Party Foul? The Democratic and Republican Party Platforms on Global Development

Even in this most partisan of times, development policy has been an area with a semblance of bipartisan agreement—and even progress. But party platforms are partisan true-believer documents and not about the realities of governing. So what do the 2016 Democratic and Republican Party Platforms tell us about the parties’ respective visions for US development policy?

Lurches to the Left and Right?

The larger narrative around the Democratic Platform has been how Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign affected the content, creating what has been called “the most liberal Democratic platform in a generation.” And on the Republican side of things, the discussion has largely focused on what many have identified as a rightward lurch even from the party’s hardline platform in 2012 sometimes in concert with, and other times in contrast with, Donald Trump’s candidacy.

But on development issues, these shifts aren’t as strong as one might anticipate, if certainly still present. To be sure, there are the obvious differences, whether it be the rah-rah on international organizations from the Democrats vs. very contingent participation in the UN from the Republicans; or can’t do anything without women and girls from the Democrats vs. deafening silence from the Republicans. And there are the usual potshots at the other party within both. Still, the theme of development in addition to diplomacy and defense as a critical tool in the US national security and economic arsenals is present in each.

Stagnation or Evolution since 2012?

Democrats: way to bump out your platform on these issues since 2012, which articulated a broad vision and then mostly limited specifics to fighting HIV/AIDS and creating food security. It’s not just a laundry list of shout-outs to constituencies but an expansion that reads of inclusion and sustainability.

Republicans: I’m excited by the new emphasis on using foreign assistance “to catalyze private sector investment” (if not entirely clear on the claim that this is a Republican, rather than bipartisan, effort). I was also pleased to see the 2012 language suggesting official development assistance was based on an “outdated, statist” model disappear as that notion itself was outdated. And I was relieved to see a big shift in the Africa section, emphasizing partnership, investment, and trade; not just global health as in 2012.

Does Development Mean More than Aid?

I was hoping to see both parties fully embrace a US development policy beyond aid and pleasantly surprised to see the conception reflected in both platforms, particularly in the region-specific portions on the benefits of trade and investment. Of course, dig in none too far on issues like climate change, which has major development consequences, or migration, which can yield massive development benefits, and you’ll find some stark differences, with the Democrats taking a tack that is likely to be more development friendly.

Overall?

Points to the Democrats for a clear assertion of priorities on specific issue areas, though I do wish there would have been a stronger emphasis on the why and the how of generating economic growth in developing countries.

I would have loved to hear more from the Republicans—the bulk of the development issues is constrained to three short paragraphs. But big points for recognizing the need to leverage private sector flows and for emphasizing results over inputs.

And points to both parties for moving towards conceiving of US development efforts as a partnership (not patronage) with developing countries, both on aid and beyond.