I recently began posting a series of pieces with some of the reasons why I believe (a) America needs foreign assistance reform and (b) Conservatives should take up the cause.  Done right, foreign assistance can play a crucial role in our foreign policy. Unfortunately, the status quo isn’t “done right” or, at least, done as well as it could be.

To summarize, here are my first seven reasons:

Reason 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.

Reason 2: We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.

Reason 3: Foreign assistance reform is a great opportunity for Conservatives to reaffirm values and initiatives we care about. 

Reason 4: Simply put, Conservatives (and Republicans) have a long history of standing up for EFFECTIVE foreign assistance.

Reason 5: The combination of fragmented authorities and overlapping bureaucracies in our current assistance framework is watering down public diplomacy efforts.

Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.

Reason 7: The lack of coordination between our foreign assistance programs and our trade policies is hurting the effectiveness of both.

And now . . . Reason #8: Conservatives need to ensure that our foreign assistance system recognizes, protects and builds on the enormous contributions to development being made by other-than-government sources – especially faith-based institutions.

I’m always frustrated by the data some analysts use to measure American contributions to development.  In a capitalist system like ours, government to government aid is but a fraction of the support that Americans are providing to those in need.

For one thing, many of the donor comparisons ignore the irreplaceable economic opportunities that American businesses provide through trade and investment.  I wonder how many jobs Coca-Cola has brought to Africa? Or Ford? Or Johnson & Johnson?  And there’s simply no dispute that a good paying job is superior to any traditional program or government handout.

Conservatives need to care about foreign assistance reform so they can make sure the system explicitly recognizes these “opportunity contributions” and looks for ways to build on them.   Modest assistance initiatives aimed at teaching basic lessons on entrepreneurship, increasing workforce readiness, or otherwise helping create pro-business conditions can hasten these programs towards their oft-stated purpose: ending the need for them to continue.

Of course, other-than-government development assistance goes well beyond commercial activities. A large part of American support flows through non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), faith-based and secular, that provide assistance each and every day, all over the world, in troubled lands and to despairing peoples. In some cases, the NGOs are contractors or implementing partners of governmental actors. To make government funds more effective, these NGOs harness their on-the-ground experience and unmatchable relationships. Faith-based organizations, in particular, often have the hard-earned trust of the people our programs seek to help.  Some are large organizations like World Vision and Catholic Relief Services, but many, many more are not.

Conservatives need to help shape foreign assistance reform to protect and, in some cases, enhance the role of NGOs.  After all, Conservatives have a long tradition of supporting the work of civil society in poverty relief. In 2001, we led the charge to support President George W. Bush’s “faith-based initiative.”  At the heart of that plan was the idea that faith-based organizations should have the opportunity to participate in government contracts or grants providing services for those in need.  While there shouldn’t be any preference or set aside for such organizations, and careful steps should be taken to ensure that tax dollars aren’t used for proselytizing, their work shouldn’t be hindered or discriminated against merely because of their faith character.

Of course, the role of NGOs in development goes well beyond that of a mere contractor or implementing partner.  Many NGOs lift lives and build communities by using their own resources. Some of those resources are contributed by businesses or foundations, but even more comes from individual Americans in a range of ways — from the collection plate to the bake sale, from the walk-a-thon to online donations and televised appeals. In many ways, the great untold story of American global leadership is the extraordinary generosity of ordinary Americans  . . .countless individuals all across our land who give of their time, treasure and talent for people they’ve never met, in places they’ve never been, and in many cases couldn’t find on a map . . .all because Americans care.

In some ways, other-than-government assistance is the most important because it so clearly conveys the values and sentiments of the American people.  Presidents and partisans come and go, and history shows that no government-to-government relationship is without its bumps and strains. But the work of many NGOs reinforces a bond between peoples – donors and recipients – that’s lasting and special.

Conservatives should care about the foreign assistance reform process that’s emerging at Foggy Bottom and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to make sure that our NGOs have a voice.  Whether it be protecting the opportunity of NGOs, both faith-based and secular, to contract with development agencies in the provision of assistance or making sure that agencies recognize and leverage the support NGOs provide, Conservatives can use the reform process to ensure that other–than–government assistance remains an essential expression of American compassion around the world.

“The U.S. venture into Iraq was a war, but it was also a nation-building exercise. America has spent $53 billion trying to reconstruct Iraq, the largest development effort since the Marshall Plan. So how’s it working out?

In short, there has been substantial progress on the things development efforts can touch most directly: economic growth, basic security, and political and legal institutions. After the disaster of the first few years, nation building, much derided, has been a success. When President Obama speaks to the country on Iraq, he’ll be able to point to a large national project that has contributed to measurable, positive results.

Of course, to be honest, he’ll also have to say how fragile and incomplete this success is. Iraqi material conditions are better, but the Iraqi mind has not caught up with the Iraqi opportunity.”

Click here to read the full article.

Shah used the visit as an opportunity to rethink U.S. aid to Pakistan, announcing that some of the funds from the five-year, $7.5 billion aid package will be redirected to assist in flood-related relief and recovery.  Shah showed great flexibility, saying “I fully envision some of the priorities will have to shift, and shift so that there’s more of a recovery and reconstruction focus.”

Since Congress passed the Kerry Lugar bill for aid to Pakistan last year, the Agency has spent time determining where the aid can be most impactful.  Secretary Clinton recently announced the aid would be geared toward large-scale water and energy projects.  And Ambassador Holbrooke has stressed that the aid will go directly to the Pakistani government and organizations.  While Shah noted $50 million of the funds will be immediately redirected to emergency relief, he also said “we will need to reassess the full extent of our commitment to the people of Pakistan and do whatever is most appropriate and most effective to really help people recover.”

Though top ranking officials lament the country won’t see significant progress on reconstruction for years, Shah pressed that this is an opportunity to build more sustainable systems and services.  The new Administrator exercised innovation – assisting in the launch of an information-sharing system using Pakistan’s Humari Awaz cell phone network.  In describing the tool for an interview on Pakistan Radio, Shah said, “We are pleased that Pakistan has a forum for information sharing that people everywhere can use to engage each other in the flood relief effort.  Information sharing can help connect people to resources to aid in disaster recovery and to engage one another in problem-solving.”

Apart from the flexibility – on the ground and in Washington – and the innovation already being exercised as part of the relief effort, Administrator Shah touched upon principles of effective aid he hopes to see as reconstruction moves forward.  As part of a piece on PBS News Hour, Shah said, “I am thankful that Minister Qureshi and others…have also indicated their full commitment to making sure that relief efforts are transparent, resources that go in are accounted for, and there’s real verification, so that we can all continue to stand by the people of Pakistan during this hour of humanitarian need.”

Text FLOOD to 27722 to give $10 or go to www.state.gov to learn more about how you can help in the relief effort through the Pakistan Relief Fund.

Donor Coordination in Kenya and Mozambique

Responding to long-held concerns about uncoordinated donor behavior, the Paris Declaration of 2005 made harmonization one of its five pillars, pledging to work towards “eliminating duplication of efforts and rationalizing donor activities to make them as cost-effective as possible.”

Among the problems of uncoordinated action are elevated transaction costs as recipient governments struggle to comply with variegated donor rules and procedures (Knack and Rahman 2007) and decreased donor specialization as “all donors seem to want to give to all sectors in all countries” (Easterly 2007).

All of the attention given to coordination problems begs the questions: how much do donors coordinate their activities? And is coordination effectively targeting needs within a country – both spatially (aid to villages or provinces) and sectorally (aid for different purposes)? Recent work by the World Bank – AidData partnership (Mapping for Results Initiative) sheds new light on the topic.

Using new geo-referenced aid data, we considered the spatial and sectoral coordination of all of the currently active projects of two donors – The World Bank and the African Development Bank – within Kenya and Mozambique. An AidData query places the World Bank and the AfDB as the first and twenty-third highest active donors to Kenya and Mozambique. Because of their influence, analyzing the funding patterns of these two donors offers a sense of where a large proportion of the funding to Kenya and Mozambique is going. (It also calls attention to the need to mainstream geo-referencing for the other approximately 50 active donors.)

World Bank and AfDB aid flows to Kenya demonstrate a tremendous concentration of aid from both donors in the Mombassa-Nairobi-Lake Victoria corridor. This is not entirely surprising, as these are the main population centers of Kenya, but this corridor is also comparatively much better off than the more arid North and East, which receives virtually no aid from either donor. Neither donor appears to be coordinating efforts nor effectively targeting the neediest areas of the country.

The situation in Mozambique paints a different picture: AfDB projects are primarily directed to the northern parts of the country whereas World Bank projects are clustered near the capital city, Maputo. As in Kenya, however, there appear to be manifold financing gaps in the poorest parts of Mozambique, especially in the northwest provinces – Niassa and Tete – and the provinces just north of Maputo – Gaza and Inhambane. Geographic coordination in Mozambique is encouraging, yet the areas of greatest need appear to be neglected still.

Using the same active World Bank and AfDB projects, we then examined sectoral coordination. In Kenya, we find a high degree of sectoral specialization between the two donors. The AfDB is largely focused on central government budget support, allocating 58% of its spending towards this sector. By contrast, the World Bank’s emphasis has been Transportation (29%) and Agriculture (17%).

While the production sectors, such as transportation, power, and agriculture, receive a great deal of aid from both donors, sectors targeting human capital, such as education, health, and social services, are relatively neglected by both donors.

Sectoral coordination in Mozambique is quite different from Kenya: the Power and Transportation sectors are targeted heavily by both the World Bank and the AfDB. But beyond these two sectors, the World Bank and the AfDB spend on quite different purposes as shown below:

In Kenya, uncoordinated donor specialization may neglect particular sectors and geographic regions as the World Bank and the AfDB seem to target the same geographic area and the same sectors. In Mozambique, the donors specialize in different sectors and different areas. By cross referencing this finding with the distribution of sectorally-specific indicators of need, we could assess whether the different types of aid received by northern and southern Mozambique are tailored to the specific needs of those areas. It is possible that the geographic variation in aid portfolios is matched to the geographic variation in need. However, without more complete analysis, including a wider group of geo-coded donors, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about the significance of the revealed patterns of sectoral and spatial coordination. Areas and sectors that appear neglected by the World Bank and AfDB might be covered by other donors. We would love the opportunity to test this proposition, but that would require that more donors geo-reference their own projects or provide access to their project documents so that we could geo-reference their projects as we have done for the World Bank and AfDB.

Geo-referencing development projects is one very promising method that could facilitate greater coordination and dialogue between policymakers and development practitioners, as well as researchers, NGOs, recipient governments, and citizens. As geo-referenced data become more common, donors and other interested parties (like us) can use the data to find and publicize areas and sectors that are not receiving an amount of aid that is proportional to need (measured in various objective ways). Such visualizations do not provide clear answers about where aid should be allocated, but they raise important questions with striking clarity and will encourage donors and recipient governments to explain allocation patterns to beneficiaries and taxpayers. We think this will improve the prospect of aid dollars arriving where they are needed most.

“The secretary was already on record as claiming that the initiative would be a “crucial component of American foreign policy and a signature element of smart power.” On its face, this seems highly unlikely. Anyone doubting this should ponder the fact that one military program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—a weapons platform that no one claims is needed for the counter-insurgency operations that are currently at the core of the U.S. military’s requirements—is on course to cost $325 billion, and may well go higher (the budget request for fiscal year 2011 is $11.4 billion, roughly the same as each of the six years of the Global Health Initiative). In other words, Washington is going to spend on a ‘signature element’ of its smart power less than one-fifth of what it is already committed to spending on something that even the Pentagon does not claim is a signature element of our hard power. No, money may not be everything, but ‘follow the money’ remains the best advice for understanding what the priorities of the American government really are.”

“In her SAIS speech, Secretary Clinton closed by saying that, “We’re aware of all the pitfalls and all the obstacles, internal and external.” I see no reason to doubt this…But in either designing or at least signing off on a program which grants authority for day to day running of the program to three separate agencies (USAID, the Centers for Disease Control, and PEPFAR, the Bush-era President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief), each with their own institutional interests, while calling on the resources and expertise of the National Institutes of Health, the Peace Corps, not to mention the departments of Defense and of Health and Human Services (“among others,” as Secretary Clinton said, without irony, in her speech), all reporting to Deputy Secretary Lew, the administration has laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic calamity. Rube Goldberg, call your office.”

“Of course, America’s reliance on winning hearts and minds through humanitarian relief and development assistance is not restricted to southwest Asia…In a brilliant paper published recently by the Humanitarian Policy Network in London (full disclosure: I am on the advisory board of the unit’s parent, the Humanitarian Policy Group), Michael Kleinman and Mark Bradbury analyze the effectiveness of these initiatives. While agreeing that “these military aid projects provide an entry point into communities that are potentially hostile to the US and its interests,” Kleinman and Bradbury conclude that the most they can actually be said to have achieved are tactical successes.”

• Pakistan’s tragic flooding demands an international response (The Washington Post editorial, August 17) There is a strategic case for aiding Pakistan in this time of crisis. Timely, generous assistance could improve America’s image in an area of the world where it has been unpopular. After a 2005 earthquake shook Pakistan, U.S. aid proved helpful in burnishing America’s reputation. But the positive impact of that assistance has largely faded; in this volatile region, images of helicopters bearing food have been replaced with helicopters delivering soldiers. Now the West has a chance again to show solidarity with Pakistani citizens — or it can risk losing ground to the extremist groups that some say are already stepping up to offer assistance. Aid might help build trust and reinforce Pakistan’s position as an ally in the international war on terror.

• U.N. Warns of Supply Shortage in Pakistan (The New York Times, August 18) The United Nations, which had been saying that as many six million people needed some manner of emergency assistance — shelter, food, drinking water or medical care — estimated that figure could reach eight million.  “The funding response to the floods is improving but much more is needed,” he said. “The effort must be sustained in the days and weeks ahead in order to have the resources to reach the people who desperately need help.”  The United States was by far the largest single donor, with $82 million, according to United Nations figures, with the next largest donor Australia at $26.6 million. The United States said its total contributions amount to $90 million, including helicopters, boats and temporary bridges, according to the State Department.

• US to boost Pakistan flood aid to 150 million dollars (AFP, August 19) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that US aid is swelling to 150 million dollars for Pakistan and called for a halt to extremist attacks during the flood crisis as an “expression of common humanity.” “I want to see more, and today at the United Nations I will be announcing more US assistance,” the top American diplomat told Dawn TV, in a transcript provided by the State Department.  When asked if the new aid total would be 150 million dollars, she said: “Yes. And I will also be announcing a way for individual Americans to contribute; a fund that I’m setting up here in the State Department.”  The State Department has said US flood aid was being distributed through the Pakistani authorities or relief organizations on the ground to “provide critical supplies to flood affected populations.”

• Holbrooke: Donations Offer Leverage Over Pakistan Floods; Need Still Enormous (PBS Newshour, August 19) Holbrooke: … we all know how important Pakistan is strategically and politically to the U.S. We’re doing this, however, because the people are in desperate need, as you pointed out a moment ago. And it but we are not oblivious to the political and strategic implications of it. It’s just that we’re the president, President Obama, who has issued a statement, the United States government, all of us are just pitching in to do everything we can right now. And then we will let the dust settle and see where we go from there.

I recently began posting a series of pieces with some of the reasons why I believe (a) America needs foreign assistance reform and (b) Conservatives should take up the cause.  Done right, foreign assistance can play a crucial role in our foreign policy. Unfortunately, the status quo isn’t “done right” or, at least, done as well as it could be.

To summarize, here are my first six reasons:

Reason 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.

Reason 2: We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.

Reason 3: Foreign assistance reform is a great opportunity for Conservatives to reaffirm values and initiatives we care about. 

Reason 4: Simply put, Conservatives (and Republicans) have a long history of standing up for EFFECTIVE foreign assistance.

Reason 5: The combination of fragmented authorities and overlapping bureaucracies in our current assistance framework is watering down public diplomacy efforts.

Reason 6: Making our foreign assistance operate as effectively as possible is a moral and ethical imperative.

And now . . . Reason 7: The lack of coordination between our foreign assistance programs and our trade policies is hurting the effectiveness of both.

Conservatives believe, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “The best possible social program is a job.”  In that same spirit, in the international realm, we believe the best possible development program is trade – because it creates jobs and reinforces the values of entrepreneurship.  Again in President Reagan’s words, “I recognize … the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.”

While Americans sometimes complain that foreign assistance is merely a “giveaway” (a view to which I do NOT subscribe), robust trade is mutually beneficial – it boosts OUR job creators and entrepreneurs as well as allowing them to compete in an increasingly challenging commercial world.  This potential benefit has never been more important: developing countries are the fastest growing markets for American goods and services. They already account for 40% of our export markets.

Conservatives, of course, aren’t the only ones who recognize the value of growing trade.  President Barack Obama recently said in a policy address, “We are at a moment where it is absolutely necessary for us to get beyond those old debates. . . . Those who once would oppose any trade agreement now understand that there are new markets and new sectors out there that we need to break into if we want our workers to get ahead.”

What too many policymakers don’t realize is the potential for American foreign assistance to accelerate our trade opportunities inthe developing world.  On the other hand, successful business leaders do – and it’s a principle reason so many support our foreign assistance programs. Foreign assistance, done right, can help foster conditions that strengthen consumerism, democratization and markets.  It can, for example, help to seed microfinance programs in the developing world that help farmers and entrepreneurs to grow and expand.  It can help provide technical assistance to transportation authorities to make it easier to ship goods in and out of countries. It can support democratization programs that enhance stability – a prerequisite for long term investment.

As Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development under President George W. Bush puts it, “There is no real example of a country leaving the ranks of the poorest countries and becoming a middle income country without an export-based strategy. . . . However, you can’t do it in the absence of aid. Trade is essential, but it’s not aid or trade. It’s trade and aid.”

So why is trade an argument for foreign assistance reform? As with so many other aspects of foreign assistance reform, it comes down to the need for better coordination and communication amongst the myriad agencies, departments and offices involved in these programs.  Unless those sectors which administer assistance are closely coordinating with those involved in our trade initiatives, we can end up with policies that undermine the effectiveness of both. For example, in its 2010 report, “The Business Case for Foreign Aid Reform,” the Initiative for Global Development revealed that the U.S. government had given“$120 million in aid to two extremely poor countries, Bangladesh and Cambodia, while at the same time collecting $853 million from them in import duties – as much as was collected from France and the United Kingdom combined.”  As David Beckmann of Bread for the World, put it, “So we are taking away with one hand, and we give with the other.”

In short, Conservatives should support foreign assistance reform because (a) we believe in the power of robust American trade to improve the economic fortunes of both ourselves and our trading partners, (b) the developing world is an increasingly important part of our trade potential, and (c) our foreign assistance programs significantly affect how trade functions in many parts of the world. When foreign assistance and trade policy operate at cross purposes, everyone seems to lose ground. But when assistance and trade work together, entrepreneurs on both sides of the equation win.

Clinton used the speech as a platform to get buy-in from the community for GHI — underscoring the fact that global health continues to be a nonpartisan issue that even the American public wants to support.  She reiterated the GHI’s holistic approach to global health prevention and treatment with a specific focus on outcomes not inputs, priority care for women and girls, and innovation.

Watch the full event here and read excerpts from Clinton’s speech after the jump:

“We invest in global health to protect our nation’s security. To cite one example, the threat posed by the spread of disease in our interconnected world in which thousands of people every day step on a plane in one continent and step off in another. We need a comprehensive, effective global system for tracking health data, monitoring threats, and coordinating responses.”

“So therefore, we must be strategic and make evidence-based decisions in targeting the most dangerous threats, to ensure that our investments that, after all, come from the American taxpayer, deliver results. And we must also must stay focused on the long-term picture – not only addressing the urgent needs that people have today but building the foundation for better health tomorrow and for the next generation.”

“The fundamental purpose of the Global Health Initiative is to address these problems by tying individual health programs together in an integrated, coordinated, sustainable system of care, with the countries themselves in the lead. We are taking the investments our country has made in PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative, maternal and child health, family planning, neglected tropical diseases, and other critical health areas – building on the work of agencies across the federal government, such as the Centers for Disease Control – and expanding their reach by improving the overall environment in which health services are delivered. By doing so, our investments can have a bigger impact and patients can gain access to more and better care, and as a result, lead healthier lives.”

“Too often, the social, economic, and cultural factors that restrict their access to health services—such as gender-based violence, child marriage, female genital mutilation, lack of education, lack of access to economic opportunity, and other forms of discrimination—remain unacknowledged and unaddressed. We are linking our health programs to our broader development efforts to address those underlying political, economic, social, and gender problems. And we’re working with governments, civil society groups, and individuals to make sure that the needs of women and girls are recognized as critical not only by us, but by the health ministers, the people at the grassroots who administer care every day, that they are taken into account in the budgets and the planning of finance ministries, prime ministers, and presidents.”

Coverage of Shah’s visit by the Associated Press cites Shah alluding to a report on foreign assistance programs — presumably the Presidential Study Directive or PSD-7 — coming out next month.  Referencing the aid programs spread across the U.S. government, AP reporter Donna Gordon Blankinship writes, “There are no plans to consolidate that work, Shah said, but the administration is concerned about efficiency and transparency and growing the reach and effectiveness of foreign aid. A report on these efforts is due out within the next month.”

Other speakers at the Global Washington event included Prema Arasu, associate vice president for international programs at Washington State University; Akhtar Badshah, senior director of global community affairs at Microsoft; Sylvia Mathews Burwell, president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s global development program; and PATH CEO and President Christopher Elias.

Read more on the event here.