Today Michael Phillips brought the MCA to the front page of the Wall Street Journal. His article was an in-depth look at the first MCA compact with Madagascar, and the national dynamics that ushered this particular compact into being. He opened the article from Antananarivo with this:
"When the Bush Administration invited Madagascar a year ago to apply for aid under a new U.S. program, government officials here came up with a wish list of traditional development projects: a new hospital, more school spending, aid to rice farmers. They even put together a Power Point presentation they thought would wow the Americans. U.S. officials weren't impressed. 'Can you convince us that this is going to bring economic growth to reduce poverty?'"
The answer was apparently "no" because these priorities don't appear in the compact that Madagascar signed with the MCC. This is the part of the story that Phillips didn't tell - just how the MCA and Madagascar got from initial proposal to final compact, and where the MCC's much celebrated concept of "country ownership" fits into the process.The evolution from proposal to compact reflects an intentionally iterative process that distinguishes the MCC from other donors, and the MCC is right to avoid laundry lists in favor of targeted, complementary priorities. But the differences between the original proposal and final compact raise two key questions:
- First, is the MCA on a path to favor projects that have an immediate impact on economic growth (such as infrastructure and financial sector reform) over those that have a longer-term, slower-moving impact on growth and poverty reduction (such as health, education and micro-credit)? If so, the MCC should be explicit about this and not tempt countries with the promise that they can define funding priorities in any way they like.
- Second, how are final compact elements chosen from the broader list of priorities outlined in country proposals? What are the criteria by which the MCC judges the quality and viability of individual components of the proposal? The MCC has asked the recipient countries, Congress, the advocacy community, and other MCA observers to have faith in the process. Country compacts reflect national priorities and so we should not nit pick about why schools did not win out over roads in a particular case.This is a good principle. Countries should have the right to not only set priorities, but identify which donors are best equipped to help them meet their various goals. If the World Bank is funding nation-wide education programs, let the Germans fund environmental conservation and the MCA fund land tenure reform. But the key to this principle is the faith in the process. The MCA should offer some candid commentary on how they get from A to B, and how they judge the merits of a given proposal. This will go a long way in soothing the fears of the true believers in "country ownership."Compare summaries of the original Madagascar proposal and the final compact.
