Ideas to Action:

Independent research for global prosperity

X

US Development Policy

Feed

The consolidated FY2010 appropriations conference report hit the streets today, one step closer to a final House- and Senate-approved FY2010 appropriation bill expected before the Continuing Resolution expires December 18th.  A more detailed analysis is forthcoming but for those of you MCC-watchers out there -- particularly given the budget's influence on today's Board meeting to select new countries eligibile for compacts -- I wanted to get you a quick overview.

  If you haven't already done so, read our predictions paper!

The MCC received an appropriation of $1.1 billion; $295 million less than the House request and $155 m greater than the Senate's.  Not exactly a "split the difference" but nor is it a terrible outcome for a year in which the MCC transitions to new leadership and examines experience under the model.   But the big win for the MCC was securing a provision to accomodate the awkward situations of countries that graduate to a higher income category in the middle of compact preparation.  This issue hit particularly hard this year in the cases of Indonesia and Philippines graduating from lower-income to lower-middle income status, and Colombia graduating from lower-middle income to upper-middle income (taking it out of MCC candidacy altogether).

The provision allows:

“that a Millennium Challenge Corporation candidate country selected as an eligible country in fiscal year 2009 in accordance with section 607(c) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 that is transitioning out of one of the income categories identified in subsections 606(a) and (b) shall retain its candidacy status at the lower income category for purposes of setting compact funding levels for the fiscal year of its transition and the two subsequent fiscal years.”

So, technically, that keeps Colombia still in the mix at today's selection round, something we did not predict.  Now, of course, the Board has discretion over its choices so let's wait and see what they do!  Check back for our coverage.

Disclaimer

CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.