MCA innovation in jeopardy
Last Friday's New York Times front page story had the ominous title "U.S. Agency's Slow Pace Endangers Foreign Aid". But the article went on to present a nuanced analysis about the delicate balance between the short term concerns of Congress as it puts together a budget for the Federal Government and for foreign aid programs in FY 2008 and the long-term commitment to developing countries through the Millennium Challenge Corporation's country programs.
One of the reforms embodied in the MCC was the ability to provide developing countries with a reliable stream of funding for development projects. This was long overdue recognition that development takes time and the way that U.S. aid programs have traditionally been funded, relying on annual appropriations from Congress, did not allow developing countries to put into place multi-year programs--the kind that are needed for the challenges that face the poorest communities.
As appropriators in Congress are moving to finalize the appropriations bills that will fund the federal government next year, they are searching for places to find savings. Unfortunately they are eyeing the
funds that have been put aside by the MCC to meet the commitments made to the countries with which it has signed agreements and arguing that the MCC has unspent resources and therefore does not need the funds the administration has requested for next year. They are also considering a measure that would restrict the MCC's ability to provide countries with more than 50% of the resources at the time of signing the agreement.
In fact, the MCC has been slow to get money out the door. Hiccups that go hand in hand with a new organization account for some of the slowness. More importantly though, MCC staff have also been cautious, making sure that all the pieces were in place to ensure that the projects the MCC supports succeed. Another reason for the speed has been the newness of the process for both the MCC and for developing countries. A key innovation about the MCC is that it puts developing countries in the driver's seat--they determine the priorities in consultation with civil society, design and implement the programs and evaluate progress--for most MCC countries this is a new approach and it should have been anticipated that the first time they do this, it would take time but the internal capacity that is built is tremendously valuable both for the partner country and for the MCC.
The key to long-term development is transferring skills and technical capacity to developing countries. The fact that this takes time should not be a reason to cut funding for this innovative program. The choice should not be between MCC funds and other development and humanitarian programs.
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d945753ef00e54fb1629e8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MCA innovation in jeopardy:
Hunger HotSpots
Stay Connected
 |
 |
You're right in principle, but I think the political realities are that if MCC/MCA is going to survive at all, it's going to have to accept something along the lines of the Lugar amendment. Otherwise there's a good chance the whole approach, worthy as it is, will not survive a new administration.
Posted by: Charles Uphaus on December 12, 2007 at 10:12 AM