Seeing Our Pakistan Report through Other Eyes

In the week since our study group released its report on U.S. development programs in Pakistan, I’ve been fascinated with the range of opinions on what our most important message was.Two of our recommendations have gotten most of the attention. The first is our emphasis on non-aid tools of development policy. This is the idea that, as Reuters put it, “trade might succeed where aid has not in developing a vibrant economy and stable partner.” I think we made the strongest case we could that a development strategy cannot be an aid strategy alone—trade and investment are part of the equation. We’ll hope the administration and members of Congress are persuaded.Others found most newsworthy our suggestion that some aid spending in Pakistan be backloaded to have the greatest impact. The Associated Press accurately captured this argument:

Although the report largely supports long-term financial assistance to Pakistan, it notes that in certain sectors, spending the money now will do nothing more than provide superficial fixes that keep Pakistani leaders from having to make politically difficult decisions.

That sentence neatly captures the two sides of the argument we were trying to make. Yes, aid can distract from the steps that need to be taken to address Pakistan’s long-term problems. But that doesn’t mean it should be scrapped. If key economic and social reforms can be made, aid spending will help accelerate Pakistan’s progress in improving key sectors like energy and water. And there are some areas where aid can be spent well now—especially investing with other donors in projects that have already begun to show success.The problem is that these are difficult thoughts to fit in a headline—and we noticed that the nuanced AP story and a slightly blunter AFP piece often ended up running under headlines like “US should delay Pakistan aid: Study.” As the Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani said at our launch event, we can only hope people read past the headlines. Our report’s intention was not to fuel calls to scrap the Pakistan aid program. On aid, our position is “mend it, don’t end it.”One response I was especially delighted to read came from Alex Thier, the head of USAID’s Afghanistan-Pakistan office. (Note that Alex was a member of our study group before being hired by USAID last year. We shared pre-publication drafts of the report several times with him and his staff).Thier writes that our report’s most valuable contribution is that, “it exposes the difficult path that lies between policy formulation and implementation.” I certainly came back from Pakistan with a fresh appreciation for how hard it is to implement an aid program in Pakistan—especially as USAID has shifted from a Beltway-based contracting model to support Pakistani institutions. I’m glad that came through in our report. Thier is perhaps too diplomatic to point out is that our report also highlights the need for him and others who currently handle implementation to play a much greater role on the policy formulation side—both in planning aid and in developing a broader development strategy as well. Splitting policy formulation from implementation serves neither well.For what we thought the main messages of our report were, read our blog summary. Even better, I hope you’ll read the report and share your own takeaways in the comments below. Video of the excellent panel discussions at our report launch and of Ambassador Haqqani’s closing remarks are also now online.