The Guardian's Poverty Matters Blog featured Connie Veillette's piece on the Presidential Study Directive and the QDDR.
From the Article:
For the past 18 months, various sections of the US government have been engaged in two important studies that may have profound effects on how the country interacts with the world. Now that they have been released, we can assess what they mean for US diplomacy and for development programmes.
Many observers believe these studies set Washington on the right course. While I agree, I also believe more clarity is needed with regard to how the US partners with other donor nations to address development needs. This is especially important given that both reviews advocate that programmes be more focused and selective.
The subjects of the two studies cover different ground. The Presidential Study Directive (PSD-7), led by the National Security Council (NSC), focused on development and how to better manage the activities of more than two dozen government agencies. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), was led by the state department and USAid to look at how diplomacy and development can work together more effectively. It was leaked ahead of schedule last month.
The studies came about because of the recognition that US diplomacy and development strategies need to adjust to a world filled with new threats, new players and new ways of engaging with friends and foes alike. "Fitness for purpose" has been a popular term in London that has not yet caught on in Washington. One can make the argument that US agencies remain fit for the purpose of cold war dynamics, but have not adapted to current conditions. The QDDR does a fine job of identifying 21st century threats and trying to craft diplomatic and development responses. It falls down on the job of how to implement the rhetoric.