The Biden administration and the Congress rightly went big in the recently passed American Rescue Plan at a time of tremendous need. The package was appropriately focused on the domestic side, but it did not neglect the rest of the world. One might reasonably ask then why $1 billion or $2 billion could not have been included for fighting the poverty, food insecurity, and health crises driven by the pandemic. That would have amounted 0.05 to 0.1 percent of the total package. And it would have been multiplied many times over in additional poverty reduction dollars, because that it was the MDB model does.
CGD Policy Blogs
The White House and the World: Practical Proposals for Resetting US Engagement in Developing Countries
When President-Elect Biden takes office in January, he will face a daunting set of challenges in the US wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic. His administration’s core agenda will necessarily be shaped by the twin imperatives of containing the virus itself and supporting Americans as they weather the economic effects of the crisis. Both tasks will be considerably more difficult if US policy doesn’t also pivot toward constructive engagement with the rest of the world.
The White House delivered an FY2018 budget request, featuring deep spending reductions, to a less-than-receptive Congress early last week. In a series of blog posts, CGD experts sounded off on the proposed cuts to foreign aid and the philosophy that seems to guide them—including the administration’s plans to shutter the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, continued support for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the merits and potential downsides of a proposal to shift some security assistance from grants to loans.