Great Expectations, Rising Impatience: A Watershed Moment for U.S. Foreign Assistance

Posted on 27 April 2010

By Sherine Jayawickrama

On April 21, a panel on Seizing Opportunities to Enhance U.S. Aid Effectiveness brought NGO and U.S. government perspectives together in a lively exchange (video below and blog post follows).  Professor Nicholas Burns, from the Harvard Kennedy School, moderated the panel.  Panelists were: Steve Feldstein, Professional Staff Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Congress; Paul O’Brien, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Oxfam America; Jonathan Quick, President and CEO, Management Sciences for Health; and Leon “Skip” Waskin, Senior Development Advisor, QDDR Leadership Team, U.S. State Department.

This is a watershed moment for articulating a clear vision for U.S. global development policy, revamping U.S. capacity to deliver effective foreign assistance and modernizing nearly 50-year-old legislation governing U.S. foreign assistance.  The Obama Administration’s commitment to elevating global development as a foreign policy priority set exceedingly high expectations, especially among the NGO community. 

However, with the QDDR process mired in delays, the PSD unlikely to become public and the aid reform process stalled until the PSD and QDDR processes set a clear direction, a sense of impatience is rising.  If the Obama Administration waits much longer to communicate a clear vision and goal for U.S. engagement in global development, it risks losing the momentum and credibility to oversee a long-awaited process of reform.

The questions that must be confronted are not easy.  The current system is fragmented and its coherence is weak.  Despite broad agreement on the need for reform and the basic directions for change, there are vested interests in government (and among NGOs and private contractors) that tend toward the status quo.  For example, legislators want to be able to claim the credit for certain budgetary earmarks (and maintain oversight re these earmarks) as much as NGOs desire earmarks for “their” sectors or issues.  The need for a “grand bargain” is clear.

Some of the questions to be confronted are:

• Despite the rhetoric of the 3Ds (defense, diplomacy and development) being “co-equal” pillars, there is a clear hierarchy that is reflected in how power and resources are distributed.  Defense imperatives cast a clear security frame for both diplomatic and developmental efforts. Furthermore, embedding USAID in the State Department – together with the weakening of USAID’s staffing and resources over the years – leaves development the lesser partner in this triad. Will this mean that development will be seen as a tool for advancing the national security agenda?  What would that imply?
• There is a pressing need for clear goals and strategy to guide U.S. engagement in global development.  Historically, the U.S. government has pursued many (sometimes contradictory) goals and has not been good at prioritizing and limiting its efforts.  What should these goals be?  What principles should guide U.S. efforts?  What capacities, resources and orientation would be needed to meet these goals effectively?
• Elevating development and increasing the coherence of U.S. foreign assistance requires a solution to the proliferation of agencies involved in administering foreign assistance (e.g. PEPFAR, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense). However, the Obama Administration itself might be contributing to this proliferation with the creation of initiatives for global health and food security. How will a coordinated whole-of-government strategy be articulated and advanced, while attending to the urgent need to rebuild and revitalize USAID?
• An increasing amount of evidence – and international agreements like the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness – point to the need for countries and communities to have ownership of their development processes. How should U.S. global development policy and foreign assistance strategy affirm the principle of country ownership?  What funding mechanisms (e.g. budget support) should be explored, and what performance conditions might be attached to ensure some accountability?
• Dramatic changes to the U.S. approach to global development and foreign assistance must be supported by the American public.  What is being done to build understanding of this issue and build support for more effective approaches?  What is the rationale for maintaining the PSD as an internal document, when transparency re its content could be so helpful in building such awareness and support?  Even within the government, would a more open process lay the groundwork for more transformational reform?

The April 21 panel wrestled with these questions and more.  There’s a lot of great fodder for discussion here, especially as we anticipate the release of the interim QDDR and await word of the PSD process.  Reactions and perspectives – either as comments on this blog or as guest posts – are most welcome.  Do write in!

Sherine Jayawickrama manages the Humanitarian & Development NGOs domain of practice at the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University.