s hope the committee members can avoid the low notes from two years ago when partisan spats (including some in Latin) marred what could have been an important development policy conversation between the executive branch and Congress.

Here’s a quick refresher on the issues and a reminder of what portion of US aid dollars USAID (35 percent) and MCC (2 percent) managed in 2011.

Authors:

Sarah Jane Staats

View Profile