With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
For over a decade, donors and developing countries alike have embraced the notion that “country ownership” should be central to the way aid is designed and delivered. Ownership is widely considered critical for achieving and sustaining program results, building local capacity to help countries transition from aid, and strengthening the citizen-state compact by shifting accountability for results to the partner government.
Last week the US Development Policy Initiative (DPI) launched new research (plus a brief) that explores how two key US foreign assistance agencies—USAID and MCC—conceptualize country ownership and implement the principle in practice. The new paper, Implementing Ownership at USAID and MCC: A US Agency-Level Perspective, complements our earlier quantitative look at perceptions of US approaches to country ownership practices. The paper finds strong commitment to ownership by both MCC and USAID. It also identifies several challenges with implementing the principle, including balancing country priorities with other agency needs and weighing tradeoffs between ownership and programmatic/fiduciary risk. We propose several recommendations for how the two agencies might build on their existing practices to focus on country ownership, as they do, generate a body of evidence around the results of ownership-oriented practices.
To amplify the discussion on country ownership, we convened a panel of high-level policymakers from inside and outside the US government to talk about their experience applying the principle, reflect on its importance, and discuss challenges and trade-offs. Much of the conversation echoed—and added to—the findings in the paper. Here are three key messages I heard from the expert panelists:
The United States has made great strides incorporating ownership. Patricia Rader from USAID highlighted the evolution of the agency’s approach to ownership. USAID starting with a heavy focus on providing inputs (channeling money through local organizations and institutions), but is now fostering a more holistic approach by working with country partners to identify priorities, design and implement programs, and put local resources toward them. MCC, whose foundational model underscores the importance of country ownership, applied lessons from its early days to develop an approach to partnership that emphasizes the leadership role of partner countries in a more structured and constructive way. As Scott Morris noted, the fact that the US government has made such progress incorporating ownership highlights its value to stakeholders in US foreign assistance, especially since ownership runs counter to two core political tendencies in foreign assistance—the desire by donors to dictate how aid money is spent and the instinct to tightly control fiduciary risk.
Ownership is a balancing act. While ownership is seen as a necessary condition for aid effectiveness, it’s not the only thing that donors need or want to pursue. For instance, Kyeh Kim from MCC acknowledged the tradeoff between building capacity of local implementers and getting things done quickly. While MCC staff understand that their job is “not to do, it’s to teach, facilitate, and mentor,” Kim recognized competing pressure to ensure MCC’s large scale investment programs are fully executed within a fixed timeline. Antoinette Sayeh, a distinguished visiting fellow at CGD, highlighted the complexities of ownership in donors’ policy reform efforts, especially in the face of resistance from local vested interests. Drawing on her years of experience at the International Monetary Fund and her time as Minister of Finance in Liberia, she cautioned against equating ownership with preservation of the status quo and noted the important role donors can play in supporting reformist leaders. Recognizing the additional risks associated with direct local partnerships, USAID’s Rader suggested that these risks should ideally be weighed against the purported benefits (e.g., strengthened capacity, more sustainable results) on a case-by-case basis to decide when local partnerships are the right approach. However, she acknowledged that assessing the benefit streams of local partnerships is challenging since hard evidence on the additive value of ownership approaches is currently scarce.
Incorporating ownership remains a work in progress: USAID has brand new operational guidance that advances the agency’s ownership efforts, but the agency will need a shift in organizational culture and the right incentives for staff to work in a new way. MCC, which built in a focus on ownership from the outset, is still learning what works and what doesn’t (and in what contexts) in locally-led program design and implementation. It will fall to the new administration to build on this positive momentum around ownership and make US foreign assistance more effective as a result.
One of the biggest questions donors grapple with is how to balance implementing specific projects with building local capacity to execute similar programming in the future. Indeed, this question is central to the conversation—now active at USAID—about how donors can “work themselves out of a job.” One good example of how this can look comes from the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) 2005-2010 partnership with Honduras. In this story, a key part of MCC’s legacy is not about what the agency funded but how it funded it.
“We are going to have global markets still operating,” says Nancy Birdsall confidently, but “the big issue is, will we have a good global politics operating?" And that is indeed the question, as turbulent 2016 draws to a close and 2017 rolls into view. It’s one that will continue to occupy Birdsall, who is stepping down at the end of December as CGD’s first and only president, but will stay on as a senior fellow. No doubt she will join me on the CGD Podcast in the future, but the somewhat symbolic occasion of her last podcast as CGD president offers a chance to reflect on what’s changed, and what she hopes development folks will think about over the coming years.
Over the past decade, the US government has repeatedly committed to incorporate greater country ownership into the way it designs and delivers aid programs. Though a range of factors—including strong domestic pressures—influence foreign assistance, US aid agencies have taken concrete steps to strengthen country ownership in their programs. A new policy paper, The Use and Utility of US Government Approaches to Country Ownership: New Insights from Partner Countries, draws upon survey data from government officials and donor staff in 126 developing countries to explore partner country perceptions of 1) how frequently the US government engaged in practices associated both favorably and less favorably with the promotion of country ownership, and 2) how useful each of those practices was.
Global development isn't exactly a campaign issue. But we at CGD hope it's a policy area both presidential transition teams are taking very seriously. The next US president will need to confront and prevent crises where our development and humanitarian assistance is a far more useful (and less expensive) response than guns and bombs. To that end, led by Scott Morris, we at the CGD Rethinking US Development Policy program put together a short memo to the transition teams.