Brookings: Topics - U.S. Agency for International Development

A Global Education Challenge: Harnessing Corporate Philanthropy to Educate the World's Poor

Justin W. van Fleet — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:27:00 -0400

Despite the undeniable benefits of education to society, the educational needs, particularly in the world’s poorest countries, remain strikingly great. There are more than 67 million children not enrolled in primary school around the world, millions of children who are enrolled in school but not really learning, and too few young people are advancing to secondary school (van der Gaag and Adams 2010). Consider, for instance, the number of children unable to read a single word of connected text at the end of grade two: more than 90 percent in Mali, more than 50 percent in Uganda, and nearly 33 percent in Honduras (USAID n.d.).

With more young people of age 12 to 24 years today than ever before who are passing through the global education system and looking for opportunities for economic and civic participation, the education community is at a crossroads. Of the 1.5 billion young people in this age group, 1.3 billion live in developing countries (World Bank 2007). The global community set the goal of achieving universal primary education by 2015 and has failed to mobilize the resources necessary, as UNESCO estimates that $16.2 billion in external resources will be need to reach this goal.

Read the full report »

Read the executive summary »

Results from this report were presented at an April 6 Center on Universal Education event at the Brookings Institution.

Learn more about the launch event »

Downloads

Authors

Justin W. van Fleet

Image Source: © Oswaldo Rivas / Reuters

Corporate Philanthropy and Social Responsibility: Enhancing Global Education

Justin W. van Fleet and Rebecca Winthrop — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0400

A recent study, “Harnessing Corporate Philanthropy to Educate the World’s Poor,” conducted by the Center for Universal Education finds that every year, American corporations contribute nearly half a billion dollars for education in developing countries. This estimate shows that, in the aggregate, U.S. corporations constitute a significant source of financial resources for education in developing countries. In fact, they are the 7th largest donor after the World Bank, France, Germany, United States, Netherlands and Japan.

Despite the benefits of education—including economic growth, healthier communities, and peace and security—the needs remain strikingly high in poor and marginalized parts of the world. There are more young people in the world between the ages of 12-24 than ever before seeking educational opportunities leading to a better way of life. And of the 1.5 billion young people in this age group, 1.3 billion live in developing countries. The need for resources to support these young people is great: UNESCO estimates $16.2 billion annually is needed in external resources to achieve universal basic education alone by 2015.

By surveying nearly 150 U.S.-based companies and conducting in-depth interviews with corporate philanthropy leaders, we find that U.S.-based corporations have enormous potential to better use their unique assets and minimize their liabilities when directing their philanthropic efforts toward global education. Other than providing knowledge, tangible skill sets and economic growth to local communities and governments of developing countries, the most significant asset “Corporate America” can bring to global education is innovation.

Dell YouthConnect centers not only provide after-school computer and tutoring classes, but also engage young people in the community to serve as peer educators. In South Africa, the centers are run through a partnership with Humana People to People, in which students receive academic support and also volunteer in the community providing HIV and AIDS prevention information with 5,000+ children, young adults and community members. Corporations could also play a larger role in scaling up innovation to transform education throughout the world. For example, with a few corporate champions, eReaders could revolutionize literacy in developing countries by providing quality learning materials to impoverished places though the mobile phone system, which has demonstrated extensive reach even in the most marginalized parts of the world.

Innovation does not just come in the form of technology. We find innovation through consumer product companies, financial services and the energy sector, ranging from the creation of new tools to enhance education to working with ministries of education to increase capacity.

But, corporate philanthropy does have its limitations. A company is certainly more inclined to make a contribution to education in the developing world only when the contribution—or act of contributing—advances the company’s mission and goals. The idea is for companies to mesh business goals and societal goals to create shared value. But for this to be successful, the economic value created by a company cannot overshadow the societal value from its philanthropy.

There are some lessons to be learned so that corporate investments have the most sustainable impact on education systems. Our study finds that corporate philanthropy is very fragmented—many small, short-term grants to nonprofits, focusing on many different themes, spread across 114 countries and relatively uncoordinated with governments, donors or other companies. And although these contributions may have a meaningful impact on communities, the impact is far smaller than the potential.

In addition, we find that corporate contributions do not reach the most poor and marginalized. The most frequent recipients of corporate funding for education are China, India, Brazil and Mexico; but the countries in most need of support are predominately in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. And, following disasters, we find that companies are quite generous, but often follow the charitable rush: In the aftermath of a disaster, companies and their employees are quick to be generous and organizations are quick to welcome the support, but the long-term strategies are often not in place. We suggest ways in which investing in education in post-disaster contexts could be a win-win, long-term contribution strategy for companies and society.

As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently pointed out in Foreign Affairs, Americans stand to benefit by supporting educational attainment throughout the world. We identify 10 opportunities to improve the impact of corporate philanthropy to education in developing countries. But first and foremost, companies should take on a broader view of education that looks beyond immediate job skills. Education promotes stability, healthier families, civic participation, learning, and more economically productive citizens. Serving as a starting point to bridge the corporate sector and the global education community, the goal of our research and analysis is to shape the discussion on how to best work together to create equitable learning opportunities for children worldwide.

Download the "Harnessing Corporate Philanthropy to Educate the World's Poor" report »

Results from this report were presented at Center on Universal Education event at Brookings.

Authors

The QDDR: Following Through on Civilian Power?

Noam Unger — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:23:00 -0500

On Wednesday, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development unveiled the much-awaited Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review entitled “Leading Through Civilian Power.” The specific conclusions of the review are certainly of interest to many policymakers and policy watchers in Washington and around the world, but it is important to first recognize that the QDDR represents a critical effort to enhance strategic thinking and planning at both State and USAID. With an eye toward sharpened capabilities, one of the biggest tests of the review’s success will be whether it actually fosters an alignment of strategies and plans with appropriate resources.

Although the QDDR focuses on diplomacy and development, its readers should understand that the development issues covered constitute essential components of President Obama’s broader development policy across all the relevant instruments and agencies of the U.S. government, including but not limited to State and USAID. As Obama noted earlier this fall during his landmark development policy speech at the United Nations, “aid alone is not development,” and in addition to diplomacy, other policies like trade and investment are essential pieces of the puzzle.

Within the community focused on U.S. initiatives in diplomacy, foreign assistance, development, peace building and state building, there is a great deal of consensus on the need for strengthened civilian international affairs capacity. This consensus pre-dates the current review and the Obama administration, and it will be interesting to carefully examine the full QDDR, while reflecting on the recommendations from major study reports of the past decade. Many of these recommendations were parsed out in Surveying the Civilian Reform Landscape, a 2008 report I co-authored with Craig Cohen of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, a fair number of the most popular recommendations—whether on strategic planning, human resources and training, or engagement with the private sector—have a foothold in the QDDR.

From the QDDR executive summary, it is clear that the recommendations include many common-sense improvements necessary to execute effective diplomacy in the face of 21st century challenges. For example, the State Department will reorganize to focus on energy in close collaboration with economic and environmental affairs. It will also establish a coordinator for cyber issues, ensure better communications technology, continue to strengthen engagement with emerging powers, make its personnel systems more flexible to meet critical needs and take other steps to modernize.

One of the issues at the crux of the QDDR is how to deal with complex crises and conflicts. The focus is an important one, but a key recommendation for “a lead-agency approach with a clear division of leadership and responsibility” between State and USAID will not, in practice, have the clarity needed. State is assigned the lead for political and security crises and USAID has responsibility for leading responses to “humanitarian crises, resulting from large-scale natural or industrial disasters, famines, disease outbreaks and other natural phenomena.” However, famines are inherently political and the lines between these areas are murky enough that it may be bureaucratically difficult for USAID to truly lead on crises beyond the most tightly circumscribed delivery of disaster relief operations. Since USAID is the more operational agency, this leadership challenge may result in missed opportunities as State seeks to become more operational and more developmentally minded.

The most pressing issue with regard to U.S. peace building and state building efforts in fragile, conflict-affected regions is that of coordination across all relevant departments and agencies and this issue was largely beyond the scope of the QDDR. The Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization at State has never been able to fulfill its whole-of-government coordination function, and its metamorphosis into a new Bureau for Crisis and Stabilization Operations will not help on this particular issue. What is needed is a much more robust coordination capacity at the White House.

On broader development issues beyond conflict and fragile states, the QDDR hits many of the right points. When USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah first took up his position a year ago, there were concerns that he was arriving too late to shape the review. The QDDR’s numerous delays and many of its conclusions related to development have shown that this concern was misplaced. The QDDR emphasizes systematic change over service delivery while placing high value on transparency, innovation, monitoring and evaluation, multi-year planning in close coordination with developing countries and rebuilding the core capacity of USAID. It has also determined that USAID should lead on the presidential initiatives related to food security and global health. This is a sound conclusion in accordance with President Obama’s policy of making USAID the government’s lead development agency and consciously begins to transition beyond the bureaucratically fragmented approach that has weakened U.S. global development efforts.

The QDDR’s decision to focus development support on specific sectors should lead many policy analysts to ask hard questions about how State and USAID define seemingly broad areas of concentration such as “sustainable economic growth.” Although greater focus is an important step toward more effective policies, everyone should also be asking what we will no longer be doing in order to achieve that goal.

Additionally, there is the question of geographic focus. How can we more deliberately concentrate our development efforts in particular countries? Where? And how might scaling back on bilateral assistance to certain countries relate to scaling up U.S. engagement with multilateral development institutions?

Other critically important questions relate to the interpretation of USAID mission directors as “primary development advisors” to U.S. ambassadors. How is this different from the past? Considering Obama’s stated intent for USAID to be the lead development agency, does this designation change USAID’s relationship with many other agencies of the U.S. government actively engaged in development support programs at the field level?

There is seemingly much to like about the QDDR, such as its well-placed focus on the role of women and girls in peace-building and development, but the review raises many questions. Ultimately, to make this type of review quadrennial in fact, rather than just in name, and to leave behind a legacy of institutional reform, the administration would do well to work closely with Congress. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has boldly chosen to try to fundamentally change the culture of the State Department—a large project to say the least. With the full 200+ page QDDR now available, expect to witness a lively debate on whether this is possible and whether progress is being made.

Noam Unger, a Global Economy and Development Fellow and the Policy Director of the Brookings Institution's Foreign Assistance Reform Project, has worked on humanitarian affairs, reconstruction, conflict transformation, and interagency coordination at both the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Authors

Noam Unger

Image Source: © Akhtar Soomro / Reuters

Uncovering the Quality of Official Development Assistance

Anirban Ghosh and Homi Kharas — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:06:00 -0400

Official foreign aid to developing counties is currently a $120 billion industry. Such levels of annual giving are indicative of global goodwill toward helping the poor and assisting in the economic development of poorer nations. However, goodwill is not the same as good results. President Obama recently announced the creation of a new U.S. foreign aid policy, promising to focus on results, “whether we’re actually making improvements in people’s lives.” These remarks are welcome. As the largest donor nation, improvements in how the United States disburses its aid can affect the overall quality of global aid, and U.S. actions can also lead to positive changes in the operations of other donor nations.

The first step to make aid more effective is to accurately measure its effectiveness. In a joint effort with the Center for Global Development, Global Economy and Development at Brookings has created a Quality of Official Development Assistance (QuODA) assessment. This assessment compares each donor country or agency to its peers. Through such benchmarking, we hope to “move the needle” by bringing differences in performance between agencies to the fore.

The Quality of Official Development Assistance assessment is comprised of annually updatable, objective indicators. By measuring performance in a quantitative way, the assessment will put a spotlight on countries that perform well and those that are below their peers. This pushes the aid argument away from how much to how. Simply put, better understanding of donor actions can lead to better donor practices, ultimately resulting in more sustainable development.

QuODA rates 31 donor countries and multilateral agencies across four dimensions or pillars of aid quality built up from 30 separate indicators. The four pillars of aid quality are:

Maximizing Efficiency;
Fostering Institutions;
Reducing Burden; and
Transparency and Learning.

Each of these pillars is consistent with international standards of aid effectiveness as outlined in the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action. By using a comprehensive set of 30 indicators, donors should be able to evaluate their effectiveness and find areas for improvement. Further, QuODA compares the aid quality of 152 individual development agencies across the same four pillars described above.

The assessment’s quantitative index complements the qualitative assessment of aid, most notably by the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s peer review process, and also builds upon, and extends, previous quantitative assessments by experts in this area.

QuODA reveals that no one country or agency dominates across all four categories. Additional key findings include:

There is room for improvement for the United States as it ranks 24 (or lower) out of 31 in all four dimensions, even though some U.S. agencies such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation score above average.
The World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) ranks in the top 10 for each of the four dimensions and is the only large donor to do so.
There is no relationship between the volume of aid and the quality of aid. Some large donors, such as the U.K. and IDA score relatively well, while Japan and the U.S. perform relatively poorly.

QuODA will be launched on October 5, 2010, at the Center for Global Development.

Authors

Anirban Ghosh
Homi Kharas

Image Source: © Normand Blouin / Reuters

Set to Lead Again? New U.S. Engagement on Global Development

Homi Kharas and Noam Unger — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:56:00 -0400

The Obama administration’s foreign policy began with a mission to refashion America’s international image and influence. Last week, alongside a speech to the U.N. Summit on the Millennium Development Goals and nearly two years after he was elected, President Obama unveiled a critical component of that effort: his administration’s global development policy. The policy announcement marks a significant and welcome step in advancing a strategy Obama first put forward during his presidential campaign.

While the policy aims to support sustainable development outcomes worldwide, much of the announcement inwardly focused on necessary reform of U.S. governmental systems. It is critically important to modernize the U.S. approach to development and the capacity to successfully support that approach. Additionally, the policy emphasizes support for economic growth by strengthening multilateral capabilities, leveraging non-governmental development actors, coordinating more closely with development partners, and working in better alignment with developing nations’ priorities. With such aims at the core of a new operational model of development support, and with the president’s policy launch timed to coincide with the United Nations review of the MDGs, it seems the U.S. could be setting itself up to once again be the international leader on development issues.

Renewing Multilateral Development Cooperation

U.S. leadership in international development has taken a hit in recent years—largely due to the unilateral (or at best, bilateral) approach that marked the George W. Bush administration’s efforts. Through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Bush administration worked with Congress to invest heavily in focused, innovative, and results-oriented development programs designed and implemented by the U.S. alone. United States multilateral cooperation sank precipitously as a consequence. Since 2000—even as U.S. development assistance increased nearly 10 percent per year in real terms—the share of foreign assistance channeled through multilateral organizations dropped by more than half (down to 11 percent today compared to an average of 30 percent for other rich countries). Also during this period, the U.S. ceased to be the largest donor to several multilateral development funds. The U.K. surpassed the U.S. in contributions to the International Development Association, the World Bank’s concessional fund for the poorest countries; and in contributions to the African Development Fund, the U.S. now ranks behind the U.K., France and Germany. Beyond lower relative funding to multilateral agencies, the U.S. also implemented its development programs in relative isolation. According to the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, only 12 percent of U.S. aid missions are effectively coordinated with other donors.

To the extent that the U.S. engaged in broad international dialogue on development cooperation during the Bush administration, it seemed to do so grudgingly. Through Ambassador John Bolton, the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations at the time, the Bush administration even sought to excise all references to the MDGs in a 2005 U.N. summit document. At the 2008 High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, the U.S. could not even agree to be a signatory to the International Aid Transparency Initiative even though transparency is central to U.S. domestic values.

In contrast, the Obama administration’s new policy positions the U.S. to embrace international efforts to promote more effective development, allowing for the opportunity to shape that open dialogue in a way that reflects American values, such as market-driven approaches to growth. Serious, rather than dismissive, treatment of the Millennium Development Goals, for example, gives the U.S. a chance to promote good governance, better measurement of outcomes, sustainability through the development of country systems and other key themes. In his speech at the MDG summit, Obama made a point of noting that broad-based economic growth “turned South Korea from a recipient of aid to a donor of aid.” It so happens that South Korea will host two upcoming meetings that will further test the U.S.’s willingness and ability to influence international development strategies: the upcoming G-20 Summit in November that will debate development issues for the first time, and the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011.

Also in his speech, the president emphasized scaling up development efforts in places where countries themselves have made good governance and economic development a priority. Without abandoning crisis response and humanitarian relief efforts, Obama has committed to steer the U.S. system to become more selective and deliberately focused, “where we have the best partners and where we can have the greatest impact.” This high-impact approach also has implications for multilateral development cooperation. While the new policy acknowledges the need to “make hard choices about how to allocate attention and resources across countries, regions and sectors,” such decisions invite political costs as certain programs and country missions are closed down in favor of others. However, the policy explicitly includes a commitment to renew U.S. leadership within multilateral development organizations, and widespread multilateral engagement can provide a balance to more narrowly selective and focused bilateral efforts. With greater leadership at the multilateral development banks, the United Nations, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and other multilateral organizations, the U.S. can still influence resources deployed across many countries worldwide while also sharpening its focus on development results.

A Lead Development Agency

A key element of development leadership under Obama’s new policy will be the elevation and strengthening of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The MCC and PEPFAR initiatives of the Bush administration were intentionally established apart from USAID, because the latter was viewed as weak and, in some ways, too broken to fix. That approach to USAID shifted late in Bush’s second term when the administration sought to reform the agency by integrating it into the U.S. State Department. Under Obama’s leadership, USAID’s status has been unclear.

The president’s policy, however, seeks to “reestablish the United States as the global leader on international development” by “rebuilding USAID as the U.S. government’s lead development agency.” This is significant because the White House included 16 different agencies across the bureaucracy to review the U.S. approach to development, which fed into the creation of the new policy. Additionally, in his speech on the MDGs, President Obama emphasized that development policies and strategies are about more than foreign assistance. To be the leader for development, USAID, must be able to guide more than just aid. To do so requires clout, capacity and creativity. If implemented well, the new policy could provide for all three:

Clout: Rajiv Shah, the leader of USAID, now has an explicit role on the National Security Council. He must promote a strong development viewpoint; and USAID mission directors in embassies and developing country capitals worldwide must be empowered.
Capacity: Given many years of bureaucratic fragmentation of development-related responsibilities and operations across the government combined with severe losses of in-house technical expertise, USAID needs to rebuild. Already, Shah is taking steps in this direction by pushing policy, budget, planning and evaluation capabilities. The president’s approach points toward new “development impact” assessments of policy changes affecting developing countries (such as shifts in trade policy). As it is rebuilt to be the U.S. government’s lead development agency, USAID should augment its capacity to spearhead such assessments.
Creativity: Tension lies in the combination of renewed multilateral development cooperation and the President’s commitment to making USAID the U.S. government’s lead development agency. An elevated lead development agency should have a more prominent role in affairs concerning multilateral development organizations. This has implications for U.S. policy toward the multilateral development banks, which is led by the U.S. Treasury Department, as well as policy toward the U.N. humanitarian and development agencies, generally guided by the U.S. State Department. Subject to statutory reforms, which may or may not emerge from current Congressional interest in the modernization of development legislation, existing laws establish some of the current divisions of responsibility among agencies. Even so, USAID could take on a bigger role with regard to multilateral development issues not assigned to a different agency by law. In other cases, creative arrangements could emerge unless and until the law changes. For example, working in conjunction with the Treasury Department, USAID could establish closer collaboration with multilateral development banks.

A Bit of Evolution, a Bit of Revolution

In certain ways, the new strategy represents a significant shift in how the U.S. manages its development operations, while in other ways it demonstrates consistency and continuity. Obama is building on the good aspects of his predecessor’s aid programs by: retaining the MCC and its approach to good performers, transparency and measurement; advancing PEPFAR as a dominant component of a results-oriented global health program that is focusing increasingly on sustainable health systems; and ramping up resources and human capital at USAID and the State Department even in a very trying budget environment. Rather than creating new aid institutions to execute new initiatives, the Obama administration is wary of fragmentation and focused instead on strengthening core systems. The strategy also suggests that elements of selectivity, public-private partnership, and an analytically-based results orientation will apply to development aid efforts more broadly. Development’s place in the U.S. national security strategy is similarly more evolution than revolution, as this trend developed in the last administration.

What is more revolutionary, is the clear recognition that U.S. development policy must be about more than aid. Organizationally, alongside its long-term commitment to build up USAID to be the nation’s lead development agency and the world’s premier development agency, the White House has recognized the need to oversee a coherent global development strategy that factors in the broader array of development policy instruments in areas such as trade, investment, migration and agriculture. The administration’s strategy indicates a commitment to a more comprehensive and coherent approach to supporting development outcomes. To the extent that President Obama succeeds in truly elevating USAID in a manner that lasts beyond his tenure, this might also represent a revolution. If the administration’s shift in tone on multilateral cooperation translates into real resources for engagement through such institutions, and through cooperation on the ground, then this too could be a revolution. The degree to which these revolutions succeed through policy implementation will determine whether the U.S. can lead on global development.

Authors

The Determinants of Foreign Aid Volatility

Raj M. Desai and Homi Kharas — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:56:00 -0400

ABSTRACT

Flows of official development assistance (ODA) to recipient countries have been highly volatile over the past 40 years, and there is significant evidence that volatile aid can negatively impact growth through several channels; but less is known about the sources of the volatility. Using an auto-regressive conditional heteroskedasticity model, we generate conditional variances for total aid flows to all aid-recipient countries between 1960 and 2008. We then examine the effects of both recipient-country and donor-related factors on this resulting volatility. We find that some degree of volatility is caused by events in recipient countries, mainly civil wars and adverse regime change—all of which increase the unpredictability of aid flows. But larger, unexpected swings in aid tend to be due to the concentration of aid portfolios combined with the prevalence of donor herding. Our results demonstrate, additionally, that the United States is the most volatile aid-giver, but that volatility is mostly due to U.S. aid recipients receiving unanticipated aid windfalls. Our findings are consistent when we remove aid flows for humanitarian assistance, emergency relief, food aid, technical assistance and debt relief. These results demonstrate the need for donor action in mitigating aid volatility.

Downloads

Download Paper

Authors

U.S. Aid to Pakistan: Time for a New Approach

Homi Kharas — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:46:00 -0400

The desperate situation in Pakistan is heart-rending. The United States has offered significant assistance, pledging now $150 million. This support is welcome. It will be even more welcome if it forms the start of a new aid relationship between Pakistan and the United States, one that recognizes the value of both humanitarian and development aid.

Such a fresh start should be based on two propositions: first, the hearts-and-minds of aid recipients will not be won over just by assistance to cope with natural disasters but rather by also helping long-term development; second, development assistance must be based on a significant, stable flow of resources.

The first point is general to all countries. There is certainly more to a long, stable friendship than helping during times of natural disaster. Better progress on development beforehand can be the most powerful prevention to widespread economic damage after a disaster and people will remember the mechanisms already in place to help them when trouble strikes.

The first priority after a disaster should be to assess the damage and needs of the afflicted. Many have written about the international community’s delayed response to Pakistan’s floods. However as the scope of the calamity becomes clear, international assistance has risen. According to the United Nations, almost $500 million has been received and a further $325 million has been promised.

Yet, little attention has been focused on why the flood and other natural hazards that have struck Pakistan have done so much damage. Pakistan has suffered from earthquakes, droughts and floods in recent years. In each case, the cost in terms of human life, suffering and material damage has been magnified by the country’s underdeveloped physical and social infrastructure. Previously, floods occurred in 1950, 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and 1993, washing away homes, crops, livestock, roads, schools and clinics. Mercifully, the extensive system of dams, embankments and canals—partly built with U.S. foreign assistance in the 1960s—has permitted some management of the downstream water flow, but this system was overwhelmed by the magnitude of the current flood.

Natural hazards become economic disasters when affected communities are isolated. In Pakistan, food prices have surged in cut-off areas, depleting household savings that would otherwise have been used to replace lost seed, cattle and other assets of agrarian livelihoods. Better infrastructure, risk insurance and social safety net programs (like the Benazir Income Support Program) would have helped, if they were currently in place. In other cases of severe hazards, negative medium-term development effects are felt through reduced agricultural growth, and higher poverty and inequality. Disasters elsewhere have been linked with growing external debt, budget deficits and inflation, which lower future growth. All these effects can be reduced through designing a program of foreign assistance support in a responsible way—strong rural development programs, including access to credit, rural roads, markets as well as sound macroeconomic management complemented by budgetary support.

The second point is that economic development assistance must be reliable, predictable and substantial to have an impact. Currently, U.S. aid to Pakistan displays none of these characteristics. The U.S. has periodically announced large aid packages for Pakistan and aid commitments have been high, albeit very volatile as shown in the chart below (see the red line). But actual U.S. development assistance to Pakistan has been minimal since the large aid programs of the 1960s and early 1970s (the hey-day of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship). At that time, U.S. development assistance helped build roads, power stations and a vibrant agricultural economy. Since then, Pakistan has seen little cash for development projects from the United States. In some cases, pledges were never translated into actual projects or were left unimplemented and later simply cancelled or forgotten. In other instances, the money never went to Pakistan or Pakistanis, but went straight to U.S. contractors to execute programs designed by the United States. In fact, the actual programmable cash-flow from the U.S. to Pakistan—gross aid disbursements excluding technical cooperation (where no money flows to Pakistan), food and humanitarian assistance (not designed for long-term development purposes), debt relief (write-offs on bad commercial loans that would not have been repaid anyway), and interest and principal repayments on past aid—was negative for almost 25 years between 1975 and 2000 (see the blue line). This meant that more money was being paid from the Pakistan budget to the United States Treasury than vice-versa in these years. In 2008, the last year of fully reported data, the actual net disbursement of programmable money for development projects in Pakistan by the U.S. amounted to $204 million, or about $1.10 per Pakistani. Small wonder that very few Pakistanis believe that U.S. assistance has benefited them significantly over the last 40 years.

There is a chance now to build a stronger friendship between Pakistanis and the United States. The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 promises $7.5 billion of U.S. development assistance to Pakistan over five years, a level that would return U.S. aid to its real levels of the early 1960s and provide the basis for meaningful support. The challenge will be to translate these pledges into real resource flows for Pakistan and to do so in a way that helps build real development, as was done in the 1960s. A starting point would be to develop a transparent local process within Pakistan for prioritizing and monitoring aid. If that were to happen, the floods could be a turning point for Pakistan—but for the better, not for the worse.

Authors

Homi Kharas

The Role of the Corporation in Citizen Diplomacy

David L. Caprara and Stanley Litow — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:45:00 -0400

It was fifty years ago that President Kennedy famously launched the Peace Corps, bringing international volunteerism to its true prominence in this country. Today, a diverse set of international volunteer efforts are supported by federal, state and local governments and through partnerships with NGOs. These efforts have been particularly effective at engaging two segments of our population: students or recent graduates; and retirees or those pursuing second careers.

But the segment that holds perhaps the greatest promise for global development has – for the most part – been underserved. We’re referring to mid-career employees at corporations: particularly large, globally-integrated enterprises. These corporate employees have what is most required for a successful international service engagement: cutting edge skills, deep expertise and relevant strategic knowhow.

Why has this resource largely gone untapped? Because a clear connection to business strategy and return on investment has been made in only a few cases.

There exists a triple benefit from corporate-sponsored international volunteerism. Local communities receive premier business and consulting services. Employees enrich their skill sets by working in international markets and leadership experience from working with diverse teams of colleagues and local partners. And corporations gain experienced leaders, insights into new markets, and brand and reputation enhancement that can ultimately create new global business opportunities.

IBM’s Corporate Service Corps (CSC) was developed with those benefits in mind. Often referred to as a “corporate peace corps,” CSC provides IBM employees with unique opportunities to develop and explore their roles as global citizens. Through one month deployments, IBM’s top talent works in teams of roughly 12 to provide in-depth business and IT consulting support to local entrepreneurs and small businesses, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions and governmental agencies. Already in its third year, Corporate Service Corps has deployed 700 IBM employees from 47 countries on 70 teams to 14 countries including China, Nigeria, Romania, Poland and Vietnam. The result is a leadership development program that has made strides in answering the economic, social and environmental sustainability challenges faced by many emerging markets.

We’re pleased to see that other organizations are adopting similar programs. In fact, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has announced a partnership with IBM to accelerate international volunteerism by leveraging the Corporate Service Corps model. USAID and IBM are creating an Alliance for International Corporate Volunteerism Program to help smaller companies and organizations eager to implement their own corporate peace corps, but lacking the resources and scale to do so.

As we look to help expand international service opportunities, there are several best practices to share based on IBM’s experience.

In the case of executives, keep the duration of the projects relatively short. This allows for better access to a company’s top talent because rather than interrupting a career, you are asking someone to make service an integral part of it.
Continue the relationship. While the duration of an individual’s participation may be short, your involvement with the region should be long-term and sustainable. It is not a vendor relationship; it is a partnership.
Identify the right projects. The most successful development efforts take time and effort to scope out and plan. Partner with NGOs early and often to find the best local opportunities for growth and impact.
Carefully mix and match skills when forming a team of service participants. This allows them to deliver results quickly and build capacity on the local level.
Take advantage of technology. Technology can be a powerful tool to help train and prepare service participants. Technology like social networking can also help build a community of service participants and allow them to share their experiences.

The world has changed significantly over the last 50 years. Corporate-sponsored international volunteerism is now building upon the government’s original architecture of the Peace Corps. The same conditions and capabilities that have made the world “flat”, allowing its systems to become smarter, are also opening up new paths for citizen diplomacy. Those seeking out international volunteer service opportunities are no longer limited to government guidance and other official avenues into long-term engagements.

In an interconnected world, citizens have the choice of participating more directly in service through short-term assignments that will not disrupt their careers but enrich them. And it is these mid-career volunteers who possess the skills to make such assignments successful. Forward-thinking corporations with a clear understanding of the benefits of international volunteer programs can empower meaningful citizen diplomacy, contributing to sustainable development practices and building partnerships in a globalized world.

Authors

David L. Caprara
Stanley Litow

Global Development in the U.S. National Security Strategy

Noam Unger — Fri, 28 May 2010 16:16:00 -0400

President Obama’s national security strategy sets the stage for his administration to put a premium on global development cooperation. But, will the administration follow through?

The unveiling of the full strategy makes clear that U.S. global development policies will factor into each of the strategy’s four major pillars: security, prosperity, values and international order. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at Brookings yesterday about the strategy and despite talking about development at times during her remarks, the degree to which development is infused in the strategy was not particularly underscored. Given her track record of speaking passionately and extensively on development, I was surprised that she did not explicitly emphasize its importance.

The point in the national security strategy on being strong at home in order to lead globally is understandably a separate but important pillar for U.S. security and global leadership. Nevertheless, aspects from all the other key points in the strategy connect to America’s ability to promote global development and effectively assist people around the world. In the security section, development features primarily through the lens of stabilization, reconstruction and conflict prevention. In the prosperity section, the focus is on global public goods and investments in sustainable and long-term development. The values section references a slew of development principles and actions – as Clinton noted in her speech that “democracy, human rights and development are mutually reinforcing.” Lastly, the section on international order highlights the administration’s intent to renew U.S. multilateral development cooperation.

In recent months, the administration has publicly said favorable things on a broad range of development topics, such as the linking of climate change adaptation and development aid, of health threats and health systems, of sustainable results and a reasonable time horizon for investment, of programming decisions and evidence-based research, of capacity building and local ownership of development projects. Obama and his team have also demonstrated a high level of commitment to development issues on the international stage. However, the problem is not in the administration’s rhetoric.

The problem is that the U.S. needs to fundamentally reform its internal systems for managing and implementing its global development policies. This includes foreign assistance, but it also includes areas such as trade, agriculture, international finance and migration. As USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah has expressed, development is a discipline, but it is presently a discipline that is marred by U.S. policy incoherence largely because it is organizationally fragmented and structurally weak in lacking its own distinct clout in policy deliberations. The U.S. needs to put itself in a better position to support the broad range of development imperatives, including post-conflict reconstruction, the alleviation of poverty and human suffering, and the promotion of good governance and equitable economic growth. Only by doing this can the U.S. government effectively promote its values and security interests.

It is quite possible that the 2010 national security strategy will help open the door for the systemic elevation and reform of U.S. global development policies and operations. If Obama chooses to seriously head in that direction, the path is already somewhat illuminated:

At a strategic level, the development policy review ordered by the president last summer is rumored to be finished and its conclusions captured in a document. A draft of the document was leaked and then published earlier this month. Let’s hope the final version retains an approach to development that includes a deliberate policy, a more effective and partnership-oriented operation, and a new architecture that truly elevates development and coalesces development resources around a more focused set of objectives. The leaked draft called for a routine U.S. Global Development Strategy. As others and I have noted in the past, such a strategy could substantively expand on the national security strategy. It could do so in much the same way as the national military strategy. Having just completed consultative government-wide reviews of national security and development, the White House should aim to deliver the first U.S. Global Development Strategy in time for Obama’s much-anticipated speech on development at September’s United Nations summit.

At the operational level, many more changes are already underway, including a broader global health initiative, a forward-looking global hunger and food security initiative, the re-establishment and revitalization of USAID’s policy planning bureau and further reforms to improve the agency’s procurement, human resources and transparency.

Since day one, this administration has needed to redefine America’s global development cooperation. While its efforts in 2009 were detrimentally sluggish, the new national security strategy could breathe new life into the effort.

Authors

Noam Unger

Image Source: © Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

A New Strategy to Leverage Business for International Development

Robert Mosbacher, Jr. — Mon, 03 May 2010 11:26:00 -0400

Introduction

Among the three principal tools of American foreign policy—defense, diplomacy, and development—it is generally agreed that development is the area most in need of overhaul. Whether it is fighting poverty in the developing world, rebuilding a nation after years of conflict, or helping stabilize a failing or failed state, the United States government’s track record in the development field is mixed at best. There have been great successes in areas such as disease prevention and treatment, and disaster relief, but there have also been glaring failures.

Global poverty is as intractable as ever, despite decades of public and private sector efforts to provide help and opportunity for the world’s most vulnerable people. The fact that every major industrialized nation shares in this disappointment is of little comfort to the 40 percent of the world’s population that lives on less than $2 per day. Their plight is not only a human tragedy, but a source of growing political instability and violent extremism.

Corruption and poor governance account for a significant part of the problem, which is why the Millennium Challenge Corporation was created. It is based upon the principle that aid is more effective when it is tied to good governance, economic opportunity and investments in the people. However, corruption and poor governance are not the only reasons why so little economic progress has been made. Another major culprit is the manner in which most donor countries, international financial institutions and civil society organizations approach economic development. Simply put, most have failed to recognize and embrace the notion that the principal way to create sustainable economic development is through private sector investment and growth.

Given all the challenges facing American foreign policy, one might ask: why do the shortcomings of the U.S. government’s current approach to economic development matter so much? Stated simply, if the United States can help enable more people to provide for their families through economic growth and opportunity, then it has advanced the objectives of peace and stability. After the need to be safe and secure from violence or harm, there is no greater human aspiration than the desire to provide for one’s family. This is shared by every society, culture and religion.

Therefore, it is essential to craft a new and dynamic approach to economic development that reflects the realities of a 21st century global economy and incorporates the participation of a wide variety of new players, particularly those from the private sector. This new approach should be pursued with the same intensity as improving governance and social service delivery. It should focus fundamentally on job creation, seeking to finally establish a vibrant middle class in countries where ones do not exist.

While investment, trade and innovation all represent basic components of building healthy economies, this paper will focus primarily on strategies to increase both in-country and international private capital investment in order to create jobs. To that end, it will focus on two areas: strengthening and reforming the existing structures, coordinating mechanisms and policies that support U.S. economic development efforts; and improving public private partnership models to promote broader financing to local businesses, greater human capital support and technical assistance, and improved physical and ICT infrastructure.

For all of these changes to work, the relationship between the U.S. government and businesses operating in the developing world must be fundamentally reshaped. In particular, policies and authorities must be adjusted so that U.S. agencies are better informed and empowered to create partnerships. Moreover, a comprehensive approach to the private sector must be undertaken that provides greater access to debt and equity for small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs), devises new and more relevant insurance products to protect against today’s political risks, uses donor funds more effectively to leverage private capital investment, makes technical assistance more plentiful and available to launch new ventures, taps the immense human capital of business-mindedAmericans, and tackles critical infrastructure needs to connect more producers to markets. By reimagining the role of the U.S. government in engaging the private sector in international development, there is an opportunity to redefine how America achieves its foreign policy aims and how it promotes its values abroad.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Robert Mosbacher, Jr.

The Role of Business in Development: How Private Investment Can Catalyze Economic Growth and Reduce Poverty

Mon, 03 May 2010 11:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 3, 2010
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM EDT

The Root Room
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

On May 3, Global Economy and Development at Brookings and the Initiative for Global Development hosted a discussion on the critical role of business in catalyzing economic growth and reducing poverty. While the Obama administration reviews U.S. global development efforts and Congress seeks to improve development assistance, this event focused on the need for greater coordination of U.S. aid, trade and investment programs, and how to effectively work across sectors. How can U.S. development programs best build capacity, unlock capital, supply infrastructure and create an environment for market-led growth; how can companies most effectively contribute to the growth of local enterprises and local employment through their supply chains and investments; and what are the specific opportunities and challenges of increasing investment across Africa?

NOTE: The audio for this event is truncated at the very beginning, due to technical difficulties.

Daniel Yohannes, Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO, provided opening remarks, followed by a discussion among CEOs from the United States and Africa. Kemal Derviş, vice president and director of Global Economy and Development, moderated the discussion.

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Jennifer Potter

President and CEO, The Initiative for Global Development

Daniel Yohannes

CEO, Millennium Challenge Corporation

Justin Chinyanta

Chairman & CEO, Loita Capital Partners International LTD

Chad Holliday

Former Chairman & CEO, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Tim Solso

Chairman & CEO, Cummins Inc.

Capacity for Change: Reforming U.S. Assistance Efforts in Poor and Fragile Countries

Frederick Barton, Margaret Taylor and Noam Unger — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:47:00 -0400

Introduction

The U.S. government is in the midst of a serious review of how to engage more effectively in developing countries. From destabilizing conflicts to climate change, pandemics, and food insecurity, daunting transnational challenges are having particularly large impacts on poorer countries. National security leaders, including the President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the newly confirmed head of USAID, have emphasized the need for strengthened civilian capacity to address the challenges of poor and fragile countries. Yet no broad strategy has been developed for providing assistance to developing nations to enable the United States, together with its allies, to address these interwoven foreign policy challenges.

Capacity for Change: Reforming U.S. Assistance Efforts in Poor and Fragile Countries describes the context for reform and examines the key issues for decision by policymakers in an effort to inform a coherent and effective national approach to both stabilization and broader development. It concludes with a set of recommendations and practical next steps, recognizing that improved capacity to effectively assist poor and fragile countries will come not from a single “silver bullet” idea but, rather, a package of strategic, organizational, and operational reforms that work together in concert.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Frederick Barton
Margaret Taylor
Noam Unger

The Re-foundation of Haiti: Building a Strong Base with Education

Anda Adams and Rebecca Winthrop — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:43:00 -0400

On March 31, the Haitian government, the United States, and the United Nations will co-host an international donors’ conference, “Towards a New Future for Haiti”, at UN headquarters in New York. More than two months after a massive earthquake shook Haiti, humanitarian assistance and recovery efforts are still the focal point, but increasingly with an eye turned toward reconstruction – or “re-foundation,” as Prime Minister Jean Max Bellerive has called it – and long-term development of the country.[1] In particular, the education system in Haiti is in dire need of massive reform. Continued U.S. government leadership, both in terms of financial but also technical support, is needed to adequately address the scale of Haiti’s education problem. In particular, the expertise of the government and its partners in post-crisis educational recovery is a specialized skill and comparative advantage that should be brought to bear over the long-term. This is important not only for the future of Haiti’s children, but also for training of the youth and adults that is needed to improve Haiti’s security, energy, agriculture and healthcare.

Speaking with President Rene Préval in the Rose Garden earlier this month, President Obama reiterated his support for the Haitian recovery effort and stated that moving forward the U.S. would remain partners with Haiti on the long road to reconstruction, a sentiment reflected in USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah’s testimony before Congress when he stated that “as the operation transitions from rescue to recovery, the United States will continue to stand with the people of Haiti.” In order for the U.S. to effectively stand with Haiti, it must focus on two important principles of international cooperation: supporting the Haitian government’s own development plans while providing strong leadership – both financial and technical – among international donors.

In advance of the international donors’ conference, the Haitian government released its Preliminary Disaster and Needs Assessment (PDNA), which estimated that the damage from the earthquake alone was approximately $7.9 billion, which is more than 110 percent of Haiti’s GDP. Rebuilding the country beyond the immediate priorities of post-quake reconstruction will cost $11.5 billion over the next three years and address the significant economic and governance challenges Haiti faces to becoming a fully functional state. Raising the necessary level of funds to rebuild Haiti will require many donors – bilateral, multilateral and private – and will demand excellent coordination of funding. As the largest donor to Haiti, contributing one-quarter of official development assistance (ODA) in 2008, the United States plays an important role both in its relationship with Haiti and among its fellow donors.

It is important to note the existing tension, particularly in humanitarian disasters, between effectively supporting a national government with good donor practices of aligning with country-led planning versus dealing with the reality on the ground. Principles of development aid effectiveness rightly focus on recipient countries exercising leadership over their own development policies and donors working with these governments to strengthen and utilize countries’ own institutions and systems, including those for public financial management, accounting, auditing, procurement, and monitoring, to effectively support development efforts. Recent evidence from Afghanistan shows the damage that external donors can cause when systems and incentives aren’t aligned. For example, Clare Lockhart of the Institute for State Effectiveness reported that although most Afghan provinces had functioning finance offices with capable civil servants tracking the flows of money for the national treasury in 2002, many of those civil servants have now left their jobs to become drivers or translators for aid agencies. This consequently decimates the capacity and effectiveness of these financial offices and has broader impacts on the illegal flows of money to tolls and bribery.[2]

External donors must strive to reduce long-term aid dependency by building capacity and leadership within the country through country systems. However, in the immediate aftermath of a serious disaster or prolonged conflict, there may be serious questions around the capacity of the government to effectively fulfill its role of determining and implementing policies to achieve its development goals. In these cases, donors must balance action with capacity development. In these contexts, significant external assistance is often needed to resume basic services that are both life-saving and life-sustaining while at the same time working closely with government actors, so they can resume this function as quickly as possible. In the case of Haiti, the seat of the national government was ground zero for the earthquake – the Presidential Palace, main parliament building, tax headquarters, and the UN headquarters were all destroyed – and ongoing reports from citizens on the ground have often questioned where the government is. Two months after the earthquake, there are still dead bodies buried beneath piles of rubble on the streets of Port-au-Prince. On top of any capacity constraints the government had prior to the earthquake, the government of Haiti is far from being able to independently shepherd the nation through recovery, reconstruction and development without significant assistance from the outside.

Drawing on lessons from the Indonesian tsunami, Brookings’ scholar Homi Kharas has recommended establishing a Haiti Reconstruction Agency that would monitor projects, manage pooled aid resources, and play the leadership role on the government’s behalf with respect to all external donors. While the tsunami in Indonesia had devastating effects on the country, the central government was left relatively in tact. In the case of Haiti, this temporary government agency would likely need to begin with substantial technical assistance from external donors. However, it should be established in a way that facilitates the gradual shift of complete ownership to the Haitian government as capacity is built. But this is a matter of years, not months. Long-term, steady and smart external assistance will be one of the key ingredients for any hope of recovery in Haiti. According to the PDNA, Haiti will need to undertake a significant overhaul of some institutions and the complete rebuilding of others from scratch.

One institution that will require a complete overhaul is the education sector. Prior to the earthquake, approximately 55 percent of school-aged children were not in school.[3] One of the biggest barriers to achieving universal quality education in Haiti is the fact that more than 80 percent of the classrooms with 90 percent of the country’s students are run by private entities. These entities are unregulated and have little to no oversight by the Ministry of Education, leading to wide ranges in the quality of education.

In a country where 80 percent of the population is living below the poverty line and more than half are in abject poverty, individual families still must pay tuition fees for their children to receive even a basic education, leaving many unable to afford schooling costs. Furthermore, without a formal tertiary education system, there is a lack of minimal levels of teacher education; nearly eight out of every 10 primary school teachers have no formal teacher training.[4] Many of those children that were enrolled in school were not learning with 70 percent of primary school student demonstrating learning levels that were at least two years below grade level.[5] According to the government’s own language in the PDNA, the education system fell far short of what was needed to play a significant factor in the growth of the country. “Overall, the Haitian education system already presented deficiencies before the earthquake that made it unfit to contribute to socio-economic development.”[6] In other words, before the crisis, the government education system was virtually non-existent and the question facing Haiti now is what does “re-foundation” mean for education?

During a speech at George Washington University in Washington on March 10, First Lady Elisabeth Préval described the situation in her country following the earthquake as a “nightmare,” with approximately 2 million children unable to go to school.[7] The Education Cluster Unit, coordinated by UNICEF and Save the Children, reports that 5,000 schools – more than 80% of the schools in the area – have been damaged by the earthquake. The earthquake’s impact on education stretched far beyond the affected areas around Port-au-Prince; the entire education system was effectively shut down for weeks after the earthquake, with “unaffected area” schools officially opening on February 1, but reporting only a sparse number of students attending.

Despite the enormity of the challenge facing education, Haiti has a unique opportunity to work with a clean slate. Mrs. Préval expressed her desire to create a free public school system, stating that “this will be our first demonstration for the dignity and respect for the Haitian community.”[8] In addition to covering those children who were enrolled prior to the earthquake, establishing a new system must address the more than 400,000 children who were not enrolled in school before the earthquake. According to Minister of Education Joel Desrosiers Jean-Pierre, this clean slate means that children, primarily those residing in more isolated rural areas, should also have the chance at a quality education with a target of their inclusion in the new system. How to do this in the wake of such a massive blow to Haiti is a question that will need the help of every citizen and every development worker with expertise in post-crisis recovery.

The benefits of education are clear. Educated people are healthier people and pass on those health benefits to their children. In a country where riots over food shortages threatened the stability of the government in 2008, it is important to consider that gains in women’s education have made the most significant difference in reducing malnutrition, out-performing interventions that increase the availability of food.[9] More schooling is associated with increasing personal earning, which translates into a one percent annual increase in GDP if good quality education is offered to the entire population.

In publicly announcing its plan to establish a free and comprehensive publicly-funded education system, the Haitian government recognizes that it will require substantial levels of both financial and technical support from the international community. This is the first step toward country-led development, and one that should be supported by the major international donors. As a leading donor in Haiti, the U.S. plays a crucial leadership role. Yet, out of the $292.8 million requested in the FY 2010 budget, only $12.6 million, just over 4 percent of all development assistance, supported education. Prior to the earthquake, the State Department decided to maintain this relatively low level of funding for education, instead prioritizing investments in security, agriculture, electricity and health,[10] despite the demonstrated success of its out-of-school youth livelihood initiative and basic education reform program. Anecdotal evidence from those working on the ground in Haiti showed that youth from USAID’s non-formal technical and vocational skills program that teaches construction put their new skills to use as they led efforts to clean up rubble in the neighborhood after the disaster. The scale of need in Haiti’s education sector means that all donors have a role to play. For the U.S., this is especially true in terms of the technical expertise it can bring.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking member Richard Lugar (R-IN) specifically called on the Obama Administration to include funds for education in the upcoming supplemental request for Haiti, stating that “only with a strong education initiative will Haiti have a chance at a better future.”[11] There has, however, been concern among U.S. government partners working on education in Haiti that U.S. government support for education is waning. Going into the donors’ conference, it will be important for the U.S. government to continue to renew its support for education, if not increase it. This is not a recommendation for U.S. assistance to be everything to all people, but instead to maximize its comparative advantages.

According to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the principle of “harmonization” includes the goal of “more effective division of labor,” referring to the fact that different donors have different strengths and cannot – and should not – be working in all sectors in all countries. Productive division of labor depends upon identifying and leveraging the comparative advantage of each donor. While Canada and France expressed their intent to take a leadership role in education in the 2009 donors’ conference for Haiti, USAID and its implementing partners have demonstrated that they are the well-placed to deliver both significant financial and technical resources to building education back better in Haiti. The U.S. government could miss a clear window of opportunity to leverage its own comparative advantages in this area and have a significant impact not only on the education of hundreds of thousands of Haitian children and youth, but on the overall long-term development of Haiti.

First, as highlighted in a recent Center for Universal Education working paper, the U.S. government has substantial strengths in education work in countries affected by fragility, particularly with respect to the level of resources dedicated and technical expertise. Both within the U.S. government and among the non-government organizations with which it partners, there are many highly-qualified technical experts who are at the forefront of post-crisis educational recovery. Both USAID and its partners have years of experience working on the ground in post-disaster situations and have cultivated agency-wide tools to utilize in these situations. These are exactly the types of skills that are needed in Haiti today. This demonstrated comparative advantage in the field of education in situations of crisis worldwide should be leveraged in Haiti.

Second, USAID’s EQUIP2 program that focuses on educational policy, systems development and management has demonstrated the U.S.’s success at improving quality education by facilitating access to technical expertise and resources. John Gillies has authored a report, publication pending, on long-term education reform based on case studies in five countries provides evidence on the challenges of system reform, highlighting the need for political will and institutional commitment, the role that outside forces place in “creating space” within the system for significant reform, and the importance of focusing on sustained system improvement over the sustainability of specific activities.[12]

Finally, recent education reforms in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina offer an example of how a fundamentally different education system can be built in the wake of a disaster. Before Katrina, New Orleans’ public school district was viewed as one of the worst urban public school districts in the country with 6 out of 10 schools deemed academically unacceptable. Nearly five years after the storm, New Orleans now has a mixed system of schools, which includes 37 traditional schools and 51 charter schools. School leaders and district administrators have cited rising student achievement as the main success of public education over the last few years and voters and parents have expressed support for the major education reforms, including the state takeover of public schools and the expansion of charter schools.[13] Paul Vallas, who headed up the school systems in Chicago and Philadelphia before being recruited as superintendent of the Louisiana Recovery School District, has partnered with the First Lady and Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA) to share lessons learned from New Orleans to assist in Haiti’s effort to increase access to quality publicly-funded education for all.

The devastation of the earthquake has opened a window of opportunity for the next generation of Haitians to break the cycle of inter-generational poverty that plagues a majority of citizens. What type of education system Haiti decides to implement in order to ensure that all its children and youth have equitable access to a quality education ultimately will be up to the government. However, the United States has the technical capacity and financial resources to set Haiti up for success and should strongly continue its support. Reducing U.S. support of education could send the wrong message to other donors about the viability of education reform in Haiti and a gap in support to education will have a significant impact on the rest of Haiti’s development, including the United States’ stated strategic priorities of energy, agriculture and health. The supplemental appropriations bill should explicitly include support for education to leverage the U.S.’s comparative advantage in this field. Further, the U.S. should come to the international donors’ conference on March 31 ready to strongly support the government of Haiti’s plans for redevelopment of the education sector. Without strong donor financial and technical support, these ambitious education reforms will languish. However, with the Haitian government in the lead and close collaboration among the United States and other international donors, it is possible for Haiti to use this devastating tragedy to finally establish a quality, inclusive, publicly-funded education system.

[1] Davidson, Adam and Chana Joffe-Walt. “In Haiti, A Prime Minister's Lament.” Audio Blog post. NPR, Mar. 16, 2010.

[2] Kenyon, Peter. “Exploring The Taliban's Complex, Shadowy Finances.” Audio Blog post. NPR. 19 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.

[3] Enquête de Morbidité, Mortalité et Utilisation des services, 2008.

[4] Wolff, Lawrence (2008). Education in Haiti: The Way Forward. PREAL at the Inter-American Dialogue. Washington, D.C.

[5] Preliminary Disaster and Needs Assessment, Haiti – Education Sector. Draft submitted on 12 March, 2010.

[6] Preliminary Disaster and Needs Assessment, Haiti – Education Sector. Draft submitted on 12 March, 2010.

[7] Preval, Elisabeth. Priorities for Education in Haiti after the Earthquake. The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 10 Mar. 2010. Speech.

[8] Preval, Elisabeth. Priorities for Education in Haiti after the Earthquake. The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 10 Mar. 2010. Speech.

[9] Smith, Lisa and Lawrence James Haddad (1999). “Explaining Child Malnutrition in Developing Countries: a cross-country analysis.” IFPRI Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 60, Washington DC.

[10] Dilanian, Ken. “Rebuilding Will Mean Reversing Past Failures.” USA Today. Feb. 3, 2010.

[11] According to OCHA’s online Financial Tracking Services, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Japan, and the United States are funding education-related projects through the current humanitarian appeal.

[12] Gillies, John, (2009). “The Power of Patience: Education System Reform and Aid Effectiveness.” Manuscript submitted for publication at AED/USAID, Washington, DC.

[13] Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives at Tulane University (2010). “2010 State of Public Education in New Orleans.” New Orleans, Louisiana.

Authors

Anda Adams
Rebecca Winthrop

Punching Below Its Weight: The U.S. Government Approach to Education in the Developing World

Rebecca Winthrop — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:36:00 -0500

Summary

Global education plays an important role in contributing to U.S. foreign policy objectives. In a recent speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted education, along with health, agriculture, security, and local governance as the core areas for U.S. international development investment. She emphasized the importance of education, particularly of girls and youth, in improving global stability, speeding economic growth, and helping global health, all of which advance U.S. interests in the world.

But how effective has the U.S. government been in supporting global education? Unfortunately, its many good education activities and programs are not leveraged for maximum impact on the ground, especially in situations of armed conflict and state fragility. Challenges of U.S. foreign assistance—for example, fragmentation across multiple agencies, lack of policy coherence, diminished multilateral engagement—generally affects its work in education. Luckily some of the core strengths of U.S. assistance have an impact as well, specifically the large amount of resources (in total terms, if not relative terms) devoted to education and the vast breadth and depth of American academic, philanthropic and NGO partners engaged in pioneering work on education in the developing world.

This report analyzes the effectiveness of U.S. government education work specifically in relation to conflict-affected and fragile states. Findings across five domains—global reach, resources, technical expertise, policy and multilateral partnerships—show that U.S. education aid falls critically short of what it is capable of achieving. The U.S. government has substantial strengths in this area, especially in global reach, resources, and technical expertise, demonstrating a real comparative advantage in the field of education in situations of conflict and fragility. However, its fragmented policy across agencies and its limited multilateral engagement prevent it from maximizing its strengths, leaving it punching below its weight on this important issue. In this sense, the U.S. government is a classic underachiever, failing to efficiently deploy its many capabilities and potential for maximum impact.

There has never been a better time for looking at the aid-effectiveness of U.S. government education work. The Obama administration is bringing increased focus on the Paris Principles for Aid Effectiveness to its development initiatives. The U.S. Congress is actively engaged with pending legislative action to modernize foreign assistance and improve U.S. support for universal education. Two major reviews of foreign assistance are underway: the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review led by the Department of State and USAID, and the Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy led by the White House.

Questions about foreign assistance reform asked in these two reviews can be applied to the education sector. For example, how can the U.S. government improve its education assistance by using a “whole-of-government” approach, by focusing on comparative advantages and strengths, and by improving coordination and by increasing multilateral engagement?

Careful analysis and answers to these questions can help propel the U.S. from its current position as an underachiever to being a leader in global education, specifically in contexts of conflict and state fragility.

This report makes nine specific recommendations, many of which could be achieved without any substantial increase in funding, that would enable the U.S. government to greatly increase the effectiveness of its education aid to populations living in contexts of conflict and state fragility.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Rebecca Winthrop

President Obama and U.S. Global Leadership on Development

Noam Unger — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:07:00 -0500

Last year, Colin Bradford and I provided recommendations on global development cooperation to help our incoming president refashion the American image to the world while also strengthening U.S. and international security. The Obama administration’s mixed track record on seizing global development leadership opportunities merits a mediocre grade for 2009. However, several late-breaking developments and ongoing efforts could help the administration improve this grade in 2010.

Undoubtedly, the Obama administration has had to manage an overabundance of domestic and international challenges while parrying profuse expectations. But without question, the effectiveness of our global development efforts must be fundamentally improved. Doing so will address American values and interests by reducing global poverty, supporting the emergence of more capable partners and mitigating transnational threats.

Notable highlights in 2009: President Obama secured the prominence of the G-20, ensuring a greater voice for rising economies; launched a global food security initiative backed by significant new U.S. commitments to agricultural development; bolstered emerging markets through increased, crisis-induced IMF funding; dedicated the government to broadening global health assistance efforts; and demonstrated leadership by pledging to mobilize a substantive (if amorphous) annual assistance commitment to address developing countries’ climate change needs.

The administration also put forth strong budget requests, building on a Bush-era program of staff expansion to address years of neglect at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). President Obama bolstered these efforts and U.S. commitment to global development through overseas visits and speeches—in Egypt, in Ghana, at his Nobel Prize acceptance speech—as has Secretary of State Clinton (see her recent speech).

Such commitments and the new thrust of American leadership toward international cooperation have indeed been praiseworthy efforts. However, on the specifics of reforming development policies and operations, the administration was detrimentally sluggish in 2009.

The administration came in with the intent to “elevate, streamline and empower a 21st century development agency” that would consolidate the global AIDS program, Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and many others into a restructured USAID. The incoming team was well-versed on the urgent need for fundamental change given the bureaucratic fragmentation and incoherence rife within our aid apparatus. A year later, however, essential reforms are still floating ideas.

Despite consensus that development is a key pillar of our foreign policy and national security, Obama took nearly a year to nominate a head to USAID, the principal agency responsible. Steeped in uncertainty, the agency was left to cope with a weakened hand in policy decisions as major issues came to the fore, ranging from the global economic setback to climate change and U.S. strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Dr. Rajiv Shah was just confirmed in the waning days of 2009 and sworn-in as USAID Administrator yesterday. He is dynamic, with notable relevant management credentials, and is highly regarded by those who know him. His experiences at the Gates Foundation ensure keen familiarity with the innovative new ecosystem of global development actors that must be factored into reforms.

But, major issues still hang in the balance: Will Shah preside over an agency without agency? Will USAID once again have a strong role in determining and designing its budget? Will policy and strategic planning capacity be restored and improved, a move actively endorsed by pending bipartisan Senate legislation? These ideas on budget and policy planning were supported by Shah at his confirmation hearing, but the proof is in the pudding.

Further, will Shah explicitly have a seat at the table for relevant National Security Council (NSC) and National Economic Council (NEC) deliberations? What is the relationship between USAID, the MCC, the global AIDS program and others? And what now happens to the Director of Foreign Assistance position established at State under the Bush Administration?

Secretary Clinton launched the inaugural Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) this past summer, helpfully providing State, USAID and the MCC the opportunity to make a strong case for a more balanced approach to statecraft in the face of a dominant Department of Defense unsurprisingly oriented toward military solutions. It could also lead to reorganization.

But the most significant effort presently underway is the Presidential Study Directive on U.S. global development policies and implementation. This review, undertaken jointly by the heads of the NSC and the NEC, offers a distinct opportunity to craft a new strategic approach that shapes the QDDR and potential legislation. Development cooperation does not exclusively pivot around aid, and the resulting presidential guidance will be informed by a more comprehensive approach to development that considers the interrelationships and implications of our trade and international finance instruments alongside our aid. This review is expected to result in critical presidential decisions early in 2010.

The crawling pace of reforms may conflict with the congressional calendar. Legislation gearing up in both the House and the Senate has now been pushed into 2010, an election year that could impose greater hurdles to passage. The fundamental reforms required will need to be sealed in new laws, and the administration wants to be in a position to point Congress in the right direction. Let’s hope the window of opportunity for fundamental change remains open long enough.

While the administration has taken some very positive steps in terms of rhetoric and international development cooperation commitments, it started off slower-than-expected on the essential internal structural and policy reforms needed to elevate development, rationalize bureaucracy and forge policy coherence. The building blocks are, however, now in place.

In 2010, we should learn whether the administration’s modernization of development policies and operations will result in a strong development agency, closely coordinated with State, but with the independence and clout to effectively champion development considerations in interagency policy deliberations. Such an agency could serve as a focal point, helping the U.S. provide global leadership on development issues, but that vision has not yet come into focus.

Authors

Noam Unger

President Obama's Agenda Needs Greater Focus on Global Development

Homi Kharas, Johannes F. Linn and Noam Unger — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:00:00 -0400

Even as he deals with the extraordinary challenges of domestic and global economic recovery, President Obama has announced an ambitious agenda including health care, energy and climate change among his early priorities. He and his national security team have also pursued a wide array of foreign policy initiatives, with special attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Middle East, and nuclear non-proliferation, while engaging intensively with foreign leaders through international visits and multilateral summits.

Given these challenges, it seems unfair to expect the Obama administration to add another priority to the agenda, but one item is critical: the international development agenda. A fractious Europe and an indecisive U.S. have left global development issues adrift. Progress on a range of topics like the Doha trade round and even climate change depends on restoring trust between developed and developing countries, but global leadership must come from the United States. Yet, there remain questions about whether the new administration is willing to attack bureaucratic and political obstacles to improved engagement with the developing world.

Some progress has admittedly been made. President Obama has announced new commitments for global public health, and at the G8 Summit, he led efforts to secure commitments for food security just before traveling to Ghana where he emphasized the critical role good governance can play in development. He has also put forward a budget in line with his intent to double foreign assistance by 2015. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has committed to building on a Bush-era program of staff expansion at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and echoes the president’s desire to spend greater amounts of aid in recipient countries rather than on U.S.-based contractors. Secretary Clinton also announced a Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review for the State Department. While such a department-led review cannot direct the full range of development assistance instruments within the U.S. government, much less the broader array of U.S. policies beyond assistance that impact development, it will cover USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

These are important steps forward, but may not be enough considering the fundamental problems that have plagued U.S. global development efforts in the past—lack of high-level political commitment, bureaucratic fragmentation, incoherence, weak capacity, muted policy voice and constrained resources. There are some worrisome signs that international development is low on the president’s agenda: among the 22 priorities listed on the White House Web site, “foreign assistance” and “global development” are nowhere to be found, not even under a section titled “Additional Issues” (yet the section covers the sports of hunting and angling).

One problem is that development lacks an influential full-time champion. President Obama did not immediately appoint an experienced development professional authorized to coordinate assistance programs currently fractured across many departments and agencies. No candidate has yet been nominated to head USAID, and once appointed, he or she may in effect be reporting to the new deputy secretary of state for management and resources rather than the secretary of state and the president.

In a world where new official donors, such as China, and private donors, such as the Gates Foundation, not to mention many smaller multilateral, bilateral and private aid initiatives, are growing in prominence each year, the U.S. needs to step forward as a more effective supporter of development through bilateral and multilateral assistance implementation, broader strategic partnerships, and overall policy leadership. Yet, because of its fragmented aid apparatus the U.S. does not presently play a preeminent role in international forums, such as the OECD Development Assistance Committee, aiming to improve the effectiveness of international aid, even as it continues to be the single largest donor in absolute terms.

In the next few months, leadership by the president, key cabinet members (including the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the trade representative and others) and Congress will be urgently needed if U.S. development policies and operations are to be imbued with new life, new priorities and new impact. Development policy, in general, must find a much more visible place among President Obama’s priorities. Key elements of such an approach should include:

appointment of an empowered USAID Administrator with the authority and agency support to directly represent development considerations at all relevant policy tables, including the National Security Council and the National Economic Council;
high-level White House leadership on a comprehensive development strategy that drives policy coherence across the broad array of U.S. policies that impact development (including aid, trade, agriculture, debt, monetary policy and other areas) by stipulating objectives, authorities and responsibilities and by informing budgetary planning;
enactment of a strong new Foreign Assistance Act, building on legislation being drafted in the House under the chairmanship of Representative Howard Berman and in the Senate under the leadership of Senators Kerry, Lugar, Menendez and Corker that clarifies objectives, rationalizes the bureaucracy, and allows for efficient, effective and adaptive assistance in partnership with other development actors—most notably the recipients.

Authors

Strengthening America's Global Development Partnerships

Jane Nelson and Noam Unger — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:00:00 -0400

Executive Summary

In an article, “Strengthening America’s Global Development Partnerships: A Policy Blueprint for Better Collaboration Between the U.S. Government, Business and Civil Society,” Brookings scholars Jane Nelson and Noam Unger offer recommendations on how the U.S. government can better position itself within the 21st century global development landscape.

The policy mandate for more effective collaboration is urgent given the compounding economic and environmental crises that currently threaten development, the outdated U.S. foreign assistance system, and the new global development arena that is characterized by a multitude of influential new actors and by more technology-enabled, market-oriented and locally-driven approaches to development. Within the context of broader foreign assistance reform, the Obama administration and Congress have an opportunity to retool official U.S. efforts to more effectively and efficiently support global development in partnership with this new ecosystem of actors, while at the same time improving accountability and transparency.

View the article »

View the fact sheet »

Downloads

Download

Authors

Civil-Military Relations, Fostering Development, and Expanding Civilian Capacity

Frederick Barton and Noam Unger — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:38:46 -0400

Introduction

This is a critical moment for the United States’ approach to global engagement. Concerns have been rising over an apparent imbalance in American statecraft, principally resulting from too heavy a reliance on the military. As such, the Obama Administration is launching related policy reviews. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has repeatedly noted “the decisive role” reconstruction, development and conflict prevention play, and he has called for greater resources for civilian agencies. Similarly, upon taking office, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted development as “an equal partner, along with defense and diplomacy,” in advancing US national security. She has also announced aims to reverse the “migration of the authority and the resources to the Defense Department,” and committed to bolster USAID with clear authorities and resources. Her new additional deputy at the State Department has been charged with boosting the resourcing and effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance.

Within this context, on February 11, 2009, more than 40 policy experts and practitioners convened at Brookings to discuss efforts to build civilian stabilization capacity within the U.S. government’s international affairs agencies and broader efforts to reform U.S. foreign assistance. The day-long workshop also sought to explore pathways for rebalancing civilian-military roles and to ensure necessary increases in civilian capacity. This event was hosted by Brookings Global Economy and Development and the Center for Strategic and International Studies Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project with the generous support of the Connect US Fund. Workshop participants offered a range of expertise in defense, diplomacy, and development, as well as varying perspectives from the executive branch, Capitol Hill, civil society and the research community.

This brief report attempts to capture and distill the themes and insights that emerged over the course of the workshop’s exchanges, and it also presents further research questions and future steps as we continue our joint CSIS-Brookings project – Civil-Military Relations, Fostering Development, and Expanding Civilian Capacity. The project aims to develop priorities and investigate the connections between various investments to effectively execute programs in the overlapping areas of development, humanitarian aid, stabilization and reconstruction. After further study and outreach, the project will publish a more detailed report with our findings and recommendations in the summer of 2009.

This brief is divided into five sections. Section one captures the thoughts of the participants on why expanding civilian capacity in international development and stabilization is important within the United States’ broader foreign policy objectives. Section two details participants’ suggestions for how these objectives could be implemented. In particular, expanding the capacity of USAID (or its successor agency) is highlighted as an important first step. Section three identifies some of the potential political and institutional challenges in implementing the necessary reforms. Section four offers some of the participants’ solutions in overcoming these challenges. Finally, this brief concludes with a set of questions and issues for further analysis.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Frederick Barton
Noam Unger

Memo to the President: Redefine America's Global Development Cooperation

Colin I. Bradford and Noam Unger — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0500

The fight against global poverty has become a fight for global security.

The Status Report: Obama's Commitment to Global Development

"Global development efforts must be fundamentally improved. Doing so will address American values and interests by reducing global poverty, supporting the emergence of more capable partners and mitigating transnational threats."

Read more of Noam Unger's update on this memo »

To: President-elect Obama
From: Colin Bradford and Noam Unger
Date: December 10, 2008
Re: Redefine America’s Global Development Cooperation

The Situation

America has made an awkward entrance into the 21st century. The biggest security threat to the United States has become the United States itself. The unilateralist foreign policy of recent years has generated opposition and weakened our global standing. At the same time, the financial crisis has increased doubts about whether globalization really has a human face. The challenge now is to reverse these trends and redefine America’s role in the world.

To effectively address global expectations, you must launch a fresh start to U.S. relations with the non-Western, developing world. Your approach should link a new international thrust with Americans’ hopes for a better future for themselves and for our interdependent world. You must usher in a new era of global cooperation by redefining the way the United States manages global challenges that affect the economic and security interests of every American.

Your Stance

Your commitment to embrace the Millennium Development Goals and make them America’s goals is a useful point of departure for renewed global cooperation on development. Additionally, you are now positioned to follow through on additional global development commitments you have made. They include:

Eliminating the global education deficit, in part by establishing a global education fund and enacting the Education for All Act.
Connecting our efforts to confront climate change with our strategy to alleviate global poverty.
Creating a new fund for Small and Medium Enterprise in partnership with the private sector and applying that fund in support of your goal to end all malaria deaths by 2015.
Continuing a strong U.S. role in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria while increasing U.S. contributions to the Global Fund and leading a collaborative multi-stakeholder effort to improve health infrastructure in developing countries.
Spurring research and innovation to bolster agricultural productivity and markets in poor countries.
Reforming governance of the IMF and World Bank.

Your pledge to lead foreign assistance reforms is a fundamental cross-cutting issue and demands your sustained attention. It offers the chance for bipartisan support, since the platforms of both political parties called for foreign aid reforms and strengthened international development policies.

The sound investments you have proposed must be backed up by resources. Your support for increasing foreign assistance is particularly important since it a small part of the budget, but a part that is key to our global engagement and security. As the financial crisis unfolds, the world will be watching to see whether the United States fulfills its international commitments to poverty reduction. Now, in the face of global economic adversity, is precisely the time to honor our commitments in a way that motivates other donors and reinforces the critical message that in a globalized world, what happens in poor countries matters to the United States more than ever.

Recommendations

To reach the goals you laid out during the campaign, your policy must follow four broad principles.

Renew international cooperation. The United States cannot act alone or with a narrow band of “like-minded” governments. As you have articulated, the new American role is to bring the world together as you bring America together, to advance our “common security by investing in our common humanity.” Our approach to developing countries must be driven by a new thrust of American leadership toward international cooperation and coordination.

Ensure that the substance of U.S. foreign assistance echoes the priorities of the American people. The United States led the effort to redefine international development cooperation from an exclusive focus on economic policy and what came to be a doctrinaire commitment to market liberalization to the multi-sectoral approach embodied in the Millennium Development Goals. The Millennium Development Goals are aspirational goals tied to themes – healthy lives, educational opportunity, gender equality and economically and environmentally sustainable livelihoods – that resonate with people everywhere. The goals are also operational realities with specific, quantifiable targets, which virtually all nations are committed to meeting by 2015.

But in the past eight years, the United States has fudged its commitment by footnoting communiqués, foot dragging in inter-governmental conferences, and faking alignment with the MDGs by simply naming its new initiative the “Millennium” Challenge Account while not aligning its programs and policies with the MDGs. You can redefine America’s role with a commitment to these aspirational and operational goals. And you must prioritize consultation with Congress to build support for U.S. development cooperation, and bring our efforts more in line with those of nearly all large donor nations.

Mobilize American generosity and goodwill. You can redefine the idea of our government programs to mobilize and amplify the already generous efforts and instincts of the American people. Individual donations from the United States to the developing world have increased to roughly $26 billion a year, exceeding official development assistance. More than 50,000 Americans volunteer their time overseas each year. Our official development assistance efforts ought to leverage these private initiatives, and infuse U.S. foreign assistance programs with a wider array of Americans with special skills and talents to provide greater technical and professional capacities. Simply put, Americans want to help, and your government can lead the way.

Your administration can create platforms and flexible funding mechanisms within the U.S. foreign assistance apparatus to encourage collaboration among key stakeholders, including major philanthropists, high-profile advocates, multinational corporations and especially a vocal and energized public working through grassroots and faith-based networks.

Use every tool available, and coordinate internal efforts. Development cooperation with poor countries in concert with other donors does not exclusively pivot around aid. Reduction in trade barriers can stimulate exports that generate jobs, incomes and financial flows equivalent to and often more effective than aid flows. Debt reduction is a form of aid. Attracting capital flows, as emerging market economies demonstrate, replaces aid. We need policy coherence across these varied instruments to ensure that our efforts work positively in developing countries, rather than potentially working at cross-purposes. Many industrial countries use their ministers of development cooperation as a focal point for assessing policy coherence and for orchestrating and coordinating government efforts across departments and agencies. The U.S. government has no such focal point.

Further Recommendations

Elevate development to a cabinet-level department. Your administration has the promise and potential to provide the next great, seminal moment for America’s leadership in the world, along the lines of the immediate post-World War II period of international institutional innovation and the Kennedy years of inspiring overseas engagement. To redefine America’s role in the world, you will need to seize opportunities to call for and construct a new era of international cooperation.

Specifically, you will need a leader in your administration to meet the day-to-day policy challenges required to forge a new era of development cooperation and craft global development strategy. By focusing on the “4 C’s,” this official would lead coordination efforts with other international development actors, forge coherence among United States policies and instruments that affect the developing world, build the necessary capacity to effectively address 21st century development challenges and engage in close consultation with Congress and the broader community of key stakeholders inside and outside of government.

Therefore, the single most important move you can make is to appoint a widely recognized and respected American at the helm of a new cabinet-level Department for Global Development. As one of three pillars in the broadly accepted “3D” national security troika of defense, diplomacy and development, the last of the three should be elevated to equal standing, not just in rhetoric but in reality. Most other donor governments have ministers of development cooperation. We do not. More importantly, the profile of development in the American public mind is often overshadowed by short-term diplomacy or the urgency of defense requirements. Congress thinks of development as aid rather than as international cooperation.

Fusing the four strategic responsibilities of international coordination, policy coherence, capacity building and political and strategic consultation on global development matters will provide focus and momentum. Success requires a cabinet-level profile to credibly communicate that the United States is serious about ushering in a new era of international cooperation.

Without cabinet status, voice and volume cannot compensate for the lower-level profile accorded to development issues. Without independent standing apart from the State Department, our long-term investments in poverty alleviation, conflict prevention and democratization will continue to suffer from subordination to short-term political objectives. Without unified leadership accountable for our assistance to developing countries, our efforts will continue to be plagued by bureaucratic fragmentation and our investments will yield underwhelming impacts. By setting the vision and ultimately appointing an outstanding American as your Secretary for Global Development, you will give convincing evidence that “America is back” and ready to become a leader and a partner in a new era of international cooperation to address the major challenges of the 21st century.

Required Reading

U.S. Foreign Assistance: Reform to Lead in the 21st Century
Lael Brainard and Noam Unger, Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2008
Top 10 Global Economic Challenges Facing America's 44th President
The Brookings Institution, October 2008
Global Development 2.0: Can Philanthropists, the Public, and the Poor Make Poverty History?
Lael Brainard and Derek Chollet, August 01, 2008
U.S. Foreign Assistance: Reinventing Aid for the 21st Century
Lael Brainard, House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, January 23, 2008
Foreign Assistance: Reform Now for Smart Power
Lael Brainard, The Brookings Institution, July 30, 2007
Foreign Assistance Reform: Then, Now and Around the Bend
Noam Unger, InterAction's Monday Developments, July 2007
Foreign Assistance Reform: Successes, Failures, and Next Steps
Lael Brainard, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, June 12, 2007
Executive Recommendations by the Brookings-CSIS Task Force for Transforming Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century
Lael Brainard, The Brookings Institution, Fall 2006
Security by Other Means: Foreign Assistance, Global Poverty, and American Leadership
Lael Brainard, February 01, 2006

Downloads

Download

Authors

Redefine America's Global Development Cooperation

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:00:00 -0500

Event Information

December 10, 2008
3:00 PM - 4:30 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

The fight against global poverty has become a fight for global security. But after an awkward entrance into the 21st century, America must redefine its role in the world, including its relations with developing countries. The new administration has an opportunity to refashion its foreign assistance leadership, and with it the role of the United States in forging a new era of global development cooperation involving both industrial and developing countries.

On December 10, Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Colin Bradford offered a public memo to the president-elect with recommendations how to modernize U.S. aid efforts and address the global development challenges of the 21st century effectively and with accountability. Bradford was chief economist of USAID during the Clinton administration where he also had the lead role in U.S. coordination with other bilateral and multilateral donors. The memo is the fifth of 12 Brookings memos on the most crucial public policy priorities facing the new president.

A distinguished panel included Bradford and three former USAID administrators: J. Brian Atwood, dean of the Hubert H Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota; Peter McPherson, president of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges; and Andrew Natsios, distinguished professor, Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. George Ingram, vice president of the Academy for Educational Development and board member of the Center for US Global Engagement, moderated the discussion.