Friday's front page of the New York Times ran a terrific article by Celia Dugger on the Millennium Challenge Account. Unfortunately, the headline reinforces the excuse that Congress is using to cut the MCA's budget -- that it can't spend the money it already has. Now you will see from my quotes in the article that I believe the MCA programs should be further along at this point but there are some compelling reasons why they are not and some decisionmaking streamlining happening within the MCA to reduce red tape while maintaining credible safeguard standards.My own sense is that the "slow pace" argument has become a convenient excuse for Congressional appropriators who, as Patrick Leahy says in the article, are faced with a budget where "the only thing that got a blank check is the war in Iraq." What really endangers foreign aid is lack of a common strategic vision for its use, that elevates development and diplomacy as national interest priorities and that would protect long-term investments in development from the poaching for immediate needs that our annual budget cycle encourages. Is the MCA really in competition, as Leahy suggests, with proving it is spending faster or better than other development programs (like maternal health, AIDS, refugees) or is it more that Congress is willing to sacrifice its original innovation in the MCA program -- guaranteed funding for the entirety of the country compact -- for more defense funding and less confrontation with sectoral-based development lobbies? Unfortunately for the MCA there aren't a whole lot of interest groups knocking on Congress' doors saying, "how can you possibly stop growing those poor countries economies!" It is unfortunate in the bigger scheme of things as broad based economic growth is the way out of poverty.And so today as I headed into the much anticipated release of the HELP Commission's final report "Beyond Assistance" with these thoughts on my mind, I couldn't help but be struck with how often Commissioners and panelist raised the MCA as an example of a model of good development assistance. It was used as an example of an innovative ambitious program that gets caught in the crosshairs of our annual budget cycle. It was used as an example of results-based assistance. It meets the Commission's recommendations for country-led development, economic growth focus, enhanced monitoring and evaluation of aid, and support for democratic principles. And it certainly is a program that is providing much needed resources to infrastructure, an oft-cited challenge to real development by the panelists. Indeed, the Commission report's key recommendation on trade and the importance of strategic links with aid included granting duty-free/quota-free acess for MCA countries because as Commissioner Bill Lane, CEO of Caterpillar said, "even in this set of solid reformers, the U.S. is taking more in trade revenues than it is giving in MCA assistance."And, so, it seems that despite the fact that the MCA has been slow to get going, it sure does appear to be on the right track. It needs to show results in terms of milestones achieved along the way, so that its progress -- and let's remember here that it is really the country's progress -- can be seen and measured in other ways that disbursement rates. A good start was made by the MCC this week -- check it out.
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise.
CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
