The Foreign Service Journal, November 2007

dor.) If we count MCA funding, the total development assistance figure was $885 million in 2005, but this still represents a decrease from previous decades. The MCA is a good start, but a much larger investment is needed. In addition, the increased funds must benefit more than a handful of coun- tries in the region. The MCA may continue to reward high-performing countries, but the overall assistance program needs to have a broader base of beneficiaries. And the larger initiative must be focused on the kinds of assistance that can, if designed well, contribute to wealthi- er and more just societies in Latin America — especially in countries with large numbers of emigrants. Some Broad Characteristics of the Proposed Plan Like the two historical initiatives mentioned here (the Marshall Plan and the E.U. plan), this program would be based on the idea that prosperity elsewhere — in this case, in Mexico and its neighbors — is inher- ently good for the donor country. The potential benefits for the U.S. would include decreased immigration, a con- tribution toward global and hemi- spheric social peace and democracy, and the economic benefit of an expanded market for U.S. goods. Most importantly, such a plan would be based on a new urgency, a sense that the gaping disparity between the U.S. and its neighbors is dangerous, morally unacceptable and fundamen- tally against our interests. Most polls suggest that Americans believe foreign aid accounts for between 15 and 25 percent of the federal budget, when in fact it repre- sents less than 1 percent. Yet if they are properly informed about current aid levels and the benefits of foreign aid, there is evidence that Americans would be willing to fund more assis- tance. Some surveys show public support for bringing assistance as high as 10 percent of the federal bud- get. Of course, more money is not the solution by itself. Previous periods of increased aid were generally not suc- cessful in significantly reducing social exclusion. A Marshall Plan for Latin America would need to be well con- ceived and well designed, and focus- ed on projects and ideas with proven success as well as promising new approaches. Related initiatives in the areas of democracy and governance (reducing corruption, promoting justice reform and the rule of law, increasing com- petitiveness by ensuring a level play- ing field), health and education (con- tributing to a healthier, better educat- ed populace that can better take advantage of economic opportuni- ties) and the environment (ensuring that natural resources are well man- aged and thus able to play a sustain- able role in economic development) would be important complements to such a program. Careful steps would need to be taken to avoid the corruption and graft that can accompany significant new flows of resources. Such a plan might look something like this: • It would be focused mostly on rural economic development as well as on helping governments improve rural infrastructure, and its objective would be broad-based economic growth (i.e., integrating the previous- ly excluded) in rural areas with an emphasis on positive linkages to urban areas and the rest of the econ- omy. • This aid would be new. It would not replace, but complement, funds currently designated for important programs in health, democracy and governance and the environment. Nor would it replace resources cur- rently designated for Africa, Asia or other regions whose development needs remain great and urgent. • The new approach would draw heavily on lessons learned from past work in economic development, such as the importance of sustainability, longer horizons and building lasting institutions. Clearly, development profession- als would have different ideas on how best to structure such a plan, and how to best use such resources. But the first step is to create a sense of political urgency, and to make the case that these political and economic trends are closely related. Ignoring them will risk squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to follow in the tradition of Secretary of State George Marshall by developing a policy that, in his words, is “direct- ed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, despera- tion and chaos.” Such a policy would be in line with America’s tradition of helping those less fortunate — and with our own self-interest. N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 53