by Alex Evans | Feb 9, 2009 | Cooperation and coherence, Economics and development, North America
One debate that will run and run in the coming months is on the whether, why and how of reforming US foreign assistance – a theme that Barack Obama riffed on frequently during the course of the Presidential campaign.
Over at the Center for Global Development, Sheila Herrling has just posted a Q&A on reforming the antiquated 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which created USAID in the first place. As Herrling observes, the Act has only been overhauled fully on one occasion – and that was back in 1985. So what should reform achieve? According to Herrling, a new act should:
– clearly outline the objectives and priorities of U.S. foreign assistance programs;
– consolidate decision making and implementation functions into a single independent institutional entity;
– specify the roles and responsibilities of other government agencies where appropriate;
– clarify the coordination of oversight responsibilities and functions; adjust regulatory requirements to fit the reality of implementing assistance programs; and
– discourage to the highest degree possible political and bureaucratic constraints (such as earmarks and presidential initiatives).
However, the really big question lurking in the background is whether USAID should be hived off and made into a separate department, a la DFID in the UK: expect plenty of speculation and debate about this over the course of the spring. Me, I’m not holding my breath – for two formidable obstacles stand between here and USDFID.
One: the fact that Obama can’t just create a new department with a stroke of the pen. In the US, machinery of government changes of that magnitude need Congressional approval (many would argue that the only reason the Department for Homeland Security came into being was the determined campaign run by the 9/11 families for just this outcome).
Two: the even more challenging hurdle of one Ms Hillary Clinton. Hillary made plenty clear as soon as she arrived at State that she sees development as one of the core pillars of foreign policy. It’s very unlikely that she’d see such a significant part of her empire slip through her fingers…
by Alex Evans | Jan 13, 2009 | Cooperation and coherence, Economics and development, Global Dashboard, UK
As everyone waits to see what Obama plans to do about reforming foreign assistance in the US, back here in Britain change is in the air too: the Conservatives are coming clean about what they really think about DFID, the Department for International Development.
For a while now, there have been whispers that the Tories don’t really buy into the idea of an independent DFID – and that perhaps (gasp!) they might be considering merging it back into the Foreign Office, where it resided until 1997. Well, following last week’s Independent interview with Conservative aid spokesman Andrew Mitchell, we can put that notion to rest: “We are very committed to DFID continuing as an independent department of state”, says he.
So, a ringing endorsement of DFID, then? Er, not quite. Here’s the full context:
The shadow International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said DFID had begun to encroach on the work of other departments and to come “perilously close” to setting its own foreign policy, a role he said should be reserved for the Foreign Office. He said the Foreign Office will be given much greater influence over the use of overseas aid should the Tories win the next election …
“There are times when DFID comes perilously close to pursuing its own foreign policy and that is not right,” Mr Mitchell said. “Foreign policy is decided by the government and the Cabinet, led by the Foreign Office, and DFID should not be an alternative to this. We are very committed to DFID continuing as an independent department of state. But we would make it more of a specialised development department and a little less like an aid agency,” he said.
That left me wondering just which specific instances Mitchell was thinking of in arguing that DFID was coming close to having its own foreign policy. Iraq? Afghanistan? Climate change? (Thinking that Paul Wolfowitz might not be such a great idea for President of the World Bank?) Sadly, we don’t know. Earlier today I called his office to ask him to elaborate, but he declined to say more.
This is a shame, on two counts. First, because it’s a cop out. For the Opposition front bench spokesman on international development to argue that the Department he shadows has come ‘close to pursuing its own foreign policy’ is a serious claim – and one which he ought to be prepared to substantiate. To fail to do so leaves him open to accusations of offering soundbites rather than reasoned argument.
More fundamentally, though, it’s a shame that Andrew Mitchell wouldn’t elaborate because this debate needs to be had. (more…)
