I'm joined for this week’s CGD Wonkcast by Sarah Jane Staats, director of policy outreach here at the Center for Global Development. Last week, President Obama released his proposed budget for the next fiscal year. Sarah Jane and others here at the Center have been poring over the budget request, examining what signals the budget sends on the administration's approach to development.
CGD Policy Blogs
U.S. Global Health Initiative: An Opportunity to Provide Short (and Useful) Comments on a Tall Order
Yesterday’s release from the White House of the FY2011 budget and a simultaneous release of a consultation draft of the Global Health Initiative (GHI) by the State Department signal a strong commitment and evolving action plan from the Obama administration for global health engagement in 2011 and beyond.
Since its release in December 2009, specific pieces of PEPFAR’s new strategy have triggered much discussion both in Washington, D.C. and abroad. In the spirit of sharing-while-doing, Ambassador Goosby spoke at a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) event on Tuesday on “Confronting the Tough Challenges in HIV Prevention,” focusing his remarks on HIV prevention in the strategy.
Within the beltway and across newspaper headlines, PEPFAR is widely perceived as a very successful US foreign assistance program. Without fail, mentions of PEPFAR’s success all reference the same single measure: currently PEPFAR supports 2.4 million people on ARV treatment.
Interestingly, these broad perceptions of success exist despite the fact that, or maybe because, there has never been a systematic evaluation of PEPFAR’s impact. However, that is in the process of changing.
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s ’s vision of the future role of foreign assistance in US foreign policy, as outlined in her address hosted here at the CGD on January 6, is ambitious, nuanced and inspiring. Bill Easterly takes issue with Clinton’s list of priority interventions, saying that it is too long to be consistent with her stated intention to “target” and to be “selective,” but I disagree.