On November 12th, my colleague Todd Moss devised a grading matrix for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). Now that the full document has been released, the two of us are donning our professors’ hats and reporting our final grades based on his original framework.
The early Christmas gift from the State Department of a 200+ page Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) was unwrapped several times over and inspected by its many recipients in the development and diplomacy communities. The “Made in DC” review is a 100% American product finely crafted by some of the best American women and men (see pages 214-215) in the U.S.G.
President Obama's recent policy directive on U.S. global development called for an increased "focus of resources, policy tools, and engagement in support of select countries." But the question as to where this "enhanced engagement" might occur still remains. In an attempt to divine potential countries for increased U.S.
After nearly 18 months, thousands of man-hours, and a few interagency scuffles, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review was released on Wednesday. First, hats off to the many State Department and USAID staff who toiled on the various working groups in addition to their regular work portfolios. This was a huge undertaking for which staff should be applauded.
Twas two weeks before Christmas, when all through the town
Breaths were held expectantly, in the midst of a countdown.
With their keyboards ready, the bloggers abandoned all care,
Hoping that Secretary Clinton soon would be there.
The NGOs were nestled all snug in their beds,
Knowing the QDDR soon would be read.
And the Senate and House, with a sharp rap,
Had just left town for a long winter’s nap.
When out on the Mall there arose such a clatter,
The eyes of even the most passionate foreign aid advocate are likely to glaze if you raise the subject of “procurement reform.” But in the just-released transcript of remarks made November 12 to an audience of USAID contractors, Maura O'Neill, Chief Innovation Officer to USAID Administrator Shah, and Ari Alexander, a member of USAID’s procurement reform team, admit that USAID procurement practices have been so dysfunctional as to have caused “great difficulty” for in-country local partners. According to Mr. Alexander:
Ghana is still the hyper-darling of the development community. But if the aid bureaucracies don’t fully recognize the vast changes going on inside the country, then they are destined to just keep doing the same old thing. That’s why the Millennium Challenge Corporation is rightly proud of its compact with Ghana. But it’s the same reason the MCC should not rush into a second compact.
Ghana’s current $547 million MCC compact expires in February 2012. As reported by CGD’s Sarah Jane Staats and colleagues:
As we have reported before, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is required to have one of four public board members in place to constitute a quorum and make decisions. Today’s tally: zero. And it’s looking almost impossible that that number will change in time for the December 15th MCC board meeting.
This is a joint post with Connie Veillette. It is cross-posted on the Global Health Policy blog.
The QDDR pre-release consultation document says the Global Health Initiative will eventually be managed by USAID. For a number of reasons, it makes complete sense for USAID to lead the GHI.
Health is a core development mission. Consider that the FY2010 budget for health programs totals $7.8 billion, or more than 20% of the entire foreign assistance budget. We use development assistance dollars for global health as part of a broader development mission. President Obama’s Global Development Policy identifies the GHI as a key development initiative, so our premier development agency should surely be given the charge to lead the administration’s largest development initiative.
Health is more than just health. Health is about treating and preventing disease and improving health systems but it is also much more. It’s about improved nutrition and equitable access to food, clean water and sanitation, education, and investments in research and technology. These are sectors in which USAID has long worked, and they need to be integrated into a strategy that supports the GHI.
The GHI needs one leader, not three, for better decision-making and results (see related blog posts here and here). The administration points to the GHI as a new way of doing business and as a leading edge of aid reform efforts, but the current inter-agency consensus style leadership doesn’t seem to be working efficiently. While all U.S.G. staff at HQ and in-country are working fast and furiously, the lack of a leader at the top seems to be slowing decision-making at the highest levels. Some visible expressions of this lack of efficiency include the absence, a full year and seven months since the GHI was announced, of a final strategy, country strategies, or even a GHI website. For this new and ambitious approach to take off, the U.S. needs one leader that is able to tap the strengths of different government agencies that make unique contributions to the GHI.
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.