Every four or five years, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) reviews the aid programs of its 23 member nations (plus the European Commission). The last peer review was in 2006; the 2011 review was released yesterday.When you get past the diplomatic language of international organizations, this review pretty well captures the progress that has been made since 2006 in how the U.S. does aid –as opposed to development since the DAC is mainly, but not exclusively, concerned with ODA – and in outlining the challenges that remain.The main problem diminishing the relevancy of the review is that it is disconnected from the ongoing budget debate currently taking all the oxygen out of substantive policy deliberations. The question is whether the United States will continue with reforms – as the DAC urges – or will retrench in the face of debt and deficits.With a focus on reducing budgets government-wide, perhaps with the exception of DoD, policy makers seem penny-wise and pound-foolish in saddling the international affairs budget (at about 1.4% of the overall budget) with a disproportionate share of cuts. Yes, every area of government spending needs to be scrubbed for savings, but America’s global influence vis-à-vis development and diplomacy are being undervalued by Congress.Given the direction of the current austerity debate, the review’s recommendation that the United States maintain its ODA at 2010 levels – the highest level yet – seems unrealistic and outdated. Levels for 2011 will be considerably lower, and prospects for 2012 and beyond look very bleak. Nevertheless, an influential voice in support of robust funding is welcome.A number of issues that are highlighted in the review deserve mention here.
- Whole-of-Government. It correctly notes the hazards of whole-of-government. “Institutional fragmentation… is hampering a more strategic and consolidated approach to policy co-ordination and programming.” Instead of recommending that better coordination and coherence be achieved, as the review does, I would have preferred a recommendation to better rationalize priorities around each agency’s comparative advantages, with a strengthened development agency taking the lead; otherwise, you are left with the status quo of duplicated efforts and a subsequent lack of adherence to sound effectiveness principles This recognizes, of course, that the DAC’s constructive engagement style of review means it likely would not have rejected whole-of-government as a viable approach in any case.
- Selectivity. The review cautions against the U.S. selecting to engage only with well-performing countries, because it may mean the abandonment of countries that are most in need but not the best governed or highest return on investment. One of the most positive outcomes of the PPD, however, was the recognition that the United States was trying to do too much in too many places, spreading itself so thin that any development impact was diluted. Especially as aid budgets are being scaled back, I believe increased selectivity is the only way to go with regard to development programs. Continued humanitarian assistance that is redesigned to facilitate development would help to ameliorate concerns with possible ‘aid orphans’, but the concern is likely overblown due to an enduring strategic interest in fragile and failed states.
- Development Beyond Aid. The review recommends further reforms in domestic policies that affect global development. As I have recommended previously, a good start would be reforming the management of U.S. food aid.
- Congress. I find it sadly humorous that the Administration’s whole-of-government framework does not involve all of government. The review is spot on that Congress has not been engaged constructively, resulting in micromanagement via earmarks, certifications, reporting requirements, and, yes, reduced resources. In order to make further progress on aid effectiveness, reforms must be institutionalized; but that won’t happen unless the Administration and Congress engage more widely and actually talk substantively about goals, priorities, and strategies.
There’s plenty more interesting points raised in the review. It rightly commends the progress that has been made in strengthening USAID through USAID Forward, its new monitoring and evaluation tools, and the work of its budget office; I’m just hoping that it doesn’t end up being one of those reports that sits on a shelf gathering dust while, in the meantime, policymakers in Washington undo all of the progress that the report rightly lauds.
