Democracy and Society » USAID

Diplomacy & Development: Best Friends For Life (or BFFLs in government speak)

Imara — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 02:34:36 +0000

Best Friends For Life

As Republicans gear themselves up to take over the House, the debate around the States’ finances, and the terror of Government spending is starting anew. Unsurprisingly, among the potential targets for cuts in funding is the area of development and foreign aid. As Barak mentioned in a previous article, domestically we’ve a pretty mixed up opinion when it comes to issues of foreign spending, and this flawed understanding is something legislators don’t hesitate to take advantage of.

I definitely wouldn’t argue that we’re doing everything right where foreign aid is concerned, historically we’ve a pretty shaky record in the area of aid. Yet the type of results we tend to expect in the amount of time we’re willing to commit also tends to be fairly absurd. It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that what we need isn’t less spending, or even more spending, but more effective spending, unfortunately we have a hard time agreeing on just what that means.

A few days ago Secretary Clinton spoke on the release of the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review or in government terms “QDDR” (oh how I hate acronyms). The review aims to shape future changes in US policy in the areas of development and diplomacy, by among other things utilizing “civilian power” and getting agencies like the Department of State and USAID to work cooperatively. If successful in bringing about any actual policy change, QDDR could nip some of the foreign aid spending rhetoric in the bud before our incoming legislators have a chance to go too far in gutting funding.

Other

F

Barak — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:08:13 +0000

It seems to me that something like the the F process – the effective merging of USAID funding with foreign policy priorities- was probably an inevitable result of USAID’s growth. The agency could stay autonomous when it was small, but this is an unrealistic expectation for a large government agency. More to the point, USAID needs to answer why it should be large and autonomous. I get the point that from an operational perspective, independence from US foreign policy is something that USAID desires. Why US taxpayers ought to fund such an agency is a different question. The argument that if USAID wants to be big, it needs to justify its budgets through US foreign policy priorities is a strong one. I understand why USAID doesn’t like F. USAID needs to make a better case for why the US government should get rid of it.

Other

Why doesn’t Elmo ever go to USAID?

Barak — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:58:06 +0000

Contemplating the travails of USAID is a common theme on this blog. Our analysis today is the self-inflicted wound of omission. The world’s most popular children’s television show is Sesame Street. USAID is one of the major funders of Sesame Street overseas.

Question: Why is there so little on USAID’s website about this impressive accomplishment?

Answer: I don’t know.

Elmo is stumped

Other

The definition of transparency

Barak — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:32:26 +0000

The meaning of transparency isn’t as clear as the term suggests.

Other

Transparency

Barak — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:14:01 +0000

Leading by example is not USAID’s strong suit.

Other

USAID’s self-inflicted wounds

Barak — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:20:17 +0000

MA in Democracy and Governance student Elizabeth Cutler has a very insightful post on the constellation of forces within the USG that seek to undermine the work of USAID and their reasons for doing so at Budget Insight. She left out an important part of the problem: she blames everyone in the USG except USAID. Part of the agency’s problem is that it does a terrible job of justifying its own existence. USAID does not operate as a single agency, but is more like an umbrella organization for lots of different development projects (health, education, environment, democracy/governance, etc.). USAID has been unable to frame why it exists, so others have chosen to do so – to the detriment of USAID.

Other

Don’t blame USAID

Barak — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:49:51 +0000

Joshua Foust at Registan argues that USAID projects are undermining the war in Afghanistan and that the Department of Defense ought to take control of development projects. I think Faust is missing the point a bit. USAID is in Afghanistan because the DOD largely wants it there. I suspect that if DOD were to take over all of USAID’s projects in Afghanistan, the same types of problems would occur. After all, it was not USAID, but DOD that argued spending $200 million per month to provide electricity to Kandahar was a good idea.

Other

Corruption in Afghanistan

Barak — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:43:16 +0000

Don’t blame USAID alone. At least that’s what I argue at Budget Insight.

Other

Nita Lowey is still a hypocrite

Barak — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:39:59 +0000

What’s missing from this press release? It says nothing about military spending in Afghanistan even though it is about 30 times greater than foreign aid and there is massive corruption involved with it. Lowey’s continued refusal to acknowledge that military spending is a major source of the problem is really unfair to USAID.

Other

Kunduz attack shows Lowey’s hypocrisy

Barak — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:17:39 +0000

Today’s attack on the DAI compound in Kunduz is as an excellent example of the hypocrisy Rep. Nita Lowey (D-Hypocrisyville) demonstrated in her (unsuccessful) efforts to cut USAID funding to Afghanistan, but not military funding. The attack on the compound shows that aid workers are as much on the front lines of the war as is the military. Moreover, if it were not for the war, DAI would not be working in Kunduz. Lowey’s attack on USAID was not only hypocritical, it was demeaning to all of the people who are putting their lives at risk implementing USAID projects. Perhaps Lowey can reflect on this over the long weekend.

Other