24 OCTOBER 2024 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Given a constrained budget, where should a new administration take foreign assistance? First, USAID must embrace diversity in a way it has never done. American foreign policy, however, has always strived to be stable, bipartisan, and consistent. Development is a generational project. We have been at our best when we have stuck to our values in diplomacy and taken the long-term approach to our foreign assistance. When the development agenda reflects stability and commitment, it generates greater results. So, the next administration should throttle the political impulse to put forth a flashy new agenda and, instead, make clear why there will be no new administration initiatives. Staying the course on what is already there is the best bet for achieving measurable progress. Third, work with Congress on a bipartisan basis. The reason there are 450 earmarks and directives per year is because USAID and State are not listening to Congress: they have not been responsive. Thanks to the efforts of Administrators like Mark Green, and going back to Brian Atwood, there has been more effective engagement with the Hill. When Administrator Samantha Power saw a member of Congress, she would always start by mentioning a particular project or organization in that member’s district that benefited directly from USAID. That’s effective communication, and USAID and State need to do much more of that, across the aisle and in both chambers. That also means working hand-in-glove with the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General, and the Congressional Research Service to make sure that accountability is accessible and comprehensive. It also means being frank when things don’t go as planned. As we work to improve accountability, there must be an evaluation of cost-effectiveness and return on investment. This includes impact evaluation. Twenty years ago, USAID talked about “manage-to-budget,” an initiative established in 2005 to improve transparency and accountability and control costs, but lost sight of that. USAID needs to return to that fiscal discipline. That, in turn, will require that USAID focus on its priorities. It may mean that USAID cut fringe “would be nice” programs to focus on the areas where it has a comparative and competitive advantage. Over time, as USAID is more responsive to Congress and presents greater focus of purpose, it can propose to Congress the removal of some of those excessive earmarks and directives. Fourth, work with other donors on joint programming. USAID does not have to fully fund everything. If the ExportImport Bank of the U.S. or the Development Finance Corporation can partially fund something, USAID budgets will go further. Similarly, look to complement programs from the World Bank or regional financial institutions—perhaps helping countries to meet conditions required to unlock large sector lending in key target areas like health, sanitation, or agriculture. At the same time, helping local organizations to establish financial controls on funding, set personnel systems, and manage for results could set them up for grant funding from other private funders like the Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute, or the MacArthur Foundation. Working together with others will allow USAID to stretch its scarce funding further. And fifth, USAID must stop downplaying itself. While DoD may be the most important player in 15 countries, and State in another 50, USAID may be the best foreign policy tool in 80 to 100 countries. An ambassador is the administrative chief of mission, but the USAID mission director has cash and programs. USAID is operational. It gets things done. USAID must play to its strength. Former USAID Assistant Administrator for Policy and Program Coordination Doug Menarchik used to say that USAID needed to be proud of its work and “walk with swagger.” The U.S. will not be able to counter China without an effective USAID. We will not be able to meet our climate change commitments or help other countries to meet theirs without an effective USAID. People will starve, wars will break out, disease will spread, and organized crime will expand—unless our foreign assistance is effective. USAID is doing its work so that our military and diplomats can focus where they have to. USAID should not be shy about saying that our country needs USAID. Menarchik was right. The bottom line is that the U.S. Agency for International Development is an essential, critical national security organization. It needs adjustments to rise to the new global demands of the day, given the impending budget constriction. These five recommendations will make USAID fit for purpose for the coming challenges. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=