Foreign Aid: Time to Focus on Measurable Outcomes
Opinion

Foreign Aid: Time to Focus on Measurable Outcomes

Nick Bhardwaj/The Fiscal Times

Has the recession made the United States hard-hearted or hard-headed? Outrage over teacher pensions, anger at overpaid city officials, a gathering storm over illegal immigrants; will these controversies recede if the economy recovers? We shall see. In the meantime, expect an assault on foreign aid.

Tough times are flushing out our nation’s inner skinflint. When incomes are rising and the future is bright, people don’t haggle quite so much over prices or drive 10 miles to save a buck. Similarly, Americans didn’t gripe about soaring public sector salaries until they lined up for private jobs that pay less. Stories of stimulus monies spent studying exotic ants and researching robotic joke machines make us wonder: Who’s watching the store?

The next target for scrutiny will almost surely be the development funds we give to foreign countries. Decades ago, Americans argued over how much money we should be sending overseas, but as our country became wealthier, the debate died down. These days, it’s not clear how much we give away — itself an issue — since many agencies and departments are involved. Not only does this lead to what the Financial Times recently described as "the U.S.’s notoriously bureaucratic and dysfunctional foreign aid programme," it also creates a moving target for critics — possibly intentionally.


Given the outcry over out-of-control and sloppy federal spending, it is only a matter of time before someone homes in on the distribution of American wealth abroad.

When he addressed the United Nations development summit last week, President Obama promised to help those in need, but also pledged support to those countries likely to use our grants in a sustainable and responsible way. Doubtless this change in tone and focus is appropriate; it is also politically astute. Given the outcry over out-of-control and sloppy federal spending, it is only a matter of time before someone homes in on the distribution of American wealth abroad.

They will doubtless find plenty of ammunition. A recent story in the New York Times details outreach by the U.S. into the slums, or "banlieus," around Paris. These mostly Muslim neighborhoods have been, the story claims, neglected by French leaders. They have, however, received the attentions of the United States Embassy. Our diplomats have sponsored music festivals and urban renewal efforts as part of a program begun after 9/11 to bolster the image of the U.S. among Muslims. The piece claims that the outreach "has grown in scale and visibility since the election of Barack Obama."

The American embassy in Paris is apparently spending a good portion of its public affairs budget on such initiatives, which include organizing "seminars for minority politicians, coaching them in electoral strategy, fundraising and communications." Come again?

Can you imagine the outrage if the French government were hosting Tea Party get-togethers or funding right-wing candidates opposed to the Obama administration? I’m going to go out on a limb here and guessing that most Americans would not approve of this use of their hard-earned money.

For sure, assisting Muslim politicians in France will not be the only wart uncovered if critics wade into our foreign aid programs. With budget deficits soaring, Americans will want to know why we are hiking outlays on the Global Environment Facility to $175 million in FY 2011 from $80 million in FY 2009, laying out $400 million for the new International Clean Technology Fund (what ever happened to our green technology funds?), spending $190 million on education in Pakistan when our teachers are being laid off, or funding the International Coffee Organization with $690,000 in FY 2011. Why does the Office of International Conferences budget have to soar from $5.7 million in FY 2009 to $46.2 million in FY 2011? Do our diplomats have wanderlust?

As with most government undertakings, development aid is almost surely in need of a brisk housecleaning. President Obama emphasized that his new priorities include greater accountability. That should include accountability to Americans, too.

His new tone sounded promising until I read about the State Department’s newly proposed "Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves." The U.S. has pledged $50.8 million over the next five years to help 100 million homes adopt "clean and efficient" stoves by 2020. Our country’s help will come through a variety of agencies:

  • USAID — $9 million for explaining why old cookstoves are no good,
  • EPA — $6 million for testing stoves "in the lab and the field" and proposing stove innovations,
  • Department of Energy — $10 million for researching "technical barriers to the development of low emission, high efficiency cookstoves..."
  • National Institutes of Health — $24.7 million to "develop improved measuring devices, expand epidemiologic studies" and otherwise study whether existing cookstoves are actually harmful,
  • Centers of Disease Control — a measly $1 million to "demonstrate the health benefits of implementing clean cookstove programs."

Somehow, this doesn’t sound efficient.

Americans are a generous people, but in this miserable time they could be forgiven for wanting our government focused on helping people here at home. President Obama said to the U.N., "We know that countries are more likely to prosper when they encourage entrepreneurship; when they invest in their infrastructure; and when they expand trade and welcome investment." Some would agree heartily, but possibly wonder, "Was that John Boehner speaking?"

TOP READS FROM THE FISCAL TIMES