Foreign assistance reform : building US civilian development and diplomatic capacity in the 21st Century

The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing last June titled Foreign assistance reform : building US civilian development and diplomatic capacity in the 21st Century. Two former Administrators of the U.S. Agency for International Development testified as witnesses before the Committee. I quote from the report of the hearing.

Summary of the Honorable J. Brian Atwood’s Testimony:

Mr. Atwood began his testimony by discussing the history of foreign aid, specifically under his tenure as USAID administrator under the Clinton Administration. He mentions the “peace dividend” that pervaded the post-Cold War environment of the early 1990’s, stating that the lack of AID funding it entailed meant closing 27 missions in a time of global conflict and strife.

Mr. Atwood references the “three D’s” of the National Security Strategy-defense, diplomacy, and development-and argues that two of the legs can not perform their roles if the third is not being adequately supported. From this he makes three primary recommendations.

1. A more streamlined, agile State Department that focuses on its diplomatic mission.
2. A rebuilding of USAID to enable it to take a strategic approach to development and coordinate the assistance efforts of other agencies.
3. A development mission that is in sync with the diplomatic mission and reinforces the State Department’s role.

Mr. Atwood bluntly states that “development is overrated,” meaning that while it is essential for poverty reduction, it is not sufficient. A combination and coherence of development, finance, and trade policies is necessary for both immediate poverty reduction and the long-term growth that is in the ultimate interest of the US. He concludes by arguing that a new Cabinet-level position for Development is needed and that, as per Chairman Berman’s remarks, form should follow substance. He tempers this recommendation by stating that a Cabinet-level position is the President’s prerogative.

Summary of the Honorable M. Peter McPherson’s Testimony:

Mr. McPherson’s first recommendation to the Committee is to rebuild civilian and technical capabilities. He states that the historical strength and comparative advantage of USAID has been its number of people on the ground who understood the situation; now it has become primarily a contracting agency. His second recommendation is that the AID Administrator should be a statutory member of the National Security Council.

He argues that the AID Administrator should still report to the Secretary of State in order to ensure that the Secretary retains policy oversight. However, agencies and initiatives that deal with foreign assistance (such as PEPFAR and MCC) should report to the USAID administrator.

Though he commends the role of the Department of Defense in post-conflict and other unstable situations, he argues that their role should be limited to providing security rather than infrastructure, agriculture, and education services.

Comment: The next administration has the opportunity to exert "soft power" more strongly than has the Bush administration, thereby helping to restore American prestige abroad as well as to resolve many of the security, economic, development and diplomacy problems created in the last eight years.

Brian Atwood is right that the United States needs to coordinate development assistance, trade, and economic policies, and both are right that a stronger cadre of foreign aid workers will be required not only to implement a larger aid program but also to implement it better.

There have been proposals in the past to give foreign aid cabinet status and they have always failed. I think the independent agency, reporting to both the Secretary of State and the President is a good model. I would note however that Atwook and McPherson were very highly regarded as Administrators of USAID, and have differing opinions on that issue. JAD

Image source: The News Sentinel's Michael Silence blogs on blogs.