In Norway last year I met with the impressive staff of one of the world’s largest and smartest NGOs. They were unhappy that Norwegian aid money was being used to discourage deforestation in Brazil instead of to immunize children and educate girls in low-income Africa—in other words, to deal with climate change rather than “development.” I countered that minimizing climate change is a crucial piece of development, and urged them to rethink the issue.
I’m guessing I’m not the only one still in a state of denial that sequestration will actually happen. The across-the-board cuts—if and when they happen tonight—will hit my own household (I’m married to my favorite bureaucrat) and the US foreign aid programs I monitor here.
Britain's National Audit Office (NAO), akin to the US Government Accountability Office or GAO, is applauding the Department for International Development's Multilateral Aid Review.
With the US presidential election fast approaching we’ve heard almost nothing about US leadership on global development from the candidates or their surrogates. This is a striking difference from 2008 when development issues made the national agenda and were featured in roundtable discussions at both conventions. While development wasn’t entirely missing from this year’s conventions—check out U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s recaps of its co-sponsored events on foreign policy and development—it seems to us that it’s been missing from the broader conversation on the campaign trail. Lacking such public pronouncements, we dug into the Democratic and Republican 2012 Party Platforms for indications of where the parties stand on policies that affect development. Admittedly, the platforms don’t provide a lot of detail and certainly aren’t blueprints for the next administration. But right now it’s about all we have to go on. And if past platforms are any indication, at least some of the parties’ stated positions will become future administrations’ policy.
The death of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi after twenty-one years in charge raises fresh questions about the future of US foreign aid to the country – including all three of President Obama’s development initiatives – and the conundrum of focusing aid in countries whose leaders hang on to power for more than a decade. Could a new rule banning foreign aid to long-serving heads of state help?
This is a joint post with John Norris of the Center for American Progress.
Budget concerns will almost certainly put downward pressure on federal spending across a host of government programs for a number of years. Although some think it is almost heretical to point out the obvious, the international affairs budget will not be immune from this dynamic. In fact, international spending could take a disproportionate hit compared to domestic spending – despite the fact that discretionary international spending is a very small part of the overall budget puzzle.
International affairs, and more specifically foreign assistance, have rarely been popular budget items among the public or on Capitol Hill – despite consistently comprising only about 1 percent of the total federal budget. Even so, foreign aid and international engagement make good political targets for elected officials out on the stump. It is far easier to demonize foreign aid than to explain how relatively modest programs to improve living standards in the developing world have consistently proven to be in the national interest over the long-term.
On Wednesday, the House Budget Committee approved Chairman Ryan’s budget for fiscal year 2013. It includes sizeable decreases for the international affairs budget, but not for defense. It also reduces funding for the Overseas Contingency Operations account that is designed for both civilian and military costs associated with activities in the front-line states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The full table of cuts, by budget function, can be found here.
The concept of trilateral cooperation – understood in its basic form as a partnership among a traditional donor, an emerging donor, and a low income country – has been popping up with greater frequency of late signaling an increased interest in this new style of engagement. Although the idea has been around since at least 2005 and already represents a growing share of south-to-south cooperation, it has not gained much currency in U.S.
Despite some last minute fits and starts, it appears that the House and Senate are cleared to pass a megabus spending bill containing the State Department and Foreign Operations budget. With a deadline looming (Friday midnight) before another short-term continuing resolution is needed, and members wishing to get out of town for the end-of-year break, there is a good shot that action will be completed on fiscal year 2012…that began back on October 1.
This is a joint post with John Norris of the Center for American Progress.
Last week, my colleague John Norris from the Center for American Progress, or CAP, and I kicked off a new Working Group, ‘Aid Priorities amid Declining Resources.’ This effort is meant to address a concern close to all of us working in foreign policy and international development – how best to address anticipated cuts to the international affairs budget which will take place under almost any scenario imaginable at this point.
Several years ago, the aid reform and effectiveness movement took shape in an environment ripe with hope for change. Calls for reform were finally gaining momentum and getting results, and the administration seemed keen on revamping both our foreign policy architecture and how we deliver U.S. assistance around the globe. The administration not only conducted the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, it also undertook a presidential review of its global development policy.