Ideas to Action:

Independent research for global prosperity

Rethinking US Foreign Assistance Blog

The Rethinking US Foreign Assistance Blog complements CGD's Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance initiative. Both are for professionals interested in tracking US Foreign Assistance and its impact on developing countries.

X

Rethinking US Foreign Assistance Blog

Feed

 

Top 10 Rethinking US Foreign Assistance Blogs in 2012

What were the most popular Rethinking US Foreign Assistance blog posts in 2012? White House development initiatives get a lot of attention. Major evaluation and learning efforts do too (think: MCC). Budget battles and the more troubling aid stories in aid get a lot of interest, too.

Take a look at our top 10 list below. We look forward to bringing you more analysis and commentary from our CGD experts in 2013. Leave a comment and tell us what you’d like to see more (or less of) in 2013.

What Next for US Aid in Ethiopia?

The death of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi after twenty-one years in charge raises fresh questions about the future of US foreign aid to the country – including all three of President Obama’s development initiatives – and the conundrum of focusing aid in countries whose leaders hang on to power for more than a decade. Could a new rule banning foreign aid to long-serving heads of state help?

Civilian Assistance to Pakistan: Time for Tough Choices

This is a joint post with Nancy Birdsall.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah stated that the United States will be working to significantly decrease the number of development projects it is currently supporting in Pakistan, from the current 140 to 35 by the end of September 2012. In Dr. Shah’s words, “If we [the U.S.] are trying to do 140 different things, we are unlikely to do things at scale in a way that an entire country of 185 million people can see and value and appreciate. We are just far more effective and we deliver much more value to American taxpayers when we concentrate and focus and deliver results.” Shah goes on to clarify that the United States will not be cutting back on the overall amount of assistance it provides: it plans to adhere to the Kerry-Lugar-Berman framework of $7.5 billion over 5 years.

I applaud Administrator Shah’s call for greater focus in the U.S. assistance portfolio and his explicit emphasis on “results.” After all, as my colleague Connie Veillette has pointed out, the Obama Administration’s Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on global development explicitly called for greater emphasis on “selectivity” and “results” in U.S. development assistance.

S/O/N May Be DONE but We Need More Reform

Admittedly, procurement reform isn’t the most exciting topic in development policy. But the implications of USAID’s move last week to reform its Source, Origin, and Nationality rule (S/O/N), one of the mother relics of procurement rules, are too important to pass relatively unnoticed through the news cycle.

Peer Review Preview: International Critique of U.S. Foreign Assistance Due Out This Week

It’s not often that U.S. development assistance efforts are subject to an independent, international critique. Such a review, undertaken by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based club of donor nations, happens roughly every four or five years, and the findings for the U.S. are due out this week.

G-20 Agriculture Ministers Summit: Everyone Is For Food Security, As Long As It Doesn’t Cost Anything

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?

Pages