A Model for a U.S. Department of Development
In 1997, the incoming Labor government in the United Kingdom (UK) established a new, cabinet-level Department for International Development (DFID), with responsibility for all aspects of UK development policy under the leadership of a designated cabinet minister. DFID’s status as a full member of the cabinet ensures that development issues are considered in the formulation of other policies. Where and how UK development funds are disbursed is now entirely the responsibility of DFID.
By law, all UK development assistance must either further sustainable development or promote the welfare of people and contribute to the reduction of poverty. Political and economic considerations are not part of DFID’s decision-making. Instead, the MDGs figure prominently as an organizing framework for country and regional programming. Currently, 90 percent of DFID funding is spent in poor countries.
All U.K. development assistance is now “untied” and non-earmarked. This gives DFID an extraordinary amount of flexibility. For instance, when procuring food aid, DFID can buy food from sources much closer to the country where it is needed—delivering the food more quickly and cheaply while benefiting the food-supplying country as well. The contrast with the United States couldn’t be starker: almost all U.S. food aid must be purchased in the United States and delivered on U.S.-flagged ships. In some cases, this slows the delivery time to countries facing hunger emergencies by months.
DFID has the authority to channel its funds through other donors, thus eliminating the need for maintaining an in-country presence in every sector. For instance, if DFID and another donor are pursuing complementary programs in the same country, DFID is able to pool its funds with the other’s resources, reducing duplication and demands on the time of development workers on the ground. Meeting the reporting requirements of multiple donors is often a heavy burden for recipient countries. In Vietnam, for instance, officials held 791 donor meetings in 2005 alone, more than two per day, all requiring time that could have been spent on development work.20
The development/security nexus is addressed through other consultative mechanisms. There are pooled funds for specific issues, such as a conflict prevention fund jointly controlled by Defense, the Foreign Office, and DFID, in which all parties have a say in how the funds are disbursed. This guarantees that the development voice gets heard. In the United States, by contrast, there are inter-agency consultative mechanisms, but funds are channeled though specific agencies and departments. There is no way, for instance, to compel the Defense Department to respond to development concerns.
Though challenges remain, DFID is now widely praised as one of the world’s best-run and most focused and capable development agencies. Both developing and donor countries look to it as a model of effective aid administration.
