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

 

Foreign Aid in Congress: Five Contradictions

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.

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

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.

Up Next: Secretary Clinton Budget Hearings

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will testify this week before four separate congressional committees on the FY13 president’s budget request for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development. The hearings will likely run the gamut of U.S. priorities in national security and foreign policy (all through the lens of budget austerity) and can be expected to hone in on hot button issues like Afghanistan, the Arab spring, and family planning.

From the White House with Love: Call for Global Development Council Nominees

The development community got an early Valentine from the White House: an executive order establishing the President’s Global Development Council. The council’s mission is to inform the president and other senior government officials on U.S. global development policies. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help the White House generate nominees for the twelve non-government seats at the table.

A Quick and Dirty Reflection on the QDDR: State Compared to USAID

At the State Department, QDDR changes are about moving boxes in the org chart.  State will put global economy and systems together (under Undersecretary Bob Hormats, apparently) and human security, conflict prevention and other good things together (under Undersecretary Maria Otero).  Both moves seem reasonable – though it is mostly about insider DC top-down process which is hard for voters to wrap their heads around in the way of action or impact.

Regarding USAID, I sense QDDR change is more about reform and rebuilding.

Helping Pakistan Help Itself: Why America Should Open Its Markets (Not Just its Purse) to Pakistan

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.

Pakistan Aid Facts

This is a joint post with Molly Kinder.

As Pakistan struggles to cope with the worst flooding in the country’s history, international donors have contributed upwards of $800 million to humanitarian relief efforts. (See here for the UK’s Guardian newspaper’s ongoing tracking of individual donor pledges to Pakistan’s floods.) The full cost of rebuilding Pakistan’s flooded regions is still being calculated, and will no doubt be staggering. The Asian Development Bank has already pledged $2 billion to the recovery and reconstruction efforts and the World Bank another $900 million. Most other international donors have yet to announce their contributions to the mammoth rebuilding effort that is to come.

As background, this post lays out how much the United States and other international bilateral and multilateral donors were already giving to Pakistan, before the floods. These aid figures were compiled earlier this year, and do not take into consideration any reprogramming or redirection of funds towards flood relief and recovery. As donors adjust their assistance plans, we will continue to track the numbers, and will update our “Aid to Pakistan by the Numbers” page. Check back for more! You’ll find raw data for all of the charts in this post here.

Mangoes vs. Peanuts and More: What We Saw and Didn’t See in Hillary Clinton’s Trip to Pakistan

This is a joint post with Molly Kinder.

This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan was front-page news in every Pakistani newspaper (and most here in the United States as well). Clinton brought with her two main things: a long list of new aid projects worth half a billion dollars—see the box below for what was on the list—and a strong message to Pakistanis that the United States intends to stick it out for the long haul.

Before the trip, we thought this was the best chance Clinton would have to signal to the Pakistanis that the U.S. development program wasn’t the sort of fickle short-sighted engagement they’ve come to expect from the United States. (And we outlined an idea for how she should do that). The result: while Clinton’s visit fell short of being a real game-changer, it was a clear, though incremental, step forward.

Pages