Reaching a Consensus on the Purpose of Aid May Be One Outcome to Budget Debates

The current budget debates on finishing up the 2011 budget and then tackling 2012 have raised concerns among international affairs budget wonks. As policy makers search for ways to balance the U.S. budget, some want to do away with a foreign assistance budget (also known as the 150 account) altogether while others press for slight cuts, arguing that aid  is a critical component of a national security budget.  The former means walking away from international commitments and U.S. global engagement of the soft power kind.  The latter produces cuts that are not considered deep enough when compared to proposed reductions in many domestic programs.Is there any good that can come from this debate?  I think so.  Having to defend programs can lead to a re-evaluation of their purpose and effectiveness.  In a recent analysis, I discuss the dysfunction of the current aid resource allocation process and recommend redefining the purposes of aid.  Former CGD researcher Jean Arkedis offers another perspective on a similar themeDecreasing budgets can produce the motivation to seriously scrub programs and accounts.  The UK’s conservative government has been able to do so even as it commits to maintaining a robust aid budget.The administration’s new global development policy (blog review) and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (blog review) outline certain principals that I have praised, such as focus and selectivity in deciding what we do and why.  And, Administrator Shah’s elevation of evidence- and results-based planning is a welcome approach.I am disappointed then to not see much focus or selectivity reflected in the 2012 budget.  With the exception of USAID’s Development Assistance account that eliminates funding to 17 countries, reduces spending by more than 50% in four countries, and cuts funds in four more countries by over 25% in order to increase resources around Feed the Future and Global Health initiative countries (kudos to USAID’s new budget office), the overall 150 budget does not seem to reflect the good scrubbing that many of us would like to see.But then again, it’s hard to make difficult choices if there is no consensus on what the United States seeks to achieve with its aid.  Perhaps the silver lining here is that the current budget debates will help reach that consensus.  As the UK Secretary for International Development said in DfID’s recent study on their bilateral programs, “We are pioneering a new approach to development based on the understanding that aid is a means to an end, not an end in itself.”For more on this issue, see Aid for a Purpose: Show Me the Goal, Then Show Me the Money.