Party On? US Political Platforms and Development

This is a joint post with Jenny Ottenhoff.With the US presidential election fast approaching we’ve heard almost nothing about US leadership on global development from the candidates or their surrogates. This is a striking difference from 2008 when development issues made the national agenda and were featured in roundtable discussions at both conventions. While development wasn’t entirely missing from this year’s conventions—check out U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s recaps of its co-sponsored events on foreign policy and development—it seems to us that it’s been missing from the broader conversation on the campaign trail.Lacking such public pronouncements, we dug into the Democratic and Republican 2012 Party Platforms for indications of where the parties stand on policies that affect development. Admittedly, the platforms don’t provide a lot of detail and certainly aren’t blueprints for the next administration. But right now it’s about all we have to go on. And if past platforms are any indication, at least some of the parties’ stated positions will become future administrations’ policy.Below we compare the party platforms on the seven categories from CGD’s Commitment to Development Index (aid, trade, migration, investment, environment, security and technology), using the CDI policy framework as guidance. Then we attempt to answer the question: If implemented, would the party platform be progress compared to current policies or would it be a step backward? Check out our (not so scientific) chart at the end to see where we come out.Aid – With aid, we want to know how the parties would improve the quality of US foreign assistance—not just the quantity each would commit.Both parties single out the importance of health aid and point to the accomplishments of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).The Democrats say that development “requires building the capacity of governments and peoples so that assistance is no longer needed,” and allude to the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition as one model for achieving this.The Republicans emphasize the importance of charity and faith-based groups in foreign assistance saying these efforts along with commercial investment from the private sector “dwarfs the results from official development assistance.” They suggest that US aid money should “follow positive outcomes” and be based on the model of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) under which “foreign governments must, in effect, compete for the dollars by showing respect for the rule of law, free enterprise, and measurable results.”Perhaps most notable is the change from 2008, when the Democrats committed to modernize US foreign assistance and streamline US development agencies, and the Republicans committed to reviewing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to update policies and goals. The Obama administration has made modest strides towards the Democrat’s commitments in 2008 with the launch of the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development but the lack of follow through in this year’s platform seems to suggest reduced attention to the issue in the second term. Republicans, meanwhile, step back from their 2008 platform, omitting any constructive language about aid reform.Trade – On trade, we look for ways each party would make US trade policies more supportive of poverty reduction and economic growth in developing economies (like lowering agricultural subsidies or tariffs on labor-intensive manufactured goods).Not surprisingly, we didn’t find mention of this from either party. Both parties pledge to forge bilateral free trade agreements (the Republicans insist that they will do it more quickly than the Democrats have in the past) and complete negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The Republicans offer a new “Reagan Economic Zone,” which sounds a lot like the TPP but may go further to protect intellectual property rights of US firms.From a development perspective, none of this is ideal. The proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements risk undermining the multilateral, rules-based trade system, which is the best protection that small and poor countries have against trade bullies. Still, we know that small tweaks to US policy can help drive economic growth in the poorest countries and promote US development objectives at no cost to taxpayers (and in a time of austerity, that’s a win-win). We hope President Obama and Governor Romney would go beyond their parties’ platforms and make trade policy better serve both American interests and those of poorer developing countries.Investment – Here we look for ways the platforms might encourage constructive investment in poor countries, and find that the parties take very different stances on overseas investment.The Democrats believe in “insourcing” and call to “cut tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas,” while the Republicans call for a reduction of the corporate tax rate to “keep U.S. corporations competitive internationally.”The Republicans also support recommendations to switch to a territorial system of corporate taxation, to prevent overseas investors from being taxed both at in the US and in the investment country. In terms of promoting overseas investment, the Republican platform fares far better than the Democrats.But both parties could better support promotion of US investment in the poorest countries by expanding the tools of the government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation.Migration - When we look at migration, we want to know how easy the policies in each party platform would make it for people from poor countries to immigrate to the US, get education or find work, send money home, and return to their native country with new skills and capital.The Democrats say they are “strongly committed to enacting comprehensive immigration reform that supports our economic goals and reflects our values as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.” This reform would include “bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and requires them to get right with the law” and “a system for allocating visas that meets our economic needs.”The Republicans say that “[o]ur highest priority…is to secure the rule of law both at our borders and at ports of entry” and “oppose any form of amnesty.” Republicans state that they will “consider” creation of a new guest worker program. Increased immigration under this possible program would likely be negated by the policies in the platform intended to “encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily” and “enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas.” Republicans do want to grant “more work visas to holders of advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math from other nations,” a new addition from the 2008 platform that we’re very happy to see.Neither party is likely to support open borders anytime soon and both parties’ emphasis on securing US borders seems likely to persist. But we know that a small increase in emigration out of low-income countries (5 percent) would expand the world economy by several trillion dollars each year and hope that both parties will recognize that regardless of one’s stance on how to handle illegal immigration, allowing easier legal immigration to the United States for both skilled and unskilled people stands to benefit both the world and US economies. We’re also hopeful that both parties will support allowing more refugees to immigrate to the US during humanitarian crises (including natural disasters). Immigration policy should include international development policy, and vice versa.Environment - Looking at environment, we want to see how the parties’ policies would affect shared global resources such as the atmosphere and oceans.Democrats say they “will continue pursuing efforts to combat climate change at home…reducing our emissions domestically.” The platform lists climate change as an “emerging threat” and states that its goal is an “effort in which all major economies commit to reduce their emissions…and the necessary financing is mobilized so that developing countries can mitigate the effects of climate change and invest in clean energy technologies.” The platform removes the 2008 language promising to "free this nation from the tyranny of oil.” Overall, the Democrat’s 2012 platform on climate change is far less aggressive than its 2008 platform.The Republican’s platform on environment issues also backtracks. Republicans state that they “oppose any and all cap and trade legislation” and dropped the 2008 section “addressing climate change responsibly” (mentioning climate change only once and in reference to the Obama administration). The platform focuses on fossil fuel use and encourages Congress “take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations.”Although the Democrat’s platform on climate, if acted on, would fare far better than the Republican’s on our CDI index, US leadership on climate change issues has been generally lacking both in our example at home and in our efforts abroad. Our hope for the next administration is that it will work to alleviate the impact climate change will have on developing countries and promote sustainable energy goals worldwide, while still seeking to alleviate developing countries’ energy poverty.Security – Here we compare the party platforms on military actions that affect developing countries and favor multilateral action like contributions to international peacekeeping and other internationally sanctioned operations.The parties diverge sharply on this component largely because of their differing stances on the United Nations and international law and organizations. The Democrats see these as "a centerpiece of international order" and highlight President Obama’s initiative to strengthen UN peacekeeping capabilities in Africa. They also committed to modernizing the UN’s infrastructure and pledge to "reform international bodies and strengthen national and multilateral capabilities to advance peace, security, and opportunity."Warier of UN engagement, the Republicans say international organizations “can, but sometimes do not, serve the cause of peace and prosperity.” They would focus reform efforts on "full transparency in the financial operations of its overpaid bureaucrats,” and believes that America “must always reserve the right to go its own way.” They nowhere mention UN peacekeeping.We’ll look for the next administration to contribute both financially and with personnel to internationally sanctioned peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions.Technology - Here we look at how each party would support the creation and dissemination of new technologies. We want to see government funding and tax breaks for research and development but not patent and copyright rules that are too restrictive to the flow of ideas across borders.Democrats “support expanding and making permanent the Research and Experimentation Tax credit.” In 2008, Democrats promised to “double federal funding for basic research,” a promise missing in the 2012 platform. The platform states that the “administration is vigorously protecting US intellectual property…at home and abroad through better enforcement and innovative approaches…while supporting the free flow of information.”The Republicans also support a “permanent research and development tax credit,” as they did in 2008. The platform references “some governments [using] a variety of unfair means to limit American access to their markets while stealing our designs, patents, brands, know-how, and technology—the “intellectual property” that drives innovation.”It’s notable that both parties support making the R&D tax credit permanent, and have for quite some time, yet it’s still not permanent. The Republicans have far stronger rhetoric in both the 2008 and 2012 on enforcement to protect US intellectual property rights than the Democrats, though the Democrats certainly also emphasize protections. US intellectual property policies have a significant impact on a number of development issues ranging from health (medicines patents) to climate change (clean technology patents). While protecting intellectual property is an important task for any government, we hope the next administration will seek to balance that task with recognition of eliminating obstructions for free flows of information.Here’s our broad assessment of where the party platforms stack up on development issues as compared to current policy. Think we missed the mark?  Let us know in the comments section below!Hopefully we’ll know more about where each candidate stands on development issues before Election Day. We’re especially looking forward to hearing what President Obama and Governor Romney have to say in their addresses at the Clinton Global Initiative on September 25 and at the foreign policy debate on October 22.For more on how CGD scholars think US policies on these topics should be reformed, check out our 2008 book, “The White House and the World: A Global Development Agenda for the next U.S. President.” Four years later, most of these recommendations stand and provide a potential roadmap for the incoming administration.