blog logo image

Archive for the ‘White House’ Category

Is Obama’s Budget Good on Reform Efforts?

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

See below for a guest post from MFAN Partner Oxfam America’s Greg Adams, director of aid effectiveness, as he analyzes whether President Obama’s FY’12 budget request is consistent with recent reforms.

Malawi Women Farmers

Women farmers work in Malawi, a country affected by the MCC, Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative. Credit: Abbie Trayler-Smith, Oxfam GB/International.

Is Obama’s budget brawny or brainy?

This week, President Obama sent his budget blueprint to Congress for Fiscal Year 2012. There are two ways to measure this budget: how brawny is it, and how brainy is it?

On brawn, the budget clearly falls short. Obama proposes spending about $27 billion on development and humanitarian assistance—less than the amount Americans spent on candy in 2009. Right now, more than forty percent of the world’s population – 2.7 billion people – live in poverty, struggling to survive on less than $2 per day. That $27 billion essentially adds up to $10 for every poor person around the world; this clearly falls short of a “game-changing” investment.

But of course the question isn’t just about how much we’re spending. The most important question is about how and where we’re investing that money. And here—on the test of brains—Obama’s budget holds much more promise.

For the first time, US government decisions about how to spend anti-poverty dollars are being driven by an official Presidential Policy on Global Development —in effect, a clear strategy about how the United States intends to fight global poverty. This is important because it means we finally have a definition of what success looks like, and we can hold our aid accountable for what results it actually delivers. And that’s important because poverty is not only a moral outrage, but a clear challenge to the United States. Poverty has a corrosive effect on countries’ stability and prosperity. This, in turn, permits threats to the United States to fester. For example, if health systems in African countries can’t protect their own people’s health, it makes it easier for West Nile virus to get on a plane and infect people in the US.

In keeping with the President’s new policy, the US government is pursuing a series of reforms to the US aid system , meant to support citizens and governments around the world who are taking the lead to end poverty in their own countries. Some of these reforms actually began under President George W. Bush. Obama has continued some of these reforms and added new ones, so that the new budget supports a number of worthy reforms:

  • Investing in country-led plans for more effective and demand-driven aid. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Global Health Initiative, and USAID’s Feed the Future Initiative all take the priorities of citizens and their governments as their starting point.
  • Focusing on the real goal: helping countries move beyond aid. The Millennium Challenge Corporation signs five-year compacts with countries that are demonstrably seeking to provide for their citizens, which allows assistance to tackle structural obstacles to development, not just piecemeal projects. USAID’s Feed the Future Initiative is shifting US assistance from stop-gap food aid to sustainable local agriculture.
  • Being transparent and accountable, to US taxpayers and people in poor countries. USAID’s new evaluation policy commits to finding out what works and what doesn’t, being open about those findings, and ending things that don’t deliver results. And the new foreign assistance website shows how and where US aid dollars are spent, increasing transparency. But for these reforms to succeed, the US needs to conduct rigorous evaluations and gather the kind of detailed information that’s most useful for citizens, in the US and at the local level. These reforms can’t become a force for change without staff or funding.
  • Coordinating with other donors to better meet country development needs. Through the Feed the Future Initiative, the US will keep its promises to the Global Agriculture & Food Security Program (GAFSP), a new country-driven trust fund managed by the World Bank.
  • Starting with people, not bureaucracy. USAID’s Implementation and Procurement Reform commits the US to funding more local partners directly, and helps strengthen national institutions to deal with their own challenges.

As Congress considers the budget, it’s worth keeping an eye on these reforms. Will they stick? Or will politics overwhelm this smarter approach? Reforms that transfer information, capacity and control to recipient countries and citizens are key to making all our global poverty fighting investments most effective. The biggest question is whether this budget has enough brawn to make these brainy reforms work in practice.

This post originally appeared on Politics of Poverty: Ideas and analysis from Oxfam America’s policy experts.

MFAN Partners React to FY’11 and FY’12 Budgets

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Below are excerpts from MFAN Partners’ statements in reaction to President Obama’s FY2012 budget request released yesterday and the ongoing debates over the Continuing Resolution for FY 2011 in the House.  You can read MFAN’s statement on the budget here. To learn more about the budget debates, click on the following links: U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s Budget Center; InterAction; and ONE’s blog.

USGLC-300x103In their statement USGLC argued, “For the International Affairs budget, one of the most significant differences is how the Administration and House Appropriators categorize these programs. For the past five budgets, Republican and Democratic Administrations have grouped International Affairs within a cluster of spending categories that collectively make up the U.S. National Security budget.  This bipartisan recognition of the critical role our civilian agencies contribute to our national security mirrors the calls from military voices including Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen, and General David Petraeus. The Administration’s FY 2012 request continues this practice, exempting the International Affairs budget from its five-year freeze on non-security spending.  The House proposal categorizes these programs as non-security funding, subjecting them to deep – and in some cases devastating — cuts.”

InteractionInterAction President and MFAN Principal Sam Worthington commented, “In a tough fiscal environment, the Obama administration has presented a responsible and sensible FY 2012 international assistance budget; one that will help save lives, create economic prosperity here and abroad, and reduce future deficits by preventing bigger security outlays in the future. The administration is also taking steps to ensure every dollar of international assistance is spent effectively and efficiently, an approach members of Congress have been urging for many years. Now that improvements are actually being made, the Hill has another reason to support President Obama’s budget request.”

ONEMFAN Principal and ONE’s U.S. Executive Director Sheila Nix stated, “The House Appropriations Committee has faced very difficult choices in designing its budget for the remainder of FY 2011. We at ONE understand the need for greater fiscal restraints –- and the need to do more with less. At the same time, we are deeply disappointed by the Appropriators’ choice to step away from America’s long-term humanitarian interests in improving and preserving lives around the world by helping people lift themselves out of poverty. It is also a retreat from those programs that help bring stability to many areas of strategic importance to the United States…We are encouraged by President Obama’s FY 2012 budget released today. It demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to a multifaceted national security policy – one that is built on defense, diplomacy, and development.”

MFAN: Reflecting on the 50th Anniversary of Kennedy’s Inaugural

Thursday, January 20th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Today, 50 years ago, President Kennedy delivered an inaugural address that set the tone for US engagement for decades to come. Through the address Kennedy sought to renew US leadership in the world, guided by a moral imperative to oppose those who limit opportunity and freedom. Kennedy said, “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” These words then paved the way for the first-ever Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the establishment of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – commemorating its 50th anniversary this year.   The best way to celebrate President Kennedy’s infamous address is to build on his legacy for alleviating poverty worldwide by strengthening USAID, while reforming and refocusing our efforts to meet present day challenges. See below for excerpts from Kennedy’s speech that speak to the national security and moral reasons why America has an obligation to fight poverty:

“To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.”

“To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good words into good deeds, in a new alliance for progress, to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty.”

“My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

Chairman Berman Says It’s Time to Finish Foreign Aid Reform

Thursday, December 9th, 2010
Bookmark and Share

In a new piece in The Washington Times, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) calls for Congress and the Administration to complete and institutionalize their work to make foreign aid programs “more effective, more efficient and more accountable.”

HCFA_April 222009_042209 Hillary and BermanBerman applauds the initiative of the Obama Administration in pursuing two separate reviews of foreign assistance – the Presidential Study Directive that produced America’s first-ever government-wide global development policy, and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) led by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development that is due out next week.  He cautions, however, that the “real challenge…will be to use the results of this review to implement meaningful reforms with lasting impact.” He goes on to say, “That’s where Congress comes in.”

The authorizing committee chairman points to his own efforts this Congress to rewrite the outdated, now 50-year old Foreign Assistance Act, and urges the both the Executive and Legislative branches of government to come together to enact “common-sense reforms.”

Here are the excerpted principles Berman lays out to ensure durable reform:

“Foreign assistance programs not only reflect American values and principles but serve as essential means for protecting U.S. economic, foreign-policy and security interests,” Berman concludes. “Only by mandating the new structures and processes in law can we establish the level of bipartisan support and executive-legislative consensus that will guard against backsliding and retrogression.”

To read the full article, click here.

CAP Proposes Way Forward on Aid Reform in the New Congress

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010
Bookmark and Share

sustainable_security_logo

In a new report called “U.S. Foreign Aid Reform Meets the Tea Party,” MFAN Principal and Executive Director of the Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative at the Center for American Progress John Norris explores how foreign assistance reform can succeed in the new-look 112th Congress.

“While many have been quick to suggest that the November 2010 midterm elections will result in gridlock in Washington, there are good reasons why foreign aid reform can continue to gain traction,” Norris writes.  He goes on to make concrete recommendations on how to effectively implement the aspirations of President Obama’s global development policy, which was announced in September and is the first of its kind in the history of the U.S. government.  “This new U.S. foreign aid policy framework was well received by a wide spectrum of organizations and commentators, ranging from some traditional aid critics to major groups, such as the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, that have long supported reform efforts,” Norris notes.  “All welcomed an effort to bring greater clarity, discipline, effectiveness, and simplicity to our aid programs.  Articulating a new policy direction, however, is different from making it happen.”

John_NorrisNorris also discusses the role of the soon-to-be-released Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) and how it might – or might not – clarify the relationship between the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.  “It is also noteworthy that neither the new policy directive nor the likely results of Secretary Clinton’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR, have fully resolved a long-simmering tug of war between the State Department and USAID,” he comments.  “Instead, under its current review, the administration revived or partially revived some important policy and budget functions within USAID, leaving the agency with a degree of autonomy. Yet the administration also made it abundantly clear that the agency still operates under the broad policy guidance of the secretary of state, and that State Department officials will remain deeply engaged in decision-making on many key aspects of development while taking an even more prominent role in managing complex crises.”

Specifically, Norris proposes the following actions for partnering with Congress to implement the President’s vision and strategy for U.S. engagement in the developing world:

  • Focusing on countries where assistance will make a real difference;
  • Walking away from partner governments that are not committed to reform;
  • Curbing the tendency to use foreign aid to secure short-term political gains rather than achieving long-term development goals;
  • Bringing far greater clarity and direction to the maze of different government entities conducting assistance through specific regulatory and legislative fixes; and
  • Making a better case as to why foreign aid reform is the right thing to do, both in terms of our national interest and our basic values as Americans.

“For the president’s new policy directive to be effective soon and over the long term, then the administration must work with Congress in a bipartisan fashion to overhaul our foreign aid programs so that they all adhere to the new strategy.  This will require making some difficult choices and then sticking with them.”

To read the report, click here.