Blog

How Do Americans Feel about U.S. Foreign Aid And the Millennium Development Goals?

Both the Senate and the House Appropriation Committees have recently approved a cut in the FY2011 foreign aid budget, despite pleas from many, including Secretary Clinton.  The amounts approved are $54.06 billion by the Senate and $52.6 billion by the House; both lower than the $56.6 billion requested by the Obama Administration.  In the atmosphere of budget deficits and economic constraints, the cut did not come as a surprise.   However, as the 2015 deadline for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is soon approaching, the need for continuing U.S. efforts to reach these goals has never been greater.  There is a conflict here, between the great need for foreign aid, and the current economic difficulties.  It leads us to ask: do Americans identify with the urgent need to continue to provide foreign aid to meet the MDGs?  Also, do Americans agree with the international development community on the U.S. responsibility to contribute to the millennium development goals?  

To answer these questions, a national poll was conducted in April 2010 by Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research, on behalf of the United Nations Foundation.  It surveyed American’s attitudes toward foreign aid and the MDGs.  Here are some key findings:

• – For the first time in five years, Americans’ view of the United Nations (UN) rose from above 50% favorable to 60% favorable.  This increase in positive impressions of the UN is due to the positive stories they have seen in the news on events such as the Haiti relief effort, humanitarian efforts in Africa, relief efforts in Chile and Peru, WHO humanitarian efforts, UNICEF humanitarian efforts and the earthquake relief effort in China. 
•  – Two-thirds of Americans believe the UN is still needed today.
•  – 59% of Americans believe international issues have an impact on them personally and only 15% believe international issues have no personal impact on them.
•  – Although 89% of Americans say they are not familiar with the specifics of the MDGs, after hearing a brief description of the eight goals, 87% of Americans believe the U.S. should be very or somewhat involved in a worldwide effort to accomplish the MDGs by 2015.  50% of Pacific residents stated that the U.S. should be very involved in accomplishing the MDGs.
•  – When asked to choose which MDGs are the most important to accomplish, Americans chose those goals that address the most basic human needs for survival.
•  – The top 3 choices for the most important MDGs were: access to safe drinking water (47%), alleviating extreme hunger and poverty (36%), and eliminating gender disparity in completing primary education (27%).

Though it is discouraging to know that a huge majority (89%) of Americans are unfamiliar with the MDGs, one positive realization did emerge from this rather negative finding.    Most Americans are supportive of U.S. involvement in accomplishing the MDGs once they learn about the specifics.  If we want to accelerate our progress towards meeting the MDGs by 2015, one thing we cannot undermine is the power of the collective action from this majority of Americans.  In addition to the strategy that the U.S. government has recently mapped out for meeting the MDGs (see recent blog post), we need to educate and engage our communities, local leaders of all sectors, local media and audience about this collective responsibility toward eliminating global poverty.  We can start by taking part in the 2010 Stand Up Against Poverty movement, when individuals and organizations around the world will stand up and make noise against poverty around September 17^th, 2010.

Tech-Aid: Innovation and Development

As Global Washington’s Conversation with USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah came to a close last Friday, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) left the audience with a new way of looking at an old question.

As Congressman McDermott explained, when faced with contemplating the future of global development, one can readily apply the age-old question “is the glass half-full or half-empty?” Similarly, we can ask ourselves is this the time in world history that the human race bands together to solve the critical problems of our time, or will we allow the global financial crisis to stifle our humanitarian spirit and maintain the status quo? Can we capitalize on the momentum building up to the Millennium Development Goals and eradicate hunger, disease, and extreme poverty, or are we setting ourselves up for a big disappointment with such lofty goals?

But these questions, however important, are insufficient in finding the solutions to the world’s ills. To solve these problems, Congressman McDermott exhorted the audience to consider how to fill the glass, rather than consider how full it is already. Indeed we must not ask ourselves if we will succeed, but how we will succeed in meeting the basic needs of all. And technology is inevitably a part of the answer to that question.

Such was the purpose of this panel discussion. Bringing together the USAID Administrator, two Congressmen, and representatives from Microsoft, Washington State University, PATH, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the panel discussed the role innovation and technology plays in development projects, particularly in the health and agriculture sectors.

Before introducing Dr. Shah, Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) opened the discussion with a case for investment in development, saying funding foreign assistance can create a more stable and secure global environment. However, as Congressman Smith pointed out, the current foreign assistance structure is not efficient enough to get the most out of our resources.

Dr. Shah echoed Congressman Smith’s sentiments on the state of the foreign aid system, saying that programs are too often ineffective because projects are not guided by results and evidence from the ground. Fortunately, Dr. Shah has committed to basing programs off of conditions on the ground, beginning with the two new development initiatives Feed the Future, and the Global Health Initiative.

Using the right technology and the right means of delivering that technology may ultimately decide the success or failure of many development programs. Innovative new pieces of technology have already played a large role in improving development programs. For instance, M-Pesa allows you to safely and securely transfer money via cell phone, giving people without steady access to a bank a way to easily access their money.

With such promising technological innovations and committed leadership from our panelists, I can’t help but see that glass filling up quickly.

New U.S. Strategy for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals

The Obama administration recently released the U.S. Strategy for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals, a 28-page document that emphasizes innovation, sustainability, and accountability.  After a brief recap of progress achieved to date and the serious challenges ahead, the document outlines the three pillars of the U.S. strategy: innovate, sustain, and make it work.  According to the strategy, innovation can be a “powerful force multiplier,” and can be fostered in many ways: funding research, expanding access to technology, building partnerships, and stimulating innovation through prizes and the like.  The key to ensuring sustainability is found in broad-based economic growth, well-governed institutions, investments in women and girls, sustainable service-delivery systems, and mitigating shocks.  And to make it all work, the U.S. must build the enabling environment through strengthened monitoring & evaluation, accountability, and coordination with other donors.

In order to put these ideas into practice, the strategy promises to “marshal the full range of our development policy instruments.”  This includes pledges to fund innovation, invest in sustainability, and improve accountability.

Many of the initiatives discussed in the strategy are ongoing efforts that the U.S. government has worked on for years.  Some are newer, such as the Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative.  There is not much news in this new document.

One new and promising initiative in this strategy document is a major aid transparency initiative, where the U.S. government will work with other donors and partner governments to streamline the dissemination of country-level information about aid flows.  If this works as planned, it will make it a lot easier to figure out who is doing what in each country, what money is being spent on which project where, and what the expected and measured results are.

What is missing from this strategy?  Any mention of who is in charge- who will coordinate this government-wide response?  If no one is in charge, there can be no real accountability.  Also, there is no talk of a Global Development Strategy, which is widely recognized as an important step towards greater transparency and accountability.  In general, this strategy is sparse on details, and leaves much to the imagination.

For more commentary on this strategy, see the Devex rundown here.

To read the full strategy document, click here.