blog logo image

Archive for the ‘Community’ Category

Modern Legislation: Moving From Policy to Practice

Wednesday, July 6th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Development Reform: A New Chance for Congress to Lead

Below is the first piece in our Modern Legislation blog series from Former Congressman and Ambassador to Tanzania Mark Green. The series explores just one pillar of MFAN’s updated reform agenda, From Policy to Practice. Stay tuned for more!

***

Over the last ten years, few areas of public policy have undergone more dynamic change than America’s role in international development.

We’ve seen the launch of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the largest commitment any nation has ever made to combat a single disease internationally. We’ve seen the birth of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), an entirely new approach to assistance that partners the U.S. with impoverished nations that demonstrate their commitment to principles of good governance, economic freedom, and investing in people. And we’ve seen the emergence of the President’s Malaria Initiative, an interagency initiative producing historic results by emphasizing proven interventions and measurable, country-driven strategies.

Every bit as dramatic has been the strong, bipartisan role Congress has played in shaping and enacting these programs. While it was a Republican president who launched them, they were refined and enhanced through hands-on leadership from both houses and both parties.

The continuation of this remarkable success story is challenged by two recent developments. The first is economic—the dramatic downturn in the global economy. Money is obviously tight in Washington, around the country, and across the globe.  It’s only natural that voices would emerge to question whether America can still afford to help the world’s poorest. The second is institutional—the loss of so many of the leaders who originally reached across the aisle to craft these innovative measures. Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, whose working relationship as Chairman and Ranking member of the International Relations Committee was essential to producing these programs, have passed away. We’ve also seen the retirement or defeat of other strong leaders like Bill Frist, Tom Daschle and Denny Hastert.

However, these trends also create an opportunity for today’s policymakers to write their own exciting new chapter. The economic downturn creates a renewed mandate for careful scrutiny of our current programs and practices. The influx of new lawmakers, many of whom have remarkable records of accomplishment and success in the private sector, bring new leadership potential to Capitol Hill. Taken together, these trends give Congress everything it needs to take on a long-overdue mission: reforming our foreign assistance framework.

Like never before, policymakers should seek out innovations that will make our foreign assistance tools more effective and more efficient. They have a clear mandate to demand greater monitoring and evaluation, more streamlining and integration of existing programs and authorities, and an opening up of opportunities for private sector-driven solutions. Taxpayers want their policymakers to not only bolster development outcomes in the field, but also increase economic and diplomatic “return on investment.”

The Administration has started the ball rolling on reform.  President Obama’s Policy Directive on Global Development elevates the role that development programs play in our international relations. Secretary Clinton’s first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review makes a number of administrative moves to try to better coordinate development policy. Finally, Administrator Shah has laid out plans to make stronger monitoring and evaluation a cornerstone of his leadership at USAID.

But now, it’s Capitol Hill’s turn. Just as it did when PEPFAR and MCC were introduced by President Bush, members of Congress need to continue the reform process begun by the Administration.  More than that, they need to enhance it by pursuing their own solutions as well.  They should look at every possible idea for making our development tools as effective and innovative as possible.

The loss of Congressional leaders is certainly lamentable, but it also gives rise to new leaders and new leadership opportunities. The relative lack of experience in development among newer policymakers is compensated by the wealth of experience that many of them have from beyond the Beltway . . .from the private sector and from other walks of life.  This is the chance for those fresh eyes and fresh voices to make a difference and to take America’s leadership in international development to new levels.

There are a number of encouraging signs in this regard. Last month, Representatives Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) and Adam Smith (D-WA) came together to launch a new Congressional Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance.  In their first caucus briefing, they listened carefully to Dr. Shah speak of his plans for more outcome-based administration of USAID programs. They responded by discussing ways in which Congress might review and build upon his ideas.  They also talked about doing whatever they could to help the public—average citizens, business leaders, Members of Congress and others—understand the critical importance of development to America’s leadership and national interests. Most importantly, they reaffirmed that while the Executive Branch is naturally charged with implementing policy in areas like international development, Congress must play an active role to ensure that reforms are not only effective, but fiscally and politically sustainable.

While it rarely makes headlines, Congress has often played a key role in crafting the best innovations in development policy. While our budget constraints and institutional turnover create challenges for any sector, foreign assistance reform is one area where Capitol Hill can, and must, step forward to help America continue its leadership.

 

MFAN Blog Series: Moving from Policy to Practice

Tuesday, July 5th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

This week, MFAN is launching a six-part blog series about our new reform agenda, From Policy to Practice. Each month, we will be focusing on a different pillar of our agenda, such as strengthening the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or ensuring that our assistance is driven by local priorities, with the goal of moving the conversation from policy to practice and, ultimately, advancing reform. The posts in each series will draw from the vast experience and knowledge of MFAN’s Principals to articulate how to take reform principles and put them in to practice, offering practical actions while addressing implications of such action (or inaction).

We’re kicking off the series with an in-depth look at “Modern Legislation” as part of the foreign assistance reform process. In From Policy to Practice, MFAN wrote, “U.S. policy should be guided by modern legislation that codifies a shared Executive-Legislative vision for the U.S. approach to poverty-focused development build around sound strategic planning, greater transparency, accountability for results, and the flexibility to spend resources according to needs and opportunities on the ground.”

Beginning tomorrow, we will post the first piece in our “Modern Legislation” series from former Congressman and Ambassador to Tanzania Mark Green. Over the next week, we’ll include pieces from Connie Veillette, Director of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Project at the Center for Global Development, and Larry Nowels, a consultant working with the Hewlett Foundation and the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, who also serves as the U.S. Policy Director for ONE.

Be sure to check back on the blog and on Twitter and Facebook for updates!

 

MFAN Principal Releases Report on Renewed U.S.-EU Development Dialgoue

Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

In the face of trying economic times and upheaval among fragile states, MFAN Principal Bill Anderson has released a policy brief, in partnership with the German Marshall Fund of the U.S., that touts a strong U.S.-EU foreign assistance partnership as an invaluable instrument against global instability.  Entitled, “The U.S.-EU High Level Development Dialogue: Building on the Legacy of the Marshall Plan,” Anderson puts forth a multi-faceted argument on the future of international development assistance.  The author, offering both retrospective analysis and evaluative projections, asserts that a widespread, integrated foreign assistance strategy between the U.S. and the EU is the appropriate response to instability in the global economy and conflict in the Middle East and North Africa.

Stemming from a “Development Dialogue” that re-commenced in 2009, the U.S. and EU have renewed an integrated path towards foreign assistance on a scale that has not been seen since the Marshall Plan.  Though an operational partnership is far from being realized, Anderson is confident that such a linkage, once made, would be integral in “accelerating inclusive growth, reducing poverty, improving people’s lives, providing security and stability, supporting the rule of law, and preventing conflict and crisis.”  Given concerns that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will not be reached by 2015 and with fears that developed nations will respond to market contractions by reducing their commitment to foreign assistance, a robust partnerships between the two greatest contributors of Official Development Assistance (ODA), the U.S. and EU, will help to facilitate long-term maintenance and future expansion of current foreign assistance programs.

In order to spawn an operational partnership, Anderson notes the “Development Dialogue” must address the following three pillars of foreign assistance:

  • Sector focus
  • Improved aid effectiveness
  • Security and development

The most pressing sectors, or priorities, that the partnership must tackle are food security, coping with climate change, and reaching the MDGs.  With such a lofty agenda and limited resources, Anderson sees country-led strategies as the solution to making progress in these sectors and improving aid effectiveness overall.  Lastly, given the inextricable linkage between conflict zones and areas in need of foreign assistance, expanded U.S.-EU cooperation must also provide for conflict prevention and crisis response strategies.

Though a partnership between the U.S. and EU will be critical to combating today’s development challenges, Anderson identifies a host of inhibiting factors that have the potential to slow the process or derail it altogether.  The primary impediments that currently limit the scope and progress of a U.S.-EU partnership on foreign assistance are the “unwieldy, opaque institutions” of the U.S. federal government.  With a general lack of understanding concerning the logistics of foreign assistance initiatives and insufficient awareness about the potential benefits of the partnership in consideration, the U.S. Congress has its sights set on cutting USAID’s budget rather than exploring ways to “maximize results from limited foreign assistance resources.”  Moreover, an absence of interagency cooperation threatens to halt the dialogue indefinitely. As Anderson aptly puts it,Options for moving forward begin with putting the U.S. government’s own house in order.”

Going beyond the “opportunities” and “challenges” inherent to the partnership process, Anderson devotes a significant portion of his brief to what he calls, “moving forward.”  He writes that promoting awareness and providing information will help to overcome major roadblocks to discussions and that think tanks, NGOs, and private sector communities must educate Congress and the Executive Branch about the benefits of pursuing a bilateral foreign assistance strategy with finite resources. As Anderson remarks, “If the EU and the United States demonstrate clear results in mitigating or preventing crises in fragile states, the Congress will take note.”  Anderson adds that a USAID representative should liaise with the European Commission regularly.

Once these challenges are overcome, or at the very least mitigated, the U.S. and EU will jointly realize what Anderson asserts in his brief to know already: when compared to the dangers associated with pursuing a strong U.S.-EU foreign assistance partnership, “Not making the effort entails the greater risk.

To read the full paper, click here.

 

Brookings releases Catalyzing Development: A New Vision for Aid

Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

On Tuesday, Brookings launched their recent publication, Catalyzing Development: A New Vision for Aid. The event featured engaging speakers and a panel of experts who assessed aid as a driver of global progress.  As participants examined the changing landscape of foreign assistance, many of their recommendations for increased effectiveness aligned with MFAN’s priorities.

Inclusive partnerships and capacity development were recurring themes in the conversation. Both Kangho Park, consul general for the Republic of Korea, and Keiichiro Nakazawa, chief representative for the Japanese International Cooperation Agency’s US office, emphasized that donor countries can no longer set the agenda unilaterally. They underscored the need for broader, more effective partnerships and comprehensive strategies—including trade and private sector investment—to build capacity in developing countries.

These calls were echoed by Kyle Peters (World Bank) and Steve Pierce (USAID). Peters spoke of the need for donor coordination to harness our advantages and develop risk management strategies, and Pierce agreed that “aid, while necessary, is not sufficient.” He cited USAID Forward—especially the agency’s efforts on procurement reform—as a means of expanding partnerships on the local level.

Homi Kharas, Brookings Senior Fellow and one of the book’s authors, reviewed some challenges of foreign assistance and offered a number of recommendations, including an emphasis on transparency and South-South cooperation. Panelists expanded on these points: Hyunjoo Rhee discussed South-South knowledge exchange, the topic of her chapter in the book, saying that countries with a more equal relationship can share “the whole package of experiences.” Lindsay Coates, InterAction’s Executive Vice-President, stressed that country ownership must span the whole of society, noting that transparency is undercut without individuals and civil society organizations to hold governments accountable.

Kharas closed the conversation by looking toward the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan. As foreign assistance faces emerging challenges and opportunities—bringing in new donors, active partnerships with NGOs and the private sector, and increased transparency and accountability—his biggest fear is that the Busan proceedings will be “business as usual.” MFAN knows—and the thoughtful analysis in Catalyzing Development shows—that the changing development landscape requires a new approach.

CGD: President Sirleaf’s Ambition for Liberia: Aid-Free in a Decade

Wednesday, June 29th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

A recent post on the Center for Global Development’s blog offers a recap of last week’s event with Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Todd Moss, CGD’s vice president for corporate affairs, discusses the President’s speech and her laudable goals for Liberia. The full post is available here.

CGD had the honor and privilege of hosting Liberia’s President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf—the first elected female head of state in Africa—on June 23.  At the event, President Sirleaf set a hugely ambitious goal of being aid-free within ten years. Given that aid currently accounts for more than half of GDP, this would imply serious increases in other sources of revenues, but it’s a well-calibrated message both to Congress and to audiences back home.

The Center has long had a special relationship with Liberia, including work on debt relief, the Scott Family Liberia Fellows program, and frequent events with Liberian officials like the recent visit by the health minister.

For me, the highlights of last week’s event, aside from Sirleaf announcing the goal of being aid-free in a decade and a middle-income country by 2030, was seeing the president in her element. She continues to be a crowd favorite and an engaging, inspirational speaker.  Having watched her for many years, she seems on top of her political game, enrapturing a packed room, speaking without notes, and weaving together Liberia’s dramatic story, the innards of policy wonkdom, and her own humor.

I was also impressed by the speech topic which, at President Sirleaf’s request, was not about not aid or U.S. security assistance, but the private sector and generating more investment in Liberia. Her main point was that jobs and economic growth can only happen sustainably through the private sector.  For Liberia, this means not only reaping the gains from better-run traditional extractive sectors of timber and mining, but also exploiting new extractives (oil!) and, hopefully, services.

Watch Sirleaf’s speech below. The full video of the event is available here.