After a complex, year-long, inter-agency process, President Obama announced yesterday the adoption of the first ever U.S. global development policy.  

If you have not been following the ins and outs of this process, you may be surprised to hear that the United States has never before had a global development policy!  But, yes, it is true. 

There have long been policies related to trade, defense, diplomacy, energy, agriculture, aid, labor, migration, etc., all of which have important implications for development.  Yet, there has never been a process that tried to make sense of how all of those policies hang together, what the fundamental goals of U.S. government are related to global development, and how the myriad policies related to development should be aligned to meet these goals.

So that makes the simple fact that a U.S. global development policy now exists a cause for celebration.  But what about the policy itself (especially its substance and viability)?  Personally, I find much to like in the policy.

I like the focus on local ownership. President Obama drew applause when he declared that “the days when development was dictated by foreign capitals must come to an end.”  The principle of developing countries taking the lead in setting development priorities is vital.  The new U.S. global development policy (see White House fact sheet here - the policy directive itself is not public) promises a new operational model that supports country ownership and responsibility, and pledges to “work through national institutions rather than around them.”

I also like the articulation of the purpose of development, from the U.S. government’s point of view, as “creating the conditions where assistance is no longer needed.”  This brings a focus on building systems and capacity, rather than delivering assistance – and it calls for a more systemic understanding of poverty. It also calls for more attention to evidence of what approaches and investments do (and don’t) work.

At a broad level, I like the policy’s recognition that aid is only one driver of development (and perhaps not a very significant driver compared to other factors).  That calls for various agencies of the U.S. government to understand how their strategies – from trade to defense, and from agriculture to energy – negatively or positively impact development.  The practical question, of course, is whether the imperative to advance global development is strong enough to sway or moderate the interests of powerful agencies?  And how will the required coordination and compromise be achieved? 

A few elements of the policy (as we know it) that give me pause are:

• the placement of development within the framework of the U.S. national security strategy (but I realize that wishing for development to be pursued for its own sake might be politically naive)
• the intent to be more selective about where it works, focusing on countries that are well governed, etc. (isn’t the need for development more acute in the opposite case?)
• the focus on game-changing innovation is welcome but it seems to refer mainly to new technologies (innovations in social mobilization, policy formulation or behavior change – just to name a few – can be as important)

Many U.S.-based international NGOs, think tanks and corporate groups have been urging a robust, coherent global development policy – and a revitalized USAID – and President Obama’s announcement has been received very positively. (See Oxfam America’s reaction here, the Center for Global Development’s reaction here, the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network’s reaction here and the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s reaction here.)

With this policy directive signed, the focus now shifts to the really hard part: operationalizing it.  A significant factor in the policy’s success will be the extent to which USAID can be strengthened and elevated into a premier development agency.  That will depend importantly on the Quadrennial Diplomacy & Development Review (QDDR) that is now several months delayed.  Stay tuned!

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

Today, as President Obama headed to Canada for the G-8 meeting, the White House released a statement outlining a new U.S. strategy to advance global development. Given the continuing delays – and considerable confusion – that have marked the Quadrennial Diplomacy & Development Review (QDDR) and the whole-of-government development policy review process, it is a relief to hear that President Obama will be issuing a new policy directive on development “in the near future”. 

After months of guessing – and a leaked memo that pretty much spilled the beans – excerpted below is what the White House statement outlines.

President Obama’s new development policy will:

• Foster the Next Generation of Emerging Markets:  The U.S. will intensify efforts to promote sustainable economic development and support good governance by making targeted investments in countries and/or regions where the conditions are right for progress.

• Invest in Game-Changing Innovations:  By leveraging the power of research and development, the U.S. will work to create and scale-up technologies for health, green energy, agriculture, and other development applications.

• Meet Basic Human Needs in a Sustainable Fashion:  The U.S. will continue to be a global leader in the meeting of basic human needs, but will place increasing emphasis on building sustainable public sector capacity to provide basic services over the long-term.

• Tailor Development Strategies:  The U.S. will tailor development strategies in countries in or recovering from conflict to reflect the unique conditions on the ground, and will join efforts to promote stabilization and achieve security with those designed to promote our long-term sustainable development goals.

• Hold all Aid Recipients Accountable:  The U.S. will seek sustained development progress in all countries receiving U.S. economic assistance by placing a greater focus on policy reforms key to development.

In addition, in pursuing these objectives, the U.S. will pursue a new approach to development that:

• Is More Selective:  The U.S. will seek a division of labor with other donors and focus its efforts on select countries, regions, and sectors – while ensuring critical development needs are met.

• Leverages other Donors, Philanthropy, Diaspora and the Private Sector:  The U.S. will seek a division of labor with other donors and make a concerted effort to partner with other actors to leverage U.S. investments.

• Underscores Country Ownership and Mutual Accountability: The U.S. will place a premium on partnering with countries that are well governed and will work to strengthen their institutions and support their development strategies.

• Strengthens Multilateral Capabilities:  The U.S. will support multilateral development capabilities and support key reforms and the creation of new capabilities, where required.

• Drives Policy with Analysis:  The U.S. will adopt metrics and set in place rigorous standards for monitoring and evaluation, and use data and analysis to drive decision-making.

Many of these are welcome directions. The emphasis on country ownership, evidence-based decision-making, multilateral capabilities and focused investments is strategic. What is not crystal clear is what President Obama articulates as the central purpose of advancing development. 

Given what we see in the U.S. National Security Strategy, it’s possible to surmise that development is advanced because it is important for U.S. national security. Yet, President Obama and several senior administration officials clearly believe that development is important in its own right.

Many argue that this is a false dichotomy but, unless the purpose question is answered with clarity, confusion and fragmentation will continue to reign even after the directives and reviews are finalized.

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

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.

Wednesday, April 21, 4.00 pm – 5.30 pm
Weil Town Hall (Belfer L-1), Harvard Kennedy School, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

The panel will be moderated by Professor Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Harvard Kennedy School.

The panel will consist of:

Steve Feldstein, Professional Staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Congress
Karen Hanrahan, COO, Quadrennial Diplomacy & Development Review, U.S. State Department
Paul O’Brien, Vice President for Policy and Advocacy, Oxfam America
Jonathan Quick, President and CEO, Management Sciences for Health

This policy panel will consider three important policy processes now underway – the Quadrennial Diplomacy & Development Review (QDDR) being advanced by the State Department, the Presidential Study Directive (PSD) being carried out by the National Security Council to review U.S. global development policy, and efforts to rewrite the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act within the U.S. Congress – and the historic opportunity they offer to reshape U.S. foreign assistance and global development policy to be more effective, coherent and integrated. 
 
The panel will bring NGO perspectives, drawn from decades of working in poor communities worldwide, together with U.S. government policy perspectives.  How does the QDDR weigh diplomacy and development as U.S. foreign policy priorities?  How should the U.S. government’s development capacity be strengthened – and how should it relate to diplomacy and defense imperatives?  What major principles should guide U.S. foreign assistance reform in order to dramatically enhance aid effectiveness?  What are the political prospects of such aid reform legislation being passed?  How will the PSD relate to  the QDDR and aid reform?  These are some of the questions that will be considered in the panel discussion and the Q&A to follow.