blog logo image

Posts Tagged ‘Center for Global Development’

MFAN Principal Ray Offenheiser Comments on Lack of USAID Administrator in Washington Post

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Today in his  ”In the Loop” column, Al Kamen mentioned MFAN’s USAID Administrator poll while lamenting the continued lack of a lack of a qualified person to oversee U.S. development efforts.  Kamen also throws out some eccentric suggestions for a new nominee, including South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) , former deputy Secretary of Defense and head of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz, and even Bono.  Tongue-in-cheek nominations aside, Kamen makes a great point.  The proclaimed vetting process and failure of the Obama Administration to get a USAID Administrator in place, despite ambitious pledges to elevate development as a pillar of U.S. foreign policy,  is just as ridiculous.  He writes:

“Clinton a few months ago blamed the clearance process for the delay, calling it a “nightmare.” No one is going to disagree with that, but pretty much the same ridiculous process was in place in 1993 when Bill Clinton named Brian Atwood to the job only two months after inauguration. And nothing in the process had changed by 2001 whenGeorge W. Bush named Andrew Natsios to the job scarcely one month after taking office.”

Kamen notes the unease felt in the community given the unique opportunity to reform foreign assistance based on current legislation in the House and Senate, as well as the QDDR and the recently announced Presidential Study Directive.  He points to MFAN’s poll to find candidates for USAID as a sign of urgency needed to fill the position and save a crumbling agency.  MFAN Principal and President of Oxfam Ray Offenheiser notes of this “serious crisis” and the need for a leader to  ”inspire a demoralized staff, who is a strong manager” with “gravitas” and development experience.

USAID Poll: Voter comments show deep interest, diverse views

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Over the past two weeks, MFAN’s USAID poll has drawn thousands of votes from around the world.  More importantly, those voters have made their opinions known about who they voted for and why, leaving us with a rich collection of comments that show how important people think it is for the Obama Administration to get a USAID Administrator in place to lead U.S. efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, fight disease, and create economic opportunity in the developing world.  The new Administrator will also need to take a lead role in the push to modernize the outdated U.S. foreign assistance system – a push that is gaining strong momentum with the launch of President Obama’s Presidential Directive on Global Development Policy last week.  As we move closer to the end of the poll in the next couple weeks (note: CGD’s Nancy Birdsall is still in the lead position), we thought it would be worth recapping some of the comments, which prove that our call to action – We need a USAID Administrator now! – is being heard:

  1. It s a great idea for the US to reorganise its Foreign Aid Strategy however care should be instituted such that aid goes down to then eedy grassroot poor instead of chanelling through corrupt Governments or deneying the poor if they are being ruled by a corrupt Government
    Justus Lavi
    Kenya

  2. kitty hempstone says:

    Where is Andrew Natsios on this list? He knows the problems, the players and, probably most import right now, how to get things moving again. I don’t see that any of the others have all three and we’re losing ground daily as private funders step in to fill the gaps, experienced USAID employees retire and leadership moves on.

  3. Gary Merritt says:

    Hempstone’s comments are well-taken. MFAN’s list of 10 candidates includes people with outstanding representational, academic, executive/bureaucratic, legislative, and board skills but few that bring proven development practitioner’s skills as well. USAID’s most forceful and effective leaders over the past five decades have been those who had practical experience in development assistance combined with leadership skills in Executive and Congressional terrains. I voted in this poll but predict, based on an open-ended poll of about 600 USAID retirees in March, that a good number of people who have extensive experience in development will explore the poll but won’t vote because there was no write-in option. That said, kudos to MFAN for launching this public poll!

  4. Mike says:

    I voted for Lancaster, but would be equally happy with Brainard or Birdsall. What the three have in common is a good understanding of development, and (additionally) a good understanding of the agenda for foreign aid, which includes much more than development. At this point in history there is great lack of clarity and great confusion about the challenge of development, the role of foreign aid in promoting development, and the role of foreign aid in promoting other foreign policy concerns besides development. What we need most need is an Administrator who understands and thinks clearly about these issues, and considers them important. Lancaster, Brainard, and Birdsall are the three candidates that stand out in this respect, based on the work they’ve produced.

  5. There is one possible candidate for Administrator who stands head and shoulders above any other American in qualifications and experience and that is Rufus Phillips !!! He carries no adverse
    political baggage and is available, He resides Arlington County, Virginia. His recent book
    “Why Vietnam Matters” may be the best yet written on that conflict. He initiated the Provincial
    Reconstruction Team Concept for AID in Vietnam which has been transferred, though not completely,
    to Iraq and Afghanistan and aims to get AID thru NGO’s, the UN, and all American agencies, civil and
    military, to the rural masses.

  6. Nancy Wrenn says:

    I voted for George Rupp. I have great respect for the International Rescue Committee and believe his work with refugees, which are a major constituency needing USAID support, will be valuable. Several other candidates look very promising. Who is doing the vetting process?

  7. This is a list of “Known Knowns”, some of whom are very well qualified, others of whom are not, some of whom have been compromised by having been too closely associated with the last administration, and several who are not realistic choices, such as Bill Gates and Zoellick.

    Why not open the poll up for nominations from the floor, so we can consider the qualifications of more people like Rufus Phillips who could bring great development and administrative skills to the jobe without all the baggage carried by some of the listed candidates.

    Thanks, in any event, for all that you are doing to bring attention to yawning void at the top of USAID.

  8. jerry pagano says:

    mccoll might be themost viable choice as he is the more likely to compehend the subordinate relationship of aid to state, and thereby the administrator to the secretary in discharging commensurate political operational leadership. for related insights, discuss with doug bennet his relationship with cyrus vance; and with peter mcpherson his relationship with george schulz. another relevant insight would be gained by discussing with jack sullivan governor gilligan’s relationship with vance and getting fired for scheming to gain independence from vance/state. note that usaid’s institutional demise began when it was moved out of the state building, with the misguided enthusiastic support of the atwood administration, thus negating the day-to-day working relationships of the state/aid political leadership. while ngos have long sought usaid independence, it is folly not to recognize aid’s place in the usg’s diplomatic operational scheme-of-things.

  9. Harvey Neese says:

    The only person I can think of to head the infamous USAID at this time is Rufe Phillips. He knows counterinsurgency which is what is needed with all the turmoil in developing countries. We need a program to win the hearts and minds of the people through America’s foreign aid program. I doubt that any of your nominees including the celebs know what counterinsurgency is about. Sorry to be negative, but based on past selections by he Washington bureaucrats, the person will be in with the party politically but have little knowledge of foreign assistance as it should be administered. And whoever is chosen, he or she will be able to foul up continuously without any repercussions. Thank heaven the new administrator won’t be able to destroy again one of, if not the most important program in foreign assistance, and that is agriculture and food systems development. The reason: there is no ag and food assistance program as this was taken care of under the rule of Nastios and his famous agriculture director, Emmy Simmons. !!!!! Please, please, none of these people again.

  10. Jill Buckley says:

    I voted for Carol Lancaster. She has the knowledge, experience, and commitment to development needed by the USAID Administrator. She has traveled the developing world learning and “doing” for years. She is a person of vision and compassion and has management experience. I have worked with her and known her as a friend and colleague. This is a very tough job and Carol could do it extraordinarily well.

  11. John Harbeson says:

    There are some good candidates on the list and a number of people I can think of ought to be on the list, e.g. Paul Farmer as someone suggested. I can think of several colleagues in academia who meet all the criteria who ought to be on the list. Tough to choose from those on the list, when good friends are there–Gayle, Emmy, and Carol especially. But on balance I vote for Carol as best meeting all the criteria, Emmy as a close second. Nancy Birdsall looks good, and I’d be happy with her I think, but somehow she seems like a better candidate for the World Bank. Gayle has the grassroots dirt under the fingers experience that it is so important, as does Emmy. I respect Colin Powell but don’t see that he has any business being on this particular list.

  12. Bob Lester says:

    This is a critical time for USAID as an organization and development assistance as a significant sector for the USG to invest scarce resources. The key issues faced by USAID at this time to me are less developmental in nature than they are political: rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, relationships with other agencies particularly State and DOD, internal organization and management. I voted for Colin Powell as someone who knows how State and DOD work and can deal with them, has shown the leadership that USAID desperately needs, boosted morale at State and improved its management capabilities. If a rewrite of the FAA is going to shape the organizational structure of how the USG provides development assistance and what agency is to be the primary actor in making development policy, then it seems to me that Colin Powell would be the best person to influence the debate in a way that best fosters development interests.

  13. Herb Miller says:

    Although I think it unlikely that he would take the job, my vote would be for former senator Chuck Hagel. With all of the present debate about which direction USAID should be going and just exactly where it should be within the administrative hierarchy, the Agency needs someone with the gravitas of Hagel to deal with the Congress and to deal with other departmental political appointees – all of whom want a part of the pie. I was quite impressed with Hagel’s column in the Washington Post of September 3rd. Without explicitly stating such, I believe he has demonstrated insights on the foreign policy implications of a strong USAID and the role it must play in engageing the developing world – from whence our present problems spring. Intimate knowledge of the theories and practice of development work is of secondary importance. There will be numerous Deputies, Assistant Adminstrators, Deputy Assistant Adminstrators. Office Directors, Mission Directors, etc., who will have countless years of experience to advise and counsel him on the nuts and bolts. In fact, a vast knowledge and experience in development work may even be detrimental to the task ahead for a new Administrator which might bring the wrong focus to the necessary political work ahead. In the immediate future, the new AID Administrator must focus his energies and talents on ensuring AID’s strong presence and independence within the bureaucratic hierarchy. This will require a strong personality to interface with Congress, State and the White House on non-development work grounds. I am still haunted by memories of the fate of USIA. The Agency needs someone to protect it from a similar fate. And United States’ foreign policy desperately needs a strong political direction from and for AID.

  14. I vote for Emmy Simmons who has the USAID experience and knowledge of what needs to be done to revitalize the agency. USAID needs an individual who appreciates the cultural, social and political envinroments of developing world and knows the changes which have occurred over the years in the developing world and new challenges he/she has to face. It’s my conviction that new comers are not properly prepared for this work and they take too long to learn. The history of USAID shows beyond doubts that development needs are responded through leaders who turn intuitions and visions into planning and action and lead the people to follow in the process. Hence the need for an Administrator with practical experience in development assistance and a people person.

Center for Global Development Considers New USAID Administrator Nominees

Friday, August 14th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Last week, Sheila Herrling at the Center for Global Development vented frustration over the failure to name a USAID administrator by comparing the circus-like process to a popular nursery rhyme.  As she notes, what was once funny about the unfilled position is now disconcerting given the Adminstration’s supposed commitment to development.  See the blog post below, followed with over a dozen comments suggesting nominees for USAID Administrator.  

 

Global Development: Views from the Center

The Farmer Out of the Dell: Who’s Next in the USAID Courtship Ritual?
By Sheila Herrling
August 7, 2009

As others before me have reported, Paul Farmer, the longest-rumored contender for the USAID Administrator nomination, is out of the running. And so begins again a courtship ritual that, funny enough, is captured in the old children’s rhyme that bears his name. Not so funny is the fact that seven months into an administration that ran on a smart power platform promising to elevate development to equal footing with diplomacy and defense, there is still no appointee at the helm of the agency charged with executing U.S. development policy and foreign assistance. (Yeah, yeah, I know the Secretary of State is technically in charge since USAID is a sub-cabinet agency. But as I have said before, she has a full-time job on the diplomacy front and needs a powerful wingman 24/7 on the development front.)

I can’t help but chuckle at myself for thinking that, back in January, the president would signal his bold new approach to foreign policy and global engagement by nominating his USAID Administrator alongside his National Security Advisor, Secretaries of State and Defense, and Ambassador to the United Nations as part of his 21st Century National Security Team. When the USAID Administrator still hadn’t been named within the first hundred days, I stopped chuckling. Another hundred days later, front-page Washington Post news items and op-eds in the New York Times reflect the growing frustration within the growing constituency for global development. Seriously, why is it that administrators have been named for GSA, EPA, SBA and NASA but we can’t find and keep a candidate for administrator of USAID?

Some blame it on the vetting process, an arduous task for any nominee but perhaps more arduous for USAID Administrator. A good candidate should have experience in developing countries and with foreign nationals, a quality that adds more time to form filling (i.e. listing every “foreign national” the candidate has had contact with) and the vetting process. Working overseas or in international organizations also complicates tax filings which come under microscopic scrutiny during the confirmation process–something that can catch legitimate problems but also scare off candidates.

While it is still unclear whether it was the vetting process that caught or exasperated Farmer, I have to think that earlier rumored candidates, and most high-level potentials, simply aren’t interested in a position that no longer reports on a daily basis to the Secretary of State (as she herself clarified in her recent Town Hall meeting at USAID) and instead reports to her deputy. An arduous vetting process coupled with diminished authority is a virtual perfect storm for leaving the post vacant and the elevation of development and reform of foreign aid stalled.
And so, as it appears we are back to square one in terms of a search for USAID Administrator, let’s start here a list of candidates you would like to see considered. I’ll start:

  • Sylvia Mathews Burwell
  • Stu Eizenstat

 

17 Responses to “The Farmer Out of the Dell: Who’s Next in the USAID Courtship Ritual?”

 
1. Alanna Says:
August 7, 2009 at 7:37 pm
We’ve got a letter to the president at Change.org that you can sign, asking him to appoint a USAID administrator immediately. http://globalhealth.change.org/actions/view/ask_president_obama_to_appoint_a_leader_for_usaid

2. Robert Marten Says:
August 10, 2009 at 10:55 am
The beauty of Paul Farmer was that he would have been a “game changer”.
On that note, while both might be a bit busy and happy in their current jobs, how about Robert Zoellick or Nancy Birdsall? Or what about giving Colin Powell a chance to redeem himself?

3. Jiesheng Says:
August 11, 2009 at 3:01 am
Development hasneve been a US piriority unless is for strategic reasons. There are definitely no Clare Shorts, no Hilary Benns or no Douglas Alexanders for the USAID post. And what is the USAID for with the MCC around? Who runs the shop?

4. Charles Uphaus Says:
August 11, 2009 at 10:12 am
Until they figure out the job description and the nature of the relationship of the USAID administrator to Hillary and Jack Lew and the NSC, it’s pointless to speculate.

5. Mike Gorman Says:
August 11, 2009 at 10:14 am
What about Carol Lancaster?

6. Bob George Says:
August 11, 2009 at 10:31 am
Bring back Andrew Natsios. He has a vision for the agency and did a great job while administrator under W.

7. Charlie Flickner Says:
August 11, 2009 at 10:47 am
Uphaus is correct about first settling the relationship between State & USAID. If that outcome leaves a functional USAID, why not Speaker Tom Foley or Senator Bill Bradley?
If Republicans are wanted, Gen. Powell or Richard Armitage would be great. An ‘inside’ deputy such as Gail Smith or Amb. Bill Taylor would help.

8. Seema Says:
August 11, 2009 at 10:52 am
Paul Farmer’s politics are rooted in social justice principles that imply equity and empowerment on a whole different scale. USAID is not based on social justice, rather it is a business model to development aid. It is curious Farmer would even consider such a position when his fundamentals are at such polar opposites to USAID. The vetting process was hardly his challenge….the man realized his contributions will remain stronger on the other side of the fence. Good thinking, Farmer!

9. Leslie Fox Says:
August 11, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Would it be unusual if there was actually a candidate who not only had principles and values beyond the normal USAID bureaucrat, but was also a practitioner who understood how change takes place from local to global levels.

10. charles teller Says:
August 11, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Down with the 3rd D? The autonomy of development assistance appears to be submerged under the other Ds (diplomacy and defence). What has hurt us true believers in the importance of achieveing the MDGs is the paucity of reliable evidence of the impact of USAID development programs (on a country by country basis), including the demise of independent policy, evaluations and learning within USAID.

11. Steve Murphy Says:
August 11, 2009 at 4:24 pm
How about John Hammock at Tufts? (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/hammock/default.shtml)
If Hammock’s not up for it, then I’d nominate him to select the next USAID administrator himself.

12. Chris Choas Says:
August 12, 2009 at 10:22 am
How about Dr. Tim Holtz at CDC? He travels a lot and he is well published on International Health [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Tim+Holtz&CAT=914458&SZE=10]

13. Nancy Birdsall Says:
August 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm
It would make sense to appoint someone who commands respect on the Hill, and could work well with the various committee and subcommittee chairs on reform of foreign assistance — including the de-fragmenting of authority and funding of USAID. Examples: Chuck Hagel, Lee Hamilton. Of course those names will only make sense if and when the issue of \diminished authority\ Sheila elegantly invoked is clarified.

14. susan levine Says:
August 12, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Good blog Sheila. It is hard to understand why the White House has not considered it a priority to name both a head of AID, and of MCC. Sure, the vetting process is annoying, and people have either not made it through for some past tax problem, or have removed themselves from consideration to avoid the agony, but as you point out, virtually all heads of agencies have been named, and in a time where the Secretary of State is visiting Africa and addressing issues that require a development focus, it is remarkable that there is noone in the seat.
I like Nancy’s idea of Chuck Hagel. He would certainly not have a vetting problem, and he cares deeply about development, and it would add to the bi-partisan composition of our government.

15. Mose Van Dusen Says:
August 12, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Uphaus and Flickner raise an important point: what will be the new Administrator’s relationship to Clinton and Jack Lew? Problem is that Clinton already has defined that relationship. She has announced that the new Administrator will report to Jack Lew. Why would someone like Senator Bill Bradley want to take a job where he reports to a third or fourth banana; and one that is responsible for management on top of that? And, if that isn’t unappealing enough, who ever becomes administrator is not going to control any resources because State Department is currently very busy taking over all of USAID’s back office functions.

16. Ted Weihe Says:
August 13, 2009 at 12:06 pm
The two Charlies have it right. The most important quality of a USAID Administrator is an ability to work with the Hill. Probably, a former Republican like Chuck Hagel would be a good choice. If the candidate has their own status, then I think the reporting to Jack Lew can be worked out. USAID remains a captive of the Hill, so dealing with it is more important than other traits such as international development experience (which would be an added benefit).

17. Barmak Says:
August 14, 2009 at 10:16 am
I agree 100% with Seema. Smart move for professor Farmer! He is a just-thinking public scholar/public health worker; why on earth would he want USAID Admin job?! So few seem to have thought this through.