blog logo image

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

MFAN PRINCIPAL: Momentum Will Feed Hill’s Shot at Fundamental Reform

Monday, August 17th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

by Noam Unger, Brookings Institution

The administration continues to signal interest in reforming U.S. global development policies and operations, as evinced by President Obama’s statements last month about the need to make our development policy more coherent and our aid more effective, as well as Secretary of State Clinton’s constant drumbeat about strengthening development capabilities.  Aside from growing concerns about why an administration so committed to development has not nominated its development leaders, Americans and our friends around the world should be asking: Will reforms reach the level of fundamental change that is needed?

That’s where Congress can step in, because multiple fundamental problems of the U.S. foreign assistance system lie in its underpinning legislation.  Recent months have demonstrated a groundswell of bipartisan support for a modernization of foreign assistance that raises the status and effectiveness of global development within the U.S. government. It’s true both the Republican and the Democratic party platforms included language along these lines during last year’s election, but since then further activity in both the House and the Senate has demonstrated a willingness to make progress this very year.  Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has crafted two pieces of legislation that are highly relevant: a State Department authorization bill that touched on development reform and successfully passed in the House, and a bill to initiate foreign assistance reform which has attracted 100 bipartisan cosponsors. Momentum is not limited to the House.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) joined with Ranking Minority Member Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Corker (R-TN) to introduce legislation to revitalize U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and make U.S. foreign assistance more accountable, and they’re getting other bipartisan cosponsors.  It’s not surprising that key members of Congress are taking reform seriously.  By now, many of them have seen this head spinning “chart from hell,” depicting the chaotic web of foreign assistance legislation, directives, objectives and bureaucratic homes across the government (it was developed at Brookings by Lael Brainard who has since gone on to be Obama’s nominee as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs).

The larger game – the rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) – still looms this fall.  Berman has committed to repealing the outdated 1961 FAA and his experienced staff is beginning the process of actually drafting a rewrite.  At a Brookings speech in May, Kerry also announced his intent to revisit the FAA this year “to streamline outdated laws and heavy bureaucracy” and to ease the current burden of “confusing directives, reporting requirements, and procedural roadblocks.”  Rewriting the FAA is an indispensible element of truly fundamental reform.  The current legislation that governs and serves as the foundation for our foreign assistance was developed almost half a century ago.  It has been amended to death and now runs hundreds of pages, containing a dizzying array of unprioritized objectives, as well as countless restrictions that impede much needed adaptability at the field level.

Ultimately, enactment of a new FAA should make it clear that U.S. foreign assistance aims to alleviate poverty and human suffering, support the emergence of capable partners, and mitigate threats.  The authorities and means to do so should also be clear, which involves rationalizing the bureaucracy and modes of operating.  And, on the development front, all is for naught unless reforms lead to efficient, effective and adaptive assistance in partnership with other development actors – including multilateral organizations, other government donors, international business and civil society, and, most notably, the recipients.

Rewriting the Foreign Assistance Act is no easy political feat, but that’s why Congress needs to push ahead, taking advantage of the current window of opportunity.  Reforming the statutory roots of U.S. foreign assistance – especially our development policies and operations – is both the right thing to do in terms of morality and the smart thing to do in terms of U.S. leadership and national interest.  Do others agree?

Noam Unger, a principal member of MFAN, is a Fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Global Economy and Development program and Policy Director of Brookings’ Foreign Assistance Reform Project.

Noteworthy News – 8.14.09

Friday, August 14th, 2009
Bookmark and Share

August 14, 2009

This weekly posting includes key news stories and opinion pieces related to foreign assistance reform and the larger development community.

 
What we’re reading this week:  Calls to restore USAID and name an Administrator…the dawn of ”Africa’s Century” …Foreign assistance to Pakistan… Local voices for foreign aid reform

Aid Reform in Washington

  • Restoring USAID’s Capabilities (Washington Post- Senator Richard G. Lugar, August 9)
    Without a more robust aid agency, President Obama’s pledge to double foreign assistance would be like adding a third story to a house that had a crumbling foundation. Without a strong administrator, USAID’s voice will be lost in the current interagency debate.
  • USAID: an agency without leader and direction (The Lancet, August 14)
    With such deep involvement by the State Department and without a strong leader at USAID in place, the justifiable fear is that programmes will be directed to achieve short-term political gain rather than governed by need and science-based advice.  Obama’s preoccupation with US health-care reform must not distract him from urgently and speedily finding and appointing a strong candidate to competently lead USAID—one of his greatest assets to advance trust in US commitment to global health.
  • Update on Paul Farmer and USAID  (The New York Times-Nicholas Kristof, August 10)
    So I hear it’s final: Dr. Paul Farmer will not run USAID, after all. I still think the proper response is to throw the vetters overboard — if a saint like Farmer can’t get through, who can? — but in the meantime we need an administrator for USAID. That’s particularly true at a time when the administration is pushing for a systematic rethink of how our aid program works.

Other News

  • Africa’s century for development: World Bank chief (Reuters, August 14)
    The World Bank chief said his travels to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda had reinforced his belief that the immediate challenge to keep Africa growing required more resources to bolster regional integration as well as investments in energy, infrastructure and agriculture.  But to make the case for more resources from donors, whose budgets are being strained by the financial crisis, Zoellick said Africans need to demonstrate that they can use aid effectively and improve governance.
  • More Than Missiles (New York Times, August 10)
    Congress left town for its summer recess without passing a long-promised bill to triple American economic and development assistance to Pakistan — the centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s plan to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people.   The aid — and particularly its pledge of five years of uninterrupted help — is intended to demonstrate that this time Washington is in for the long haul.
  • The Promise Of Change: U.S. Engagement With Africa (The Seattle Medium-Jennifer Lee, August 12)
    Clinton’s State Department has pushed badly needed foreign aid reform and advocated for the appointment of effective professionals outside of the DC establishment, like Dr. Paul Farmer for USAID. And yet, many of these changes seem to be stalled, delayed or vetoed from on high.  Buzz words like “human rights” and “transparency” define the Administration’s expectations of Africa. And yet, with all of the problems on the continent, rarely is there discussion of fundamental economic causes at the heart of problems in Africa.