While you might not know it from the weather, there’s at least one sure sign it’s December in DC. No, we’re not referring to the oversized and ornamented evergreens on the Capitol and White House lawns, but to the recent mad dash by Congress to wrap up remaining legislative business before the end of session. Despite a year marked by bitter partisanship, Congress managed to arrive at an agreement to fund the federal government through the rest of FY2016.
CGD Policy Blogs
The research organization Aid Data has been getting a lot of attention in the aid world of late with its survey of recipient country policymakers and practitioners and their views of the utility, influence and helpfulness during reform of various aid agencies. Suggests the press release: “According to nearly 6,750 policymakers and practitioners, the development partners that have the most influence on policy priorities in their low-income and middle-income countries are not large Western donors like the United States or UK. Instead it is large multilateral institutions like the World Bank, the GAVI Alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria." That conclusion is based on average worldwide agency scores from the survey.
The last time Congress overhauled the US foreign assistance apparatus, John F. Kennedy was president. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) made some sweeping changes. There hasn’t been a wholesale reexamination of how US development programs are structured, administered, and coordinated. Exhibit A is the fact that over 20 US agencies currently deliver aid programs. As such, there is a compelling case for finally fixing a broken, fragmented, and underperforming system. Yet pushing for a new FAA is a really bad idea. Whoever takes the White House in 2017 should not fall into this trap.
It's that time of year again – time for MCC's annual country eligibility decisions.
This week, the Global Fund partnership will meet in Tokyo to plan for its fifth voluntary replenishment, covering the period 2017-2019. The stakes are high: in an austere budget climate, the Global Fund’s ability to raise the needed resources—and then to spend them effectively over the subsequent three years—will have outsize importance in determining the trajectory of the historic fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
Those who follow CGD will be familiar with our branded meme: “Cash on Delivery” aid, or COD. Many are enthusiastic about COD’s potential to revolutionize aid effectiveness. Yet within some global development organizations, leadership and staff alike express common concerns: is COD practical in the real world? Have you thought about this problem, or that constraint? How would this work in the context of our organization? And if we decided to move forward, how would we design a COD grant?
Earlier this week, CGD president Nancy Birdsall testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing on the Millennium Challenge Corporation. A main impetus for the hearing was the introduction this summer of legislation (S. 1605) that would enable MCC to pursue regionally-focused investments with eligible countries. The hearing itself, however, was wide-ranging, covering the “current operations and authority” of MCC.
For the reader in a hurry, this gift-giving guide comes in two parts: one for those with $45 billion to spend and one for those of slightly more modest means. Please feel free to skip to the part which is more applicable to your budget for presents.
Britain’s new aid strategy has important implications, not only for DFID but for international organisations who will either need to adapt or face losing some of their core funding. Here’s why.