-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
1/49
Economic Policy PaPEr SEriES 09
THE IMPACT OF U.S. AND U.K.
LEGISLATURES ON AID DELIVERY
SIMON BURALL
Research Fellow, Overseas Development Institute
JONATHAN M. WHITE
Senior Program Officer, The German Marshall Fund of the United States
ANDREW BLICK
Senior Research Fellow, Democratic Audit
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
2/49
2009 Te German Marshall Fund o the United States. All rights reserved.
No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any orm or by any means without permission
in writing rom the German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:
Te German Marshall Fund o the United States
1744 R Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
1 202 683 2650
F 1 202 265 1662
Tis publication can be downloaded or ree at http://www.gmus.org/publications/index.cm. Limited print
copies are also available. o request a copy, send an e-mail to [email protected].
GMF Paper Series
Te GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety o transatlantic topics by sta, ellows, and partners o theGerman Marshall Fund o the United States. Te views expressed here are those o the author and do not neces-
sarily represent the view o GMF. Comments rom readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by
e-mail to [email protected].
About GMF
Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-
making institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America
and Europe.
GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders
to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can
address a variety o global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number o initiatives to strengthendemocracies.
Founded in 1972 through a gi rom Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF
maintains a strong presence on both sides o the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC,
GMF has seven ofces in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.
Overseas Development Institute111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JD
United Kingdom
el: +44 (0)20 7922 0300
Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
www.odi.org.uk
German Marshall Fund of the United States1744 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
United States
el: 202-745-3950
Fax: 202-265-1662
www.gmfus.org
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
3/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
Economic Policy Paper Series
July 2009
S B, J M. W, Aw Bk*
*S B I U K. I wk w -k . H w w OD I wk , , b.
*J M. W G M F U S (GMF). H GMF AE Pj k b . H wk b GMF , , .
*D. Aw Bk w D A, z . H People Who Live in the Dark: A History of the Special Adviser in British Politics (4, 1); How to go to War: A Handbook for Democratic Leaders (5); w P GJ Premiership: The Nature, Development and Power of the Office of British Prime Minister ( 1).
Akw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ex S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
K F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L I G: T T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
.1 Hw w? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. W ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.3 W ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
DFID U.K. P: A G A? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1 L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. L bj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3.4 I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5 C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
USAID C: Cx E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. L bj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3 E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4 I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.5 C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D S, C T: L L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
4/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 3
T w k x T W F Hw F
j. I ,
w k w
b w . T
x b b
b U.K.
P D I
D (DFID) U.S. C
U S A I
D (USAID).
I , w w k k U S USAID, U.S.
D S, M C
C (MCC), S C, T C
Gb D, C
U.S. H R U.S.
S, z , b. I
U K, w w k k
DFID, T H C
P A C
I D C, T H
L, NGO w
.
I , w b
kw b:
U S, Hb J Kb,
S M, J K, D J, LNw, Bb L, C L, B T,
C M, K Cb, J S,
Mw M, U K,
S Mxw, Nk H, S Ew,
J W, O Pk.
Acknowledgments
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
5/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States44
AAA A A ACN C N
DA D A A
DFA D F A
DFID D I D
FAA U.S. F A A
FAF F A Fwk
GAO G Ab O
GBS G B S
GDP G D P
GNI G N I
HELP H E L P Gb C
IDC I D S CMCC M C C
MDG M D G
MFAN Mz F A Nwk
M&E M E
MP Mb P
NAO N A O
NGO N-G Oz
ODA O D A
OE O Ex A
OECD/DAC O E C- D/D
A C
OMB O M BOPIC O P I C
PAC Pb A C
PART P A R T
PEPFAR P E P AIDS R
PSA Pb S A
TPA T P A
U.K. U K
UN U N
U.S. U S
USAID U S A I D
Acronyms
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
6/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 5
T b x
ww,
w. F b
k ,
,
. O
13 b
k
b w
b .1
T b b w
w
. O
w b bw
w j
. T w
, , ,
. A, k
x
bw
w : U S (U.S.)
U K (U.K.). T bj w
b bj
z b .
W bw
U.K. P U.S. P
,
b w
b .
T D I D
(DFID) U.K. ,w U S A I
1 W Bk. C H P H D W,W Bk : A G7 , w k . Fb 1, .
D (USAID) A b
U.S. . A ,
x x DFID USAID
(ODA) w P D
A E . T
w
b w w
, ,
b A.
I 17, U N (UN)
.7 GDP ODA.
W C W, j
q
w,
. T
P D A
E 5. T D
, ,
w q
. S k
P .7 UN . B U
S U K
P D b k
8 H L F A E
A, w A A
A (AAA).
T P P w: OwnershipD- w , k .AlignmentD b bj . HarmonisationD , . ResultsD .Mutual AccountabilityD b . T AA A w w 8 A b P D. A , -b, , .
Executive Summary1
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
7/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States6
A central
consideration for
any legislature
is how to pursue
oversight and
scrutiny ofan executive
agency while
also providing it
sufficient freedom
to be able to
carry-out its work
well in changing
circumstances
and contexts.
S w P,b . T
q w
. T k
x
bw
. T
. T
k k
w b b b
q
P D .
O k . I
b x
. B OECD/DAC, b
b wk
b w
--
/ . T q ,
b, wk
w .3 A
w x w
b b
- wk w
x. T b bw
xb
bj k
bw
. I b afforded
discretion,
USAID
DFID.4
3 OECD/DAC. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and ResultsBased Management.
4 T - xb b bj.
F , x w
bj w ,
x b , k
.5 R
q w
bj. T
P D A
E , w,
. B
U S U K
. T
b b.6 I k
bw
b
. R, w w
k k , ,
,
w bw
x
b bj
z b (..,
b ).
T Ob b
w U.S. C
k w A
w -,
. P Bk Ob, S
S H C, S D
Rb G b
U S b
b
5 OECD/DAC. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and ResultsBased Management.
6 T . F, w b x - , , .
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
8/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 7
b . C HwB U.S. H R
C F A
N S Gb D (NSGD),
bw
C Ex z
U.S. . Oz
Mz F A Nwk (MFAN)
b
, b
bw Ex B C
w F A A (FAA) w b .7
I U K, j
H C b
. C U.S. ,
bw P
Ex
. DFID w
, w,
b
. Hw, DFID w w
k b . Aw
M, w
DFID b
wk
w
, b
F O.8
B , U S, C
Ex -q b ,
w C x ,
7 Mz F A Nwk. Nw D NwW: U.S. F A 1 C. W,DC: J 8.
8 T DFID w F O-. L, U.K.: The Independent, J 8, .
x . T w
, x, j b
U.S. k b.
O C z w
b b
Ex. A
bj. B
U.K. P .
I ,
x
b USAID.
C w
O M B
(OMB) b
b
USAID. T w
-b
M C C (MCC). T
MCC w b
. W- bj w
bw C Ex; b w k ,
- . Hw,
b x USAID
b
U.S. . USAID
w
b z
.
I ,
bw x
bj. I U K
kb bw P
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
9/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States8
DFID b b .7 GNI
bj, .
I ,
P
x w DFID
w
z. A w b ,
bj
. A
P DFID b,
. T
b, w P DFID
P . W
,
U.K.
w k .
T U.S. x. T
w
bj. U.S. bj
,
, , ,
, x k, ,
b ,
, . T
. T b b- k bj
bw C USAID
Ex B. W
z ,
b x
b
.
C k bw
C Ex B
x k C
, w w b
b b. T
P b
. T k
bj x
w b U.S.
x
z
x. T b
wk C b Ex
B b x .
T k q bj -,
w b x
xb.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
10/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 9
Anationaldevelopmentstrategybased
bj x
. T
b
x b ,
b
x.
Acentralconsiderationforanylegislature
w
x w b b
wk w
x. T b bw
xb
bj b
afforded discretion.
Democraticconstitutionalpracticesvary
b
. T k b
bw x.
A k b
bw
xb (..,
) w k
b
wk.
Lowlevelsoftrustandagreementonaid
bj bw
x b
. T
xb
k b ,
.
Highlevelsoftrustandagreementonaid
bj bw
x b
w
. T b
xb
,
b k k b
.
Establishingsharedobjectivesinforeign
-;
q
. I
- bw
b
xb
x .
Host-countrypartnerships,predictable
, ,
ODA b U
K U S
w
P D
.
Tiedaidrepresentsaccountability
b
b ,
w
wk
.
Key Findings
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
11/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States10
Whilethereisgeneralagreementonthe
b xb
b
x
. T
.
Theconcentrationofauthorityfor
w
b, ,
. T
b
w w
.
Legislativeoversightformulti-agency
wk,
b b U S U K
.
A,
x
forge sustain bj
b,
w
b. T major
recommendation
b w b
k :
Buildandmaintainastrongnational
bj
z
bj, w -
- P
b w
NGO.
Aspartofanationaldiscussion,expandthe
b b
x
w
b , ,
b
x -
.
Strengthendialoguebetweendonor
, ,
k
.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
12/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 11
Congress must
carefully choose
how much
discretion it
should afford to
agencies in orderto potentially
improve their
operational
and overall
effectiveness,
weighing the
potential costs
and benefits of
exercising more
or less political
control overagency operation
W x? W bk
? O
b
x
. T
bw
. A
, , b
bw . O
k
. T w b
w bk w, ,
w
.
2.1 How much influence does the
legislature wield?
W U.S. C
. A ,
U.S. C
w w
x , b w
.1 O w x
C b
.11 I wk,
- bw
. I w, C
w
M, M. (5). W x? DevelopmentPolicy Review, 3 (6). L, U.K.: ODI.
1 B. W M. M (183). B D C C?: R Pk b FT C.Journal of Political Economy 1: 7658.
11 R. C, M. MCbb, B. W (18). A T P C A D.American Journal ofPolitical Science (V. 33, N. 3, A 18), . 588611.
,w b
x
.
Hw, w
w. Nk
bureaux (.. x ) w
.1 I ,
b , w
b x
, w b
x .13 T b w
x C.14
Uk U S,
U K
w
. F , x
- x
P x.15
A P :
T x k
w b q
k .16 B
, w P U
K b ,
1 W. Nk (171). Bureaucracy and Representative Govern-ment. C, IL: A-A.
13 K. Bw (M 15). P C V Ex:C C b A P. The
American Political Science Review, V. 8, N. 1, . 673.
14 S. L, S. OH (A, 14). DG US T P: T E. Inter-national Organization, V. 48, N. 4, . 5563.
15 J. S, The Core Executive in Britain, (Bk:M, 1).
16 S. B, B. D, S. W (6). N O N:D F P U.K. L, U.K.:Politico, . x.
Legislative Impact on Government:
The Theory2
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
13/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States12
17
wb b bw. Ew E,
w
,
w. T G B b
, b
b b x.18
I,
b
b
.1
F , L OH C ,
, b w
w
b C.
Hw, C
b x
, bw
C Ex,
bj,
b . F , C
b
k P
q. H w
bj bw b b
C
17 P. N (.), Parliaments and Governments in WesternEurope (L: Fk C, 18).
18 T S, T G B: I Ab Cx E, P. N, Parlia-ments and governments in Western Europe (L: Fk C,18).
1 I C D , D V
b w C - b w . A k b D V, J., (), C- I T C, PublicChoice 11, . 1.
L OH (14), . 68.
. T w x b
b C
k b Ex
B .
T k
b . I
U K, P j
w, b k
x b
j H C
I , w x P, H C,
b H L. T
w bw U.S.
U.K. b . F ,
bw U.K. P
DFID bj
U
S. I U S, w,
bw C Ex,
bj
.
2.2 What are the channels of legislative
influence?
W x E ,
q,
b, , b
.1 T
. I
. A U.K.
,
17, . T
-
1 P. N, () (18). Parliaments and Governments in West-ern Europe. Fk C, L.
The amount
of afforded
discretion allowed
an executive
agency can also
be impacted byCongressional
reactions to
popular civil
society concerns
or a lack of
attention by the
Executive Branch
to that specific
agencys priorities.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
14/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 13
b , w, 17.
T b b
:
, ,
(..,
x
). Hw,
b k w
w. T b
w
, NGO, w b
w
bj.3 T U K
U S.
A
.
I
x, b
b
w w b,
k, w w
w.4 F ,
, U.K.
j P
-
bw b. Hw,
U S, C
w b b .
I ,
M. Sw (1 [17]). C , N-
, P. (), Legislatures. Ox, U.K.: Ox U P.3 K. A (J 7). D Ab NP: R I P S EU A. European Law Journal, V. 13, N. 4, . 48754; Bk ., (7).A World of Difference: ParliamentaryOversight of British Foreign Policy, L.
4 A. K (1 [176]). M x -: G B, F, W G, N, P.(), Legislatures. Ox, U.K.: Ox U P.
, w b U.S.
b
k b .
I U S, C
. A
x x
k, ,
b b .5
T , w
j,
b w,
w w b .6
D V k C
b w ,
w , ,
C
x w.7 Bw
C w .8
T w b U.K. P.
2.3 What is the impact on effectiveness?
T q
bw
b . T
x
b bj
5 C . (18).
6 Ib.
7 J. D V, C IT C, Public Choice (V. 11, ), . 1.
8 K. Bw, P C V Ex: CC b A P. The American Politi-cal Science Review, (V. 8, N. 1, M 15), . 673.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
15/49
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
16/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 15
, , bw b . Px,
b
x w S
S jk -
q DFID
.35
35 S. C, Donor Accountability in the UK(L:O D I, ).
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
17/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States16
The greater
prominence of
aid meant that it
attracted more
parliamentary
attention.Parliamentary
questions could
now be put to a
minister who was
solely responsible
for aid and ran
the department
delivering it.
3.1 Legislative structures and procedures
O C W, U.K.
w b U K
w w k
U.K. x. U T B Nw Lb
,
w M
B , b
bk -
k, b Cb
w .36I 17, D I
D, b b Cb-
S S, w b b
Lb .
T
w w
b P. T
. P q w
b w w b
. I, Cb b, w
w
w . T
w w; C S,
w k w
Lb P.
F, ,
H C wb
w
w w I D S C
(IDC). B , F A C
36 Lb P 17 M.
b. S w -
q
bw IDC DFID x
w. I b ,
b b P
1.
I x
Pb A
C (PAC) b w ,
N A O (NAO). Bw 11 17, NAO x
. I DFID w
b, b ; w w
7-8 P.
S 17, w b
w P
DFID. T I D
A O D
C- A 18. T
-I D S,
C S, w
,
, .37
A , w
b, b A
w k
37 Ow B. Reforming Development Assistance: Lessonsfrom the UK Experience. T C Gb D.Ob 5. Nw Lb T B z w bw b, x, . T w b P D j . I 14, U.K.H C j w b M w O D A 18. T A F S w k U K w .
DFID and the U.K. Parliament:
A Golden Age?3
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
18/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 17
.38
T A b DFID3
U K, bj q
k b
. T A w
U K. I b w
w b
18 A. O
x w
b A.
T A b
. DFID
w only bj
U K b .
N w DFID
b U.K. b
w b
.
B w
,
, b , w
. 4
T A DFID ,
w
bj. B, U.K.
b . F
, w
Iq. S Iq
w
1 bw DFID
38 H C R N 1/85, The InternationalDevelopment Bill(H C, L, 1), . 1;67; .
3 S k A S S DFID.
4 I D A .
T b w w .
DFID ww
Iq .41
T w
w P DFID
I D (R
T) A 6. T A q
DFID P
x
bkw . I w U.K. ODA
.7 GNI,
M D G (MDG)
1 7, . T
A q
b x b ,
x w ,
x
. T
DFID A R. I
b P z b
IDC .
T B T Pb
S A (PSA) w
; DFID x. T
b b
. T
PSA b DFID k
- ,
. DFID w
w , w -
b. T U.K. b b
.
41 Ow B. Reforming Development Assistance: Lessonsfrom the UK Experience. T C Gb D.Ob 5.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
19/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States18
A remarkable
feature of the
post-1997
Parliament is the
strong support
for a singleanti-poverty
objective for the
U.K. aid budget,
which buffers
development
policy from other
competing foreign,
security, and trade
policy objectives.
B -17
w
P ,
. I U K,
b - b
x, w
b, w P
. T
164 b F 1, w
w w
b
w P.
3.2 Legislative objectives in oversight
A kb -17 P
-
bj U.K. b, w b
,
, bj. A
,
k
w
, x
. T x bw.
T w P
U.K. b . T Lb
UN .7 GNI b 13 b
j .4 T
x kb
b b
11 .
I bj DFID
b
, I D
A P
DFID. T
w w P, w -17 . P
w
w.
T
DFID w , IDC
PAC. T
. T IDC b
w PAC
DFID w x-
. A P ,
PAC w w
k w k .
T IDC ,
DFID.
3.2.1 The objectives of the International Development
Committee
T IDC wk w
j . T
b DFID ,
b b, S
S b j b
. I , DFID . I wk w
4 ://www../P/W_w_/I-_D.x, Db 5, 8. LbD (8). Pocket Guide to Liberal Democrat Policies,Liberal Democrats, London.
Figure 1: The position of developmentwithin the U.K. Government since 1964
Less
Parliamentary
Scrutiny
More
Parliamentary
Scrutiny
A free-standing department,
but with a minister outside the Cabinet
(19671970; 19745; 19769)
A free-standing department, with a
Minister or Secretary of State inside
the Cabinet (19647; 19756;
1997present)
Absorption within the Foreign Ofce
(197074; 19791997)
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/International_development.aspxhttp://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/International_development.aspxhttp://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/International_development.aspxhttp://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/International_development.aspxhttp://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/International_development.aspxhttp://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/International_development.aspxhttp://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/International_development.aspx -
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
20/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 19
, b NGO. T , ,
b,
w DFID
b.43
T w DFID
. I , b
w I D
(R T) A, b
w DFID wk .
T IDC b w
DFID wk. T x
w . B
, x w DFID
wk. R b ,
b ,
w b k IDC w
DFID.
T IDC
w DFID .
F x, IDC b D
: HIV/AIDS -
5.44 T IDC w
w k DFID J
5 G8 G. A , G8
b
[HIV/AIDS]
w b 1. T
DFID
b
. Hw, w
DFID
w x b
. T, w
43 IDC (8). Work of the Committee in 2007; Third Reportof Session 200708. L, U.K.: I DS C.
44 IDC (5). Delivering the Goods: HIV/AIDS and the Provisionof Anti-Retrovirals First Report of Session 200506. L, U.K.:I D S C.
w w
b b
b .
T IDC
DFID k G
. Hw, IDC
w
k DFID .
Mw, IDC
b w G
x wk
b. DFID w
w w w IDC
.
3.2.2. The objectives of the Public Accounts
Committee
T PAC U.K.
P. T
b P
b . T DFID
. I
b NAO b
wk. A w , NAO
PAC .
T wk PAC q
. T,
w DFID
. W PAC
- , b b . T PAC
w DFID
b,
, ; w
. G
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
21/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States20
Others express
this view
more starkly,
disagreeing with
DFIDs gradual
delegation ofauthority through
budget support
or the channeling
of funds through
multilaterals.
Those with this
view feel that
the visibility of
aid with a U.K.
flag is important
for thesebroader aims.
DFID , PAC
b - . A
PAC z
w ,
. I w w, PAC j
w . I q
j. I PAC w
w w
w w . I, ,
ex postw
b.
3.2.3 Other objectives
T IDC P
DFID
bj, DFID
. P, w
b, b .
DFID w
. P b w
U.K. b
w 48
3 74 67 (F ).45 T
w
. S P
b U K
w bj .
O x w k,
w DFID
b
. T w w
b w U.K.
b . T w x
w P w b
, b ,
b , .46
45 DFID A R 8.
46 S x PAC, , M 3, 8.
F DFID NGO, w
b x
.
Source: DFID Annual Report 2008
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/070
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
48.21
58.45 57.36
68.08
74.31
Figure 2: Percentage of total U.K.bilateral aid to low income countries
(GNI per capita below $825 in 2004)45
Percent
T w
DFID b P b
b .
A k P, IDC
, DFID b
.
I b w
bj, IDC b
. F
x, HIV/AIDS, IDC
b w A w
U K. T
b k W
b G
x.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
22/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 21
3.3 Effectiveness of legislative structures
and procedures
3.3.1 Parliamentary strengths
A b ,
b P
w b 17. F, DFID
w Cb
P IDC z
. I , P
q H C
w -
17. T P
z .
S, wk w w
DFID P
. T b.
T I D A, b
DFID bj, b
w P b w
b . I , ,
bj , ,
w bj. T
w b b
w, [ A] b
k .
A , DFID
w . I
, b bj
w MDG
. T
b P.
P w w
: DFID
bj, x b
bj ? I, b
A DFID, k T
S
, x,
b w A .
T R T A, q
DFID b P,
k
.
M b b, w
q , b
P b .I , q
b P
.
I w R
T A w
DFID w bb
wk
w. A
q DFID
. T b IDC
b
8
7 w Mb
P (MP) ,
x , b
. I ,
.
T w
z DFID. T
w . I ,
w k b
k . T
. T b bk
w P.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
23/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States22
Within Parliament,
visits to country
programs are
valued as a way
of understanding
effectiveness ofDFID policies and
programs.
A b b
, b w
. W P,
w
DFID . S
b
H.
T w .
T PAC, w w NAO b ,
b z
b . Uq b, PAC ,
j ,
A O.
DFID k q
PAC NAO . F
PAC w
: DFID kw w
w b
b
; [ PAC]
; PAC x
.
T PAC k DFID
. T IDC b
b b
.
B w ,
w P w
w
z DFID. T
w
b w w .
F,
. Q b
b
. W
,
. Ajb w MP
w k b
. S,
b b .
B ad
hoc b, w P
DFID .
T w bb,
wk
.
T
. T w
H L, x, w
b q
b b. I
, , w
b
DFID. F C
-
w
DFID, b
b q.
P w
b .
I w ,
DFID. M,
w b j
C, w b,
. P
w
w w DFID , ,
PAC, w
. T w
b kw w
w w q
w b k. P k
[DFID] .
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
24/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 23
While it is possibl
to pick-up specific
issues in the pos
budget debate,
line-by-line scrutin
is not possibleand the vote is
on the budget
as a whole and
not on the DFID
departmental
budget alone.
I , w b P DFID,
b
w w
w b
. T b
w DFID P. T
b
wk. T
w b P
b b b
.
I P
w wb b DFID. O
, NAO NGO w
U K OECD/DAC ,
z
P. T bw DFID
T, PSA
. T
b w
DFID P, P
z PSA, b
.47
I b b b
. W
w j
C, k
. I k ,
b , bkb MP w
,
. T
w , b w x.
47 Hw, ; Governance of Britain , k b b bj W .
T w k w
b k b w
.
R b
DFID b
b
w
b U.K. b
.
3.3.2 Parliamentary weaknesses
T wk P
b z DFID. A , w
wk
w .
P k w w. F,
b
, b . A,
H C. W
b k- -
b b, -b- b
b w DFID b .
S,
b, w P
. T
R T A
w DFID. T A
wk ;
b
b DFID. A b
k ,
b .
T w
,
, . Tw U.K.
w DFID
, b z
b ,
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
25/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States24
, , ,, ,
, b , b,
, , k.48 I z
b,
, U K
Gb C P P
A C P P.4 T
b
, -W
. Hw, P
j- -x.
T IDC x j-
S Ex
C C, w D;
B, E R R;
F A C. T
U.K. x w
. Hw,
bj
. A b b, I D A
bj
DFID. T A wk
DFID
b
. T x
- . A
, w b,
48 D I D (17). EliminatingWorld Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, C. 378. L-: T S O; D I D- (). Eliminating World Poverty: Making GlobalizationWork for the Poor. C. 56. L: T S O.
4 T w b M D, F O D- I D, .
A .
T w b
b b , b,
bw b
b z
.
A wk
k , .
T b
, b S U,
w x w . TIDC, x, kwb k,
b w b. I , ,
b b kw
q. MP, b
w,
b wk w
x . M w
IDC w b b
w, - .
I ,
. MP ,
, bz
w
. W
P
DFID, b
w . T
b b
.
T H L
. T b-
E U C.5 I , w
L w DFID
H q
F O w
5 F A, D D P (b- C).
A change in
government
priorities, or a
shift in the way
it does business,
could reducethe strength of
the International
Development Act if
other departments
gain a greater role
in development.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
26/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 25
DFID is also
committed to
medium term
predictability
and it often
signs three-yearagreements with
governments
and even has
some ten-year
partnership
agreements.
w b wk. D 67, L ad hoc
, C I
Oz, b L L C
. T k
b L
w P w
b x.
A b, IDC w
z DFID ,
w, , . D ,
w DFID
. G
j .
3.4 Impact of oversight
DFID w
P D A E, w
.51 A DFID b
D b
, w,
z,
. I
DFID
. F,
DFID
b.5 DFID
8 P M
S 1
51 OECD/DAC (6). United Kingdom DAC Peer Review, P.
5 N. T M. Cx (8). Evaluation of the Paris Dec-laration: DFID Donor Headquarters Case Study. L, U.K.:A.
.53
DFID b -
w
- .54
DFID D
z . I w
bj,
x wk.55 DFID
w
w P D.56
T xb z
b .
T q x w
P DFID
, b
x.
I w I
D A b
P DFID; A
wk w w DFID
P z .
T bw w
b . B, A w
b, b Ex.
P w
,
DFID
b z.57
T w P
Ex R
T A. T w
53 OECD/DAC. (8) 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Dec-laration: Making aid more effective by 2010, P, OECD/ DAC.
54 OECD/DAC (6).
55 T Cx (8).
56 OECD/DAC (6) T Cx (8).
57 T Cx (8), w.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
27/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States26
b b b T Ck, MP,
b bw DFID
P.
A w
b w
DFID , A b
b, P
b . T ;
b
DFID b b
bj,
bj. T DFID
k k w .
P I
D A wk w
z DFID
w b
b . T , w
DFID b
.
F, P w b x. I w
P DFID b
b b w b
w b w , b
x w
z . S,
Zbbw B w
b b. I
x w
k
. T b P
w
,
w w
.
Nw j b P DFID
b ,
b . T ,
b
. O w, ,
PAC b
(GBS) k q
k w .
DFID w , b
ww, k k
DFID w.
F, k
,
w P w. T
w
x DFID w
w DFID
.
3.5 ConclusionN w,
P P
w. A w , w b
DFID
. I , P
w Ex
. T bj
11
b b
. G B
b j P. W
b
b H
bj.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
28/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 27
Despite their
attraction in term
of promoting long
term developmen
these modalities
come with someshort- to medium
term risk in the
form of allegation
of corruption
for example,
putting DFID in
a challenging
position in relatio
to maintaining
high-level politica
and broaderpublic support fo
delivering aid in
this way.
I k, , wqk w w
P,
, b b
b bj. T k
, b Aw
M w w DFID S
S b DFID wk
,
w
Cb- . P
w
b.
W DFID
P D.
A
b .58
D -
, w
- - k
x, DFID
- b b w.5 G b
b kw
b DFID.
58 A The 2008 Survey on Monitoringthe Paris Declara-tion U K k w b b (PFM) -b . O,DFID b 5 bw /1/3 (15 b x). T 345 3/4 j 6 b 5/6. I , -
75 DFID b .5 OECD/DAC (6) T Cx (8).
T w DFID. T
w DFID deliver
, w , b 5
MP x .
W j b IDC
P D,
w w
b
x, w b b
j P. T PAC, x,
k
w U.K. , GBS .
D k w,
b P
w DFID -
bj. C PAC
, b w IDC w
b
DFID b k
w
w . A w , w I P
b , b
k GBS
. P [] b P
D . A w
b
DFID; .
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
29/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States28
As U.S. President
John F. Kennedy
stated nearly a
half century ago,
no objective
supporter offoreign aid can
be satisfied
with the existing
program, actually
a multiplicity
of programs.
Bureaucratically
fragmented,
awkward and slow,
its administration
is diffused overa haphazard and
irrational structure
covering at least
four departments
and several
other agencies.
4.1 Legislative structures and procedures
I 161, U.S. F A A (FAA) w
b U.S. C, w z
U.S. . S USAID w
b b Ex O,
U.S. w bj w -
. I
b w b
.
U.S. P J F. K w
b USAID b : w k
w A w,
U.S. ,
b
z w.
T w b w
b
b . A P
K ,
bj b w x ,
. B ,
wkw w,
z
.6
S FAA, b
x . T
w , ,
w USAID. A
k bw
w USAID . E U.S.
w, USAID A
6 P J F. K, S M C F A, M , 161.
b 4,58 18 , 8. A 6
,
.61 T ODA,
USAID
j.
4.4.1 Reforms under President Bush
T b
USAID ,
B . I M , U.S.
P G W. B
M C A
UN F D C
M, Mx. T b
M C C (MCC),
b
w ,
, w j
b .
S /11, U.S. z
U.S.
xbk . R
w Iq
A U.S. .
I MCC, B
P E P AIDS
R (PEPFAR). A
, U.S.
M P.6 T
U S b w
b $6 b
ODA 8
61 J. Aw, M. MP, A. N (Nb/D-b 8). A D: Mk F A ME T. Foreign Affairs, V. 87. Nw Yk, NY: C F R.
6 C. L (8). Foreign Aid: Transformation or Chaos?W, DC: T C Gb D.
USAID and Congress: Complexity and
Effectiveness4
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
30/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 29
The United States
continues to
be the worlds
largest donor in
absolute terms
providing $26billion in ODA in
2008 accounting
for 22 percent
of aid worldwide,
and even small
changes in U.S.
foreign assistanc
can have an
important impact
on the overall
system.
ww, U.S.
.63
I b w
k HIV/AID
-b , B
q
U.S. . I U.S. N S
S 6, wk, ,
w
U S w w z
.
D , B
b kw w
b w
. I J 6,
kw F .
A w D F A (DFA) w
U.S. D S. T DFA
- b b A
USAID k q
D S S. T DFA
USAID w D
S - .64
A USAID
,
b
S S. U F
w F A Fwk (FAF)
w , b,
bw
U.S. D S USAID. I
63 OECD/DAC (). Development aid at its highest level everin 2008.
64 T M C A O Gb AIDS C D F A, b DFA k w - U.S. .
w ,
U.S. .65
T w b -S
S Czz R
, w
. I b
k MCC PEPFAR, F
q
b w , b
. WS USAID b
w C F ,
USAID b .66
Tw C
z. A
w
, , . Az
b wk
w, x
, .
Hw, b C
w b.
4.1.2 The role of appropriators
E , b M
65 I , b - USAID U.S. D S, O D F A w , U.S. . T - U.S. - - - .
66 T U.S. D S w b U.S. C E E 18 S U 1, w USAID b . E, 1, U.S. SD k USAID - w O M B. S J. Aw,M. MP, A. N (Nb/Db 8).A D: Mk F A M E- T. Foreign Affairs, V. 87. Nw Yk, NY: C F R.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
31/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States30
Appropriators
have considerable
influence
over foreign
assistance. They
effectively controlthe budgetary
allocations at
the agency and
program levels for
foreign assistance.
Fb, P b bq U.S. C .
I w
I A (F 15) B
Rq. T U.S. H R
S B C b
. T
(b ) w, b
P b q,
I A. T
: z.
F w b w .67 T j
H
S A C, w
. T
b
b . A
b bk
b-
b j. T
A b- S, F
O, R P (
H S) b
. A ,
b w w
.
A H S b
b
H S A C
. T b H
S . T H S b w
. I
b . O , b H S. T
b b P
67 A C R S, - b -- z .
b w ( F 3).
A w USAID
w b:
w b ;
, , ;
b ;
;
w USAID b
b -.68
Ek b w b
. Ek
USAID w
. T .6 I
w ,
- ,
b ( ). I
b , k
P q b C
.. w b
, ,
b P
q. Ek b
.
A b
. T
b
. A
, x b
j . A
68 C R S (7). Congressional Over-
sight Manual. W, DC: C R S.6 A C R S, k b b b. The Congressional Quar-terly A C D - k. A O M B, k j, , b q b P, b - b C.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
32/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 31
b w I A
B q D
S, USAID, MCC, P C, T
O P I C (OPIC)
. T -b
b w USAID ,
, NGO, ,
x, -- .
4.1.3 The role of authorizers
T U.S. S F R C
U.S. H F A C
z (
USAID). Az
w w ,
z
. T
b
USAID k
.
Az -
: ,
, b,
w Ex . S
, z
USAID w
- k q .
C
b z, ,
b. F b
b z. T
bw z .
.
Figure 3: The U.S. Congressional Appropriations Process
Drafting of the
Congressional
Budget Justication
Appropriations
Other agencies (MCC, PEPFAR, etc)
United States Agency
for International
Development
U.S. Department
of State
The President/Ofce of
Management and Budget
The U.S. Senate ConferenceThe U.S. House
of Representatives
Senate Budget
Committee
House Budget
Committee
Appropriations
Committee
Appropriations
Committee
State Foreign
Operations
Subcommittee
State Foreign
Operations
Subcommittee
BudgetResolution/
302a
BudgetResolution/
302a
302bs 302bs
Legislation Legislation
Legislation
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
33/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States32
Despite the
proliferation of
aid legislation,
authorizers
have been less
engaged, at leastuntil recently;
the FAA, which
is the statutory
basis for USAID,
has not been
comprehensively
reauthorized
since 1985.
U, z b w ,
w x .7 I ,
b b
w P.
O USAID w b
b . D
, z
b , ; FAA,
w b USAID,
b z 185.
T w b x bw.
4.1.4 Other Congressional procedures
C N (CN)
w USAID. CN
b USAID , ,
z b
j
C. A z
j ,
H S,
CN
Ex .71 T
. T
b b
C . F x, C
USAID b
Cb, Pk, S b w
C S
D b 1 .7
7 T b 18 w R - w bw W H Cz w z. P , b - , .
71 N b U.S. C x .CN q C. H z w.
7 USAID (). Rq C N:FY O Y B (OYB).
A z -
, ,
x
. USAID -
; C
xb .
C w
USAID b P. T
b U.S.
. T w
S. T C b P
w w
.
C b
,
B P b,
USAID
w , b
, q ,
, , w. C
ad hoc .
T x
USAID. C w
b, k ,
q C
, ,
w q. F , G
Ab O (GAO)
.73
73 I I A B q, -
C. F , USAID O I G b -, w . C w.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
34/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 33
The cumulative
effect is that U.S.
foreign assistanc
now, in total,
has at least 140
broad priorities.There are at leas
400 specific
directives on how
to implement
the priorities.
4.2 Legislative objectives in oversight
F C ,
: ,
, , ,
, x k,
,
b ,
, . D C W j
b U.S.
w w: C.
T bj w b C
Ex. I w b w b
C b.
I wk
.
T b
U S F
A A 161. F ,
C W, b w
w
( Bx 1). A w
, b USAID w . T
U.S.
w, , 14 b .
T 4 w
.74 I ,
5 , ,
w
b. T k
.
T F FAF USAID
U.S. D S . I - bj : P
S, G J D,
74 Ox A (8). Failing the Cardozo Test: Why U.S.foreign assistance legislation needs a fresh start, Ox. B b D LLP.
I P, E Gw,
H A. B
w bj,
.75 T
bj wk
.
Hw, USAID
b bw C
USAID k bw
w w bj
75 T w U.S. D S USAID ( ) - Fwk. T : 1.) b, .) , 3.) ,4) , 5.) .
Box 1: Additional legislation governingU.S. foreign assistance since 1989
Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act
of 1989
Freedom for Russia & Emerging Eurasian Democracies
& Open Markets Support Act of 1992
South African Democratic Transition Support Act
of 1993
Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998
Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999
African Growth and Opportunity Act
Global Aids and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000
Microenterprise for Self-Reliance and International
Anti-Corruption Act of 2000
Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger
Improvement Act of 2000
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
of 2000
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003
United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003
Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004
Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children
in Developing Countries Act of 2005
Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
35/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States34
Whether the
United States
has a specific
earmark for
poverty reduction
or not seems lessrelevant than
the fact that the
United States
does not have an
overarching goal
or even a set of
goals to design a
strategy for aid.
. W - , FAF
b . O USAID
x w ,
. T FAF objectives
. I
b w U.S. , b
w
bj.
T FAF b b-
, , bw C W
H. S w w
bw w b
bj . I w w
w C. I
b bj
. A USAID ,
b
w
k
w b.
T bj b b-
bw C
Ex . O
, Ex
bj b P I
C b
I A A
. T w
, b
k. I ,
USAID w
w .
O , C w
k
b w A.
W k w,
bj, ,
. Exk ,
,
wk . B b
U.S. .76
P bj
k USAID. O w
bj . O
w w, ,
b xb b
- .USAID b j
- k
, b -.
USAID x b
x w. F ,
, x k q
w b
wk.
A, q w U
S k
U S
. DFID
MDG
w. M k
DFID
b b .
76 C bw C Ex b U.S. , b . O w b x k x -, U S w. B C Ex , b b .
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
36/49
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
37/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States36
The Foreign
Assistance
Framework is
too generic
and does not
provide unifyingobjectives that
would allow USAID
to effectively
rationalize
accounts,
budgeting,
operations, and
resources.
w . C ,
, ,
USAID. S
DFID, wb b
USAID b .
A USAID A F R
C. I USAID
z ,
, , ,
, . T
w
. I 13, C
G P R
A, w USAID -b
. O
. USAID b
I E
S. I OMB P
M A, w k
. I
P A R T
(PART) OMB , w .
T MCC x w
bw C Ex
bj b
,
. T MCC
w
C . T
MCC bj,
b
(kw MCC ). I w,
w, . C
w w
MCC , w
P D A E. T
MCC . Uk FAA , MCC
bj B A .
4.3.2 Congressional oversight weaknesses
T k bw
C Ex w
w
b. A
, w bk
.
T 5 U.S. ,
,
. O USAID U.S. D
S F . T k
. T F A
Fwk
bj w w USAID
z , b,
, . C
b wk F
C ,
b
w U.S. .
W
USAID,
C
. O
C w
. T w
w
. T b
w C w
, . C
b, USAID ,
w q w
w b? C
bj b
b
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
38/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 37
. S w
USAID
.78
C USAID
bw C x
q .
S USAID b
w C b
w w
, , q w w . S
w w
bw C USAID.
T
USAID
. F bw C
Ex
. I b
U.S.
w z
FAA. R bw
z , z
z
.7 B
185.
S ,
, b C
w
78 D HELP C, U.S. S C F R Embassies
Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid b C- U.S. , w USAID b b . Nw k C .
7 A w b z b bj x z b b x.
Iq A . T
USAID . T b
w w . S
USAID
b, w
b Ex B
w .
T OMB
C
OMB .
T b
k k
. O,
b
wk . T
b
qk C
. I b
Ob k
bk
b b.8
T b Ob 1, b F
O b q b
; b w wk
. T z b x
bk bw C
W H w
w .
W C b,
. W
F O b,
8 W P Ob FY b C- A , w Iq A FY1 b b.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
39/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States38
b w .
A , Ob J,
USAID w b
. C
. Hw, b
b ,
USAID. T A
x b
. S , ,
, (.., ) . T
b USAID
b .81
A b b
bw C Ex
k
w .8
W z wk
w - b
, bk,
w C. Nw , k w
, b
zz k
w . C
wk b b
w b.
T , , b ad
hoc, bj .
S w q , b
81
I b - j USAID.
8 H k . Sk - . D . T k - bw H S .
b b x U.S. .
O , O Ex
A (OE) w b 176
w
. A
b w, OE
k .83 T
b
. C
OE,
w- b, b wb b q. M,
b USAID
b ;
. T w
b b
. A U.S.
15 A, USAID w
OE.
G, C x
USAID
. D
C F ,
U.S. D S USAID
DFA- O
P.84 USAID MCC T
83 A HELP C, A bw 6 w $11.8 b, w 46.8 b 17 1.O , OE b b 7.8 .
84 A GAO, O D FA b O P (OP) b x S USAID j ww b U.S. ; - (CAS) - w U.S. .
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
40/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 39
The United States
is sometimes
unable to
participate in
country level
donor and partnedialogues becaus
of excessive
earmarking or
because U.S.
foreign assistanc
is channeled
through other
specialized
agencies that ma
have less interes
or capacity toparticipate in
policy coordinatio
discussions.
. T b wkw U.S. Cb C
z
T S C P w USAID
O P.85
Hw, 6 OECD/DAC P
Rw U S GAO ,
U S
w.86
T
.
87
I USAID
b C.
S USAID w k
b
b C k w
USAID
j wk . T
U S b
b
x k b U.S.
z
.
A , DFID b
. USAID
w
k
U.S. .
85 C F R U S S. RG. L, Rk M Mb. Embassies Grapple to
Guide Foreign Aid. W, DC, Nb 16, 7.86 OECD/DAC (6). P Rw U.S.; GAO Afghani-stan: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, GAO--473SP.W, DC, A .
87 C F R U S S. RG. L, Rk M Mb. Embassies Grapple toGuide Foreign Aid. W, DC, Nb 16, 7.
Hw, b x w U
S . T
k USAID k
b . 88
4.4 Impact of oversight
A w, U
S . I
b w
.
T U S P D
AAA k . T U
S w 57
-b
,
w , j
, PIU, ,
k b -
b .
Hw, U S
x bk ,
bw , w b.8 I
w U S w
w b. Sw b b
C USAID
b
bj
- , ,
U.S.
ODA .
88 A GAO, USAID x. T - b b - USAID q b b b .
8 OECD/DAC (8). G USAID b U.S. ODA, b -b USAID.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
41/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States40
Whether it is
participating in
international
efforts like
Gleneagles or
responding tothe changing
political and
economic climate
in a recipient
country, USAID
must be able to
shift its priorities
and resources
and adapt to new
circumstances.
C USAID b
,
. Hw,
b bw C USAID.
T
C. Ab USAID
x b U.S. x
, P .
USAID (M&E)
-
w . B, b
, b
b
. T x
(.., ESF)
k .1 T
USAID
. T bk
w. T b w
b k bk ,
D b -. Hw, b , w b , b .
1 F , E,
Pk, J, P, A, Iq ESF. T bj. A k -b H C F A, L H E DA ( ) ESF ( -j ) - .
N. Eb, C. A (8). Foreign Aid: What Worksand What Doesnt. W, DC: A E I.
j, .3
T C
b
(b ) k
.
W
k G
, USAID b b
w .
T w
k . B
j k G8 .
A USAID w
, CN,
b. T
C Ex, bw
H S bw
z. I
USAID
b b
. T C-
HELP C b w
wkb
.4
O b q
b CN b .
A w
b
, b b .
D b b
bj CN. T -
w
3 C. L (7). Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development,Domestic Politics. C, IL: T U C P.
4 The HELP Commission Report on Foreign AssistanceReform, 7.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
42/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 41
. F , w
.
T b. A ,
w
Ex , k b
. A OECD, U
S (
F 4).5 Hw, w b ,
5 OECD DAC, Tb DAC 7b b ODA .
37 6 31
7.6 T b
b b U.S.
, w wk
. A j b
6 N U S w b b 6. B OECD/DAC, U S w 54 7.
Figure 4: 2007 Donor Countries Percentage of Tied Bilateral Aid95
.
Ireland
Luxembourg
Sweden
United Kingdom
Norway
Switzerland
Australia
Denmark
Japan
Germany
France
Belgium
Finland
Spain
New Zealand
Austria
Netherlands
Canada
Portugal
United States
Italy
Greece
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent30 35 40 45 50
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
1.6%
4.5%
4.9%
6.6%
7.4%
8.0%
9.3%
10.9%
11.8%
13.4%
18.9%
25.4%
30.9%
31.5%
32.2%
47.4%
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
43/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States42
b , ,
z . O
q
,
. O
15 3 4
.7
T x k
w P
D. T b k,
, USAID .
M USAID k
b b
b- b . T
b
; USAID
b , k
w -
b
b .8
F
k w b. C
w - z
wk
-
, w w,
, , .
7 E. C, M. G, L. N, D. V, D. (8).Thematic Study The Developmental Effectiveness of Untied Aid:Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration and ofthe 2001 DAC Recommendation on Untying ODA to the LDCs,Phase I Report. L, U.K.: O D I.8 USAID (ADS 1.3.4.) - , w b U.S. , - , b- .
T . T -, b,
j . I q
b bj.
4.4.1 Successful cases Congressional impact
on USAID
B w w C USAID
, w b
. S
C xb. T
D F A S E
E D w
x. T D F A
xb, w ,
- . I w b
b bw Ex C;
USAID w w
w w b
b ,
C. Uk DA,
C
w
b . USAID I
D F A
O T I w
b w
xb.
4.5 Conclusion
T U S P
AAA k
. Y, b
bw C
USAID U Sb b, ,
. S b
Ex b b C PD AAA C w q- w .
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
44/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 43
b k w . F C
, w
U.S.
F . U U.S. b
USAID, b w
b w .
USAID
z , w b,
b -
w .
T w - ,
k
. T C
x
-
.
W b C USAID
b b
,
. USAID
b
b. T bw
C x
.
A
C
USAID, w
USAID w
, b ,
. T
x k b w
,
b -w . C,
b
b w b . Hw,
j k w
w .
USAID
b bj,
, ,
. T B
k ,
z w
w.Hw, ,
MCC w
w b w b .
T C
Ex w ,
U.S. .
I b , b
. Ek, CN,
,
USAID .
W k b
b
x U.S. ,
b b
bw
Ex C z
, b .
While both
Congress and
USAID appear
to accept the
need for robust
accountabilityand reporting
systems that
ensure financial
and managemen
performance,
there are
differences of
opinion over
investing in
measuring result
for developmentoutcomes.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
45/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States44
There is increased
awareness of
the diminishing
capacities of the
United States
developmentand diplomatic
resources, and
authorizers are
considering
legislation to
tackle these
problems. This
could help
increase focus on
the effectiveness
of USAID so thatthe oversight
process matures
into something
more than
allocations of
funding.
Az b b
.
T w
U S
, z
k b.1
T
USAID
. I
FAA b w z w
b b .
T w
bk w C, U.S. ,
P,
w k U.S.
w Iq A.
Oz Mz F
A Nwk
b
, b bw
Ex B C.
T k q
w U.S. bj
b - w
1 U.S. S F R C C JK. D D 1 C.S Bk I, M 1, .
bk b .G b
U.S. , b
b x
xb.
F w, k
w
CUSAID . T b
w
k
, bj,
USAID w
w C b.
U , b,
, U.S. w b
w b w
USAID b w w
bj.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
46/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 45
The debate is les
about what U.K
aid will do and
more about how
it will achieve the
agreed goals.
T w b w b
. F ,
b w b
b w
- b
w . T
b w
P D w .
T D
w , w
w
b . T
D w wk w,
, . O
, w
w x
w
b
- . O ,
k b ,
b
x, . T
k j
.
T x x w
bw x
w
P D . T w
b bw , ,
afforded discretion
. T x
bw DFID USAID
xb, ,
k P
. I j .11
E U
K z b w
. T B w
w Cb
b
P
z b 17. I ,
bj
U.K.
DFID b . T PAC k U.K.
w IDC
q w DFID
bj. P b
DFID b w
b DFID b
b.
T U.K.
. T b b
w U.K. w b w
w . T
MDG, w
k b
, bj. T
. T
DFID
w
.
O w P
DFID b, b . T
11 A USAID U.S. ODA, b b k U S.
Different Systems, Common Themes:
Lessons Learned5
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
47/49
The German Marshall Fund of the United States46
The effect of
this systemic
complexity has
been to make
it harder for
Congress toscrutinize the
system as a whole
and therefore to
hold it to account.
This undermines
transparency and
accountability
to taxpayers.
b. Hw, b q b x
w DFID
b . T
w b
b U K ,
b . O
bw DFID
P b
b . T b P
DFID w
w . T b
.
Uk U
K, U.S. b b
b C W.
USAID
b
b b U.S.
k b
. T wk U S b
. M-b bw Ex
C
MCC D F A, b
w .
T U.S.
x b. T
bj bw
w C. Uk U K,
w w b , b bw
bj, b
wk bw ESF DA
( ) .T b
w k w
U K.
F,
,
b . T
w b
bj. S, U.S. b
x bj
b x . T xk
wk . T,
b b b w
C W H bk
b
bj. T b
b w b
w . F,
w bj bw C
Ex , k, ,
, ,
xb wk USAID b . F,
C b
w
,
x .
T USAID
b
.
I U S,
, b
C . T
x b k C
z w
. T
b x.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
48/49
The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery 47
O MCC , w , b
bw C Ex
b . I,
Ex b MCC
w , w C ,
, q. T w MCC
, k -
. I w b b
U S,
w k
k b xb
b .
A,
x forge
sustain bj
b,
w
b. (See Key Findings on page 9.) T major
recommendation
b w b
k :
Buildandmaintainastrongnationalconsensus bj z
bj,
w - -
P b w
NGO.
Aspartofanationaldiscussion,expandthe
b b
x
w b , ,
b x -
.
Strengthendialoguebetweendonorcountry
, , k
.
-
8/14/2019 The Impact of U.S. and U.K. Legislatures on Aid Delivery
49/49
Off i c e s