As attention shifts to fiscal 2015 appropriations, interest groups, from farmers to big pharma, are all weighing in. But one group is missing from the conversation: the intended beneficiaries of Americaís assistance programs abroad.
The international affairs budget, including foreign aid, accounts for just over 1 percent of federal spending. With ever-tightening resources, Congress is rightly focused on ensuring that every dollar gives Americans and recipients abroad the most bang for the buck. But neither Congress nor the administration is ensuring that our aid dollars are focused on recipientsí most pressing problems.
The U.S. government has done an embarrassingly poor job of listening to the recipients of its assistance programs to find out just what their priorities are. Over the past decade, when ordinary Africans were asked about the most pressing problems affecting their countries, roughly 70 percent of respondents routinely cited jobs, infrastructure, economic policies and inequality. Yet, during the same period, only 16 percent of U.S. assistance targeted these problems ó instead skewing dramatically toward health and education. A similar misalignment between U.S. assistance and ordinary peopleís priorities holds true in Latin America.
Some might argue against listening to what citizens in poorer countries cite as their priorities. Isnít that what the buildings full of Washington-based development experts are supposed to figure out? Others say that isnít even the point of U.S. foreign assistance: Itís our money, so weíll spend it how we want.
But itís difficult to argue with what people in Africa and Latin America and elsewhere want. Theyíre clamoring for access to economic opportunity. And with that comes the ability to meet other daily demands, such as paying for health clinic visits or school books. Access to opportunity allows a definitive exit from dependency and a path toward prosperity. Prosperity in developing countries also means greater opportunities for U.S. businesses.
This is not to dismiss efforts in health or education or disaster relief by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Instead, it means the U.S. must bolster its efforts to promote growth, trade and investment in developing countries. In Africa, this means helping to ensure that the 14 million youth entering the job market every year have a path to a brighter future. In Latin America, this means helping people escape from ever-escalating violence, fueled by a lack of good jobs and growing inequality. The Arab Spring is a stark reminder of what happens when large segments of society are shut out of the economy and a representative voice in government. The risks posed to U.S. national security and our commercial priorities will only grow over time.
Congress should consider three low-cost fixes to push us toward a more effective development policy: an approach that responds to what people in developing countries want.
First, better leverage the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The MCC is the only U.S. institution with an explicit mandate to support country-based priorities and to reduce poverty through economic growth. Fully funding the MCC and encouraging it to explore ways to crowd in large-scale private investments will help make the agency the development powerhouse that President George W. Bush, with strong bipartisan support, originally envisioned.