Placing Development Alongside Diplomacy
Sarah Allibhoy writes:
Recent literature by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) describes its mission in conjunction with the larger US national security strategy – placing development alongside diplomacy and defense as the key ways in which the United States interacts with other nations. In establishing USAID in 1961, President Kennedy laid the framework for this relationship between USAID and the Departments of State and Defense. He declared the mandate of USAID to be two-fold in that it must fulfill our moral, economic and political obligations as a global leader and, in providing assistance to other nations, secure our own safety and stability. Supporting the national security has, therefore, been a key part of USAID’s mandate since it’s inception and the links between development, diplomacy and defense have only deepened over time. As a result, the development projects that are undertaken or funded by USAID are, by nature, constrained by their potential impact on US national security interests. For example, in Afghanistan, USAID’s civilian officers partner with their military counterparts in implementing programs that are consistent with the overarching foreign policy effort to build greater stability in the country, while the programs implemented in Colombia are designed to support the legitimacy of the formal government and economy.
In my research I am interested in exploring two aspects of USAID’s policies and programs. The first is how specifically do US national security interests impact where and to whom USAID allocates aid money. I think the best way to examine this will be to look at official literature released by USAID, create links between DoD/DoS stated objectives and USAID projects in a region and compare those with investments and projects by other non-governmental organizations. Drawing out differences between USAID and NGOs that, in all other respects operate similarly, is particularly interesting because they provide a sharp contrast to USAID’s policy-making processes. The freedom from security and diplomatic concerns, in many ways allows NGOs greater autonomy in selecting and implementing development projects. Because the US security strategy varies from nation to nation, this question will have to be focused on a specific geographic location that is both central to US strategic interests and one that receives attention and investments from other NGOs/aid organizations. The second aspect I want to explore is whether the success or failure of the projects is linked to the strategic choices behind US investment. More specifically, are the projects USAID invests effort and resources in ones that align with our interests on paper but are minimally effective on the ground or, do our interests align with the best hope for progress and development within specific nations?
The world of international development is one that increasingly involves interaction and cooperation among a wide spectrum of actors, making USAID just one of the many. As we, time and time again, question the necessity and value of delivering foreign aid, particularly in light of our own recent social and economic concerns, it is important that the effectiveness of the aid that we deliver and whether our security concerns bolster or hinder tangible results in this arena are a part of the equation.
For more info:
History of USAID
USAID’s analysis of Dollars to Results
Speech delivered by USAID Director Raj Shah to Congress
(Warning! PDF)
William Easterly’s “The Cartel of Good Intentions: The Problem of Bureaucracy in Foreign Aid” (PDF!)
USAID’s Impact Blog
Recent Comments: