Not afraid of commitment...but can it deliver?

The MCC released its FY 2008 Budget Justification on February 5. By laying out its achievements of the past years and detailing plans for the future, the MCC hopes Congress is finally convinced to give it the full $3 billion requested by the President.The MCC plans to spend the bulk of its budget (87%) on compacts, which would increase both in number and in size over the next couple of years. MCC expects to sign three to five more compacts by the end of FY 2007 (Lesotho, Morocco, Mozambique, Tanzania and Sri Lanka are cited) using a combination of FY 2007 money and balances from past years. This sounds as if MCC plans to commit all currently available funds by the end of the year, and with a Continuing Resolution capping '07 funding at $1.75 billion, demand for funding is expected to exceed available compact resources. This will leave -- they claim -- at least nine eligible countries to compete for FY 2008 funds. MCC hopes to sign compacts with up to six of these in FY 2008, projecting an average compact size of $400-$500 million (in a focused attempt to move more towards its original mandate of providing "transformative" levels of funding). And that would basically eat up the requested $3 billion. MCC counts the three newest additions, Jordan, Ukraine and Moldova as among the likely contenders for '08 funding.MCC has spent the last couple of years working hard to streamline and improve the process by which they bring countries to the signing table. That hard work has paid off, and it is entirely conceivable that the MCC could sign another eight to ten compacts by end-2008. But what happens then? The MCC is great at committing money, but disbursing it has been another story. Implementation has been slow for the first few compacts -- an average of five months passes between signing and entry into force, and actual disbursements are less than half of what was projected for the first year. Staying true to the country-ownership principle that distinguishes the MCA from other aid programs justifies some of the delays. And MCC says that implementation will improve rapidly over the next few years as they work out their "new organization/new phase" kinks, just as the country selection process did. With up to eleven compacts coming in the next two years (doubling the current number), and eyes turning toward implementation results, it is imperative that it does. Here are some questions we're examining:1. Is the lean and mean, predominantly Washington-based, transaction team business model of the MCC sustainable? Particularly in terms of supporting countries during implementation, not just getting them to the signing table?2. Is greater selectivity at the country selection process necessary to shift greater attention to implementation and result-delivery issues?Share your views.