Even by the low standards of American TV news, the so-called journalists who ran last night’s Democratic debate on ABC were a disgrace to their profession. TV critic Tom Shales nailed it in today’s Washington Post in a column titled: In the Pa. Debate, ABC is the Clear Loser.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, [Charles] Gibson and [George] Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with…

Amen! The tragedy is the missed chance to ask interesting questions that would let voters see how the candidates think on their feet and how much (or little) they know about the urgent problems that confront the U.S. and the world.

Questions are a powerful tool to inform and frame the debate. Here’s one I wish had been asked: “Food shortages have led to protests and riots around the world. Explanations include high oil prices, rising global demand, crop failures due to climate change, and bio-fuel subsidies — including U.S. subsidies for ethanol made from corn. At the same time, many Americans are angry about high gas prices and worried about dependence on foreign oil. What’s your view on calls to end U.S. ethanol subsidies?”

Such a question is hardly far-fetched. The issue received lots of attention yesterday at a White House press briefing from serious working reporters who track real issues and do their homework. Too bad ABC didn’t get some of them to run the debate!

The good news is that I’m not the only one feeling fed up with the networks and ABC in particular. By mid-afternoon today ABC’s website had logged more than 15,000 comments, most of which seemed to be complaining about the moderators. (I’m adding mine and hope you will add one, too!) The live audience in the hall wasn’t pleased either. The Huffington Post has a great clip of Charles Gibson getting booed when he announces yet another commercial interruption just before the final set of questions.

Unfortunately, the other TV news network debates have been only marginally better when it comes to using the debates to help Americans make informed choices about the U.S. role in the world. Is it any wonder that the audience for TV network news is down to a mere 25 million, and falling by about a million a year?

In a foreign policy speech today, John McCain listed terrorism as our #1 threat—and many of his solutions involved aspects of global development.

He called for America to embrace being a good international citizen: respecting our allies’ points of view as well as our own, basing alliances on “mutual respect and trust,” not tolerating torture, and addressing our environmental crises. Additionally, he said “Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union [by]… developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.”

With respect to Africa, he continued, “We must strongly engage on a political, economic, and security level with friendly governments across Africa, but insist on improvements in transparency and the rule of law…I will establish the goal of eradicating malaria on the continent.”

Calling for the renewal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, McCain said, “The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.”

According to McCain, dealing with terrorism “will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges.”

Some other parts of his speech were more controversial: in addition to defending his stance on keeping America in the war with Iraq, he also called for the building of “a new global compact…that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.” If you’re interested in why why this coalition might not be the best idea, the UN Dispatch mentions that the Bush administration suggested something similar–and also points to a book by Matt Yglesias, Heads in the Sand for further reading.

What about Obama and Clinton? Here’s a video that shows them debating about foreign policy:

Read about the global development agendas of McCain, Clinton, and Obama.

Read the transcripts of McCain’s foreign policy speech.

U.S. Foreign Assistance is woefully out of date. It’s crucial to our security and relations with the rest of the world to have a strong foreign assistance program. As CGD Research Fellow Stewart Patrick said in a 2006 speech on foreign assistance, “economic stagnation, authoritarian misrule, and weak institutions are closely linked with political instability, extremism, and violent conflict.” We know by now that global development makes us richer and safer. So how do we modernize U.S. foreign assistance?

CGD Senior Fellow Steve Radelet outlines an updated foreign assistance agenda for the future president in his recently published essay, “Modernizing Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century: An Agenda for the Next U.S. President.” Here are his five to-dos for America:

1. Develop a National Foreign Assistance Strategy that elevates global development as critical to our national interest and lays out the principal missions and mandates for foreign assistance;
2. Reform the organizational structure by merging most foreign assistance programs and related development policy instruments into a new Cabinet-level department, and strengthening the organization by expanding and deepening the professional staff, revamping delivery mechanisms, and building a serious monitoring and evaluation system;
3. Rewrite the outdated and unwieldy 1961 Foreign Assistance Act in order to streamline procurement rules, earmarks, and restrictions, and to reestablish a strong partnership between the Executive Branch and Congress that allows greater flexibility to the former provided there is greater accountability and responsiveness to the latter;
4. Place a higher priority on multilateral channels of assistance; and
5. Increase the quantity and improve the allocation of assistance, since even with recent increases U.S. foreign assistance is not large enough or unencumbered enough to meet our major foreign policy goals.

We here at Global Development Matters urge our future president to use this road map to prepare us for the 21st century and beyond, repairing our global leadership so we can better field environmental and security crises as well as advance our efficacy in helping the billion people that live on less than a dollar a day.

Watch this speech by USAID Administrator and Director of Foreign Assistance Henrietta Fore for a quick overview about why foreign assistance is important and what we can do about it.

This was originally posted on March 19th, 2008 in the Global Health Policy Blog from the Center for Global Development.

Last week, Congress took a major step towards re-authorizing PEPFAR, and global malaria and TB programs, for another five years. A congressional press release explains:

Legislation sponsored by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) and Ranking Member Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) authorizing $50 billion for global HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis programs for the next five fiscal years was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. This legislation closely mirrors a bipartisan reauthorization bill approved by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs late last month, which will facilitate a prompt conference with the House.

Great news, of course, that the process is well on its way, with a hefty tab of $50 billion ($9 billion of which is for malaria and TB) that should build on the accomplishments of the first five years of PEPFAR and strengthen its performance in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. A quick scan of the House and Senate bills and various analyses that have followed suggest one major accomplishment in the reauthorization process - that our legislators and their incredibly dedicated staff have looked closely at the evidence, and in large part, have responded to the lessons learned in the emergency phase of the last 5 years. In particular, we are encouraged by the following highlights of the legislation (and pleased that the HIV/AIDS Monitor’s research and the work of other CGD colleagues have contributed to the growing body of evidence about these issues):

Removal of Most Earmarks
The removal of almost all earmarks - funding restrictions that mandate how PEPFAR can spend money - is a very encouraging sign that has clearly responded to evidence from various sources, including the IOM and the GAO, that flexibility in funding is a must for countries to respond to their national priorities. Our own findings - including a forthcoming analysis of PEPFAR funding data - shows that the way PEPFAR allocated money across and within prevention, treatment and care closely mirrored the global-level earmarks imposed by Congress. This unduly limited PEPFAR’s flexibility because every country’s funding needs are different - some countries might need PEPFAR to spend more on prevention, and others might need more money for treatment - but PEPFAR’s program could not easily respond to these differences.

While the new legislative language does not stipulate any AB (Abstinence and Being Faithful) spending requirements it does require that countries receiving PEPFAR funds explain their reasons for using less than 50% of their funds on abstinence and being faithful. What is NOT clear in both the bills is the process of approval for a country that does not spend in the A and B categories as required and the ramifications for not doing so. Some clarity on this process before the final bill is passed is a MUST to avoid confusion and the possibility of blindly following the requirements because the consequences of non-compliance are not clear.

Building Local Capacity
Since large sums of AIDS money began flowing from PEPFAR and other sources in 2003, it has become apparent that the money cannot be used effectively unless we build “in-country capacity” - a broadly used term that refers to both adequate numbers of competent staff to manage and implement AIDS programs, and appropriate systems to manage the flow of goods, people, and information. PEPFAR has often skirted the capacity problem by setting up their own systems and channeling large shares of funding to international NGOs. But this approach is not sustainable in the long-term if the systems are not local, and the new reauthorization bill takes a number of key steps to ensuring that each country will be able to fight the long battle needed against the epidemic, including:

(i) Increasing the number of African health workers - The continent is desperately short of health workers, from doctors to nurses to medical assistants that are needed to win the fight against AIDS. The House bill sets a concrete target of 144,000 health workers that will be trained over the next five years using U.S. government funds. There is some uncertainty about what type of health workers would be included as part of this target and whether these would be additional and/or include the training of existing workers - we believe these should be a range of health workers from doctors to nurses and community health workers. The effort to increase the number of trained health workers is undoubtedly a good move but this may not solve the real shortage problems. As my colleague Michael Clemens’ research showed, shortages in many countries in Africa are less related to brain-drain and the emigration of workers, and more to do with the rural/urban and private/public distribution of health professionals, the skill mix of the health work force and the lack of incentives for health professionals within the current public sector systems. Donor supported and national efforts to mitigate the health care worker shortages should surely address some of these issues and not focus only on training.

(ii) Improving financial management, inside and outside government - Our paper on “Following the Funding” showed that many local recipients, and especially governments, do not have the systems needed to manage and report on large sums of AIDS money. The reauthorization bills calls specifically for PEPFAR to work with governments and other local recipients to strengthen their financial management capabilities.

(iii) Giving government oversight of PEPFAR programs - National governments in each country act as the steward of the AIDS response, helping to coordinate the myriad actors responding to the AIDS crisis. But national governments have limited input into PEPFAR programs and are thus constrained in performing their stewardship role. The new PEPFAR bill would aim to change this. As Senator Biden’s press release states, the bill aims to “push the U.S. government to plan for a sustainable long-term effort, to help local governments take over the fight against HIV/AIDS with our technical assistance.”

(iv) Assessing the capacity development initiatives undertaken by the countries - The new legislation calls for an assessment of countries holding them accountable to their commitments to the Abuja Declaration (to invest in the development of human resources and health systems by motivating existing personnel by upgrading skills and through improvement of condition of services including the use of incentives to prevent brain-drain). Despite all good intentions to increase the incentives for health sector staff the new legislation acknowledges the impact of the IMF’s macroeconomic and fiscal policies on national and donor investments in health and also calls for a review of this policy in each country. Findings from a working paper by my colleague David Goldsborough on the IMF’s constraints on health spending suggest that the IMF has overused the wage bill ceilings in the health sector and could restrict the capacity development efforts of a particular country. This type of an assessment would help situate a country’s particular commitment and ability to invest in building capacity in the health sector.

Balancing Prevention and Treatment
PEPFAR has been widely praised for quickly putting well over a million people on treatment, but prevention programs seemed to take a backseat in the first phase of PEPFAR. Forthcoming analysis by my colleague Mead Over and by the HIV/AIDS Monitor team shows that in the average focus country PEPFAR spent nearly twice as much on treatment as prevention. Yet, for every person put on treatment, there are five or six new HIV infections. Recognizing these facts, the new PEPFAR bills emphasize the importance of prevention. They state that PEPFAR should spend no less than 20% of its money on prevention activities - we hope PEPFAR will spend much more than the 20% figure as each country identifies their prevention priorities. The bills have also increased the prevention target - which has gone from preventing 7 million infections to preventing 12 million infections - more significant than the treatment target - which has changed from treating 2 million people to 3 million people. Behavior change to reduce risk also features prominently in both bills as a new focus in prevention efforts.

Better late than never - the realization that prevention along with treatment is paramount for an effective response is long overdue. While PEPFAR I focused on the “emergency” of getting treatment to the heavily affected countries and giving people hope, the efforts to support comprehensive prevention efforts and provide people with a greater sense of hope that they can prevent themselves and others from getting infected have been less than optimal and the step up to increase these efforts is welcome.

Addressing the Vulnerabilities of Women and Girls
Several recent reports, including CGD’s Girls Count have showed the unique vulnerabilities faced by women and girls to HIV. The epidemic is not gender neutral and the new bills recognize this by calling for gender to be a high priority in all aspects of PEPFAR, from the five-year strategy to the evaluation that will be conducted during its fourth year. With the overall PEPFAR strategy, the Senate bill asks for “a description of the specific targets, goals and strategies developed to address the needs and vulnerabilities of women and girls to HIV/AIDS.” In addition, the proposed legislation authorizes that a new evaluation report include an assessment of gender specific aspects, including the constraints to accessing services and underlying social and economic vulnerabilities. For a more detailed and interesting analysis of the Senate and House bills and the current law, and their relative emphasis on women and girls and related gender issues in prevention, prostitution, family planning and microbicides see a chart by Kathy Selvaggio at ICRW.

Monitoring AND Impact Evaluation
The Senate bill stands out for its effort to ensure that PEPFAR II captures both, the monitoring of programs including operations research AND the impact of its efforts by preparing these activities at the outset of the program. By including operations research in the strategy, Congress will ensure that PEPFAR will learn while it is implementing and using these data to “improve program quality and efficiency…and optimize the delivery of services.”

The bill also includes language that requires the Global AIDS Coordinator to contract the IOM to produce, in the first 18 months of PEPFAR II, a “design plan and budget for the evaluation and collection of baseline and subsequent data.” CGD’s work on impact evaluation led by Bill Savedoff and my colleague Ruth Levine, points the U.S. government in the direction of making evaluation an imperative in its global AIDS efforts so that the U.S. can account for the billions of dollars spent and assess whether or not PEPFAR actually made a measurable difference in the reduction of incidence. This will be an important step to supplement the evidence that OGAC already reports to Congress on the absolute targets for treatment, prevention and care–2, 7, 10 goals to the new 3, 12, 12 goals–with rigorous evidence about what has changed because of this remarkable effort. A set of “before and after” PEPFAR measures will tell us whether the program is working relative to its investments and demonstrated priorities and needs in each country. The absence of this evidence will place future funding for HIV/AIDS in jeopardy and will deny countries the much needed support to keep their citizens free from preventable infections and from dying. We strongly support the inclusion of this provision in the final bill.

Advanced Market Commitments for Vaccines
Good news on the development of new vaccines from our policy makers! Senator John Kerry introduced an amendment (Download file) to the Senate bill that will “promote participation by the United States in negotiations on Advanced Market Commitments (AMC) to develop key vaccines, and strengthen efforts to provide technical assistance for the creation of vaccines in developing countries.” CGD’s Michael Kremer and Ruth Levine, co-chaired a working group on AMCs in 2005 that concluded that an advance commitment on the part of donors could effectively stimulate greater private sector investment in the development of new vaccines appropriate for use in poor countries, and accelerate their adoption. We are encouraged by the U.S. response to this call to donors and its potential participation in an advance commitment to buy vaccines if and when they are developed for AIDS, TB, Malaria and other infectious diseases. With other donors, the U.S. will create incentives for industry to increase investment in research and development and spur commercial investment in the development of vital new vaccines for the developing world.

The Sticking Issues
Anti-prostitution pledge: Both versions of the bill propose no changes from the current law. The confusion caused by the current law about what PEPFAR implementers and their sub-recipients can and cannot do with sex workers still persists. Clarifying the language in the new bill may be helpful to recipients and sub-recipients to understand how one can effectively prevent infections from being transmitted to and from women in sex work and their clients.

Family planning: The Senate bill makes no reference to the family planning issues in the current law, while the House bill adds another layer of restriction to the use of PEPFAR funds for family planning activities. It authorizes family planning organizations to conduct HIV testing and counseling, but there is some uncertainty over whether organizations will have to comply with the Mexico City policy. This is a step backwards and any negotiation to better include family planning as an integral component of PEPFAR prevention programs may be a deal breaker. So it looks more and more like this issue will at best use the current House language to restrict the effective provision (and use) of family planning services and HIV/AIDS services where needed, a policy that will limit the effectiveness of the PEPFAR program in its prevention efforts. The HIV/AIDS Monitor will have field-based data on this topic later in the year to add to the ongoing debate about better linkages between HIV/AIDS programs and other health service delivery programs.

Wrap-Up

There is a lot of good stuff in these bills and because they more or less mirror each other, the chances are that most of these changes from the current law will get through with ease. That is largely a good thing, but in agreeing to a final bill, the House and Senate should clarify some of the key points of uncertainty that linger, so that a lack of clarity does not constrain the important work of fighting the pandemic effectively.

Advocates of global development scored a win yesterday—restoring $4 billion to the 2009 International Affairs Budget. Initially, George W. Bush requested $39.8 billion for this budget that covers things like the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Peace Corps–and the Senate considered decreasing it by $4 billion. Thanks to Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Gordon Smith (R-OR)–who quickly responded by introducing an amendment to partially restore the funds–to the rest of the senators who voted “yes,” and to the support of concerned citizens from the One Campaign, the full $4 billion was restored.

Contact the Senators who voted “yes” and thank them at the US Global Leadership Campaign’s website—and also give the “no’s” a call and let them know that this issue is important to you. See the One campaign’s blog for more info contacting the “no’s.”

Learn more about the International Affairs Budget at the US Global Leadership Campaign’s website.

Ending global poverty is an enormous goal. And the ways to go about it are complicated and sometimes contradictory, although many of us agree that it is an effort worth pursuing. In “Practical steps to end poverty,” today’s final installment of the Christian Science Monitor series “An End to Poverty: New Hope for the Last Billion Poor,” Mark Lange gives us some ways that he believes will help us make some significant headway towards this goal.

1. Focus our resources on the countries that need them the most.

2. Provide aid to lawless regimes based upon their completion of certain political, military, and humanitarian goals

3. Build more and improve existing initiatives such as the Global Development Commons, which foster an exchange of ideas in the Global Development community

4. Keep better track of metrics on initiatives and organizations—and support only what works

5. Realize that it isn’t a bad thing to give technical assistance as opposed to cash—and provide even more technical assistance

6. Encourage African countries to employ best practice to advance development

7. Ensure better distribution of wealth from business development by giving more authority to the International Labor Organization

8. Make it easier for international banks to freeze funds should they provide to be unworthy recipients due to corruption

9. Until they get on their feet, remove tariffs on goods made in the nations that are the most in need

10. Use UN military assets sooner instead of waiting until a murderous regime has done their damage

Here’s the rest of this series on extreme global poverty:
Part I: A first step for the global poor – shatter six myths

Part II: Why so much aid for the poor has made so little difference

Part III: What it takes to open a door for the poor

Part IV: The risks of fighting poverty too well

This post originally appeared February 29th, 2008 in Views from the Center, a blog by the Center for Global Development.

The crucial role of the Ohio primary in deciding the Democratic nominee for president is having a regrettable impact on judgment and rhetoric in this campaign, as noted earlier this week by Lawrence MacDonald. But does this necessarily mean that a Democratic president–either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama–along with a Democratic Congress, which has been stubbornly blocking a vote on the trade agreement negotiated with Colombia, would be bad for trade, especially with developing countries?

Not necessarily, at least not relative to a situation where John McCain is president and facing a Democratic Congress (a Republican majority in either chamber seems unlikely at this stage). That political alignment has led to gridlock for the past two years, since the Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress, and the opposite alignment in the 1990s did the same for the last six years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The problem is the increasing lack of trust between the two parties.

Under “trade promotion authority,” the US Congress delegates some of its constitutional authority to regulate trade to the executive branch. It allows the president to negotiate trade agreements that the Congress agrees to vote on expeditiously and without amending it. That process requires a certain level of trust on the part of Congress that the president will use the authority in ways that Congress finds acceptable. But increasing political partisanship–generally as well as over trade–has undermined the trust that underpins that process.

There is an even more fundamental reason why a Democratic president and Congress, working together, might do more to put trade back on track. Democrats, at least in their rhetoric, are more committed to working on the domestic policy agenda that is desperately needed to support globalization–from an expanded Trade Adjustment Act, to unemployment insurance reform, and better education and training for workers. And, of course, expanding health care coverage has been a major issue in the campaign.

Still the recent rhetoric is troubling and it has costs that the candidates ignore to their peril once we get past Ohio. The Financial Times summed them up well in an editorial yesterday:

“The next Democratic administration promises to repair US alliances and standing in the world. A worthy aim. Yet its first act, the party says, will be to tell its closest neighbours that the rules they are all agreed to are defunct – and if they do not like it, tough luck.”

This post originally appeared February 29th, 2008 in Views from the Center, a blog by the Center for Global Development.

It was perhaps inevitable but it is nonetheless disappointing to see the Democratic candidates for president engaged in such energetic trade bashing (see, for example, the Washington Post’s Clinton Tests Out Populist Approach, Obama Cites NAFTA in Questioning Her Criticism of Corporate World). The New York Times, in a sensible editorial on Sunday titled It Must Be Ohio offered both an explanation for this unfortunate trend and some solid advice:

Ohio, which has lost almost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs since 2000, is feeling the pain of globalization. Yet what the voters deserve to hear (and are unlikely to hear from the Republicans) are honest answers about how government can help them adapt. Instead, both Democratic candidates were sending out mailers last week denouncing each other’s presumed support for the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement.

Of course the stakes are high in Ohio and Texas (and even in Rhode Island and Vermont, which also vote on March 4). But it is precisely when the stakes are high that we would hope that candidates for president show their mettle. Obama in particular tells voters he prefers truth-telling – pointing out to Detroit automakers the dire need for higher auto-fuel economy standards, for instance. It’s too bad that he and Senator Clinton aren’t giving us similarly plain talk on the challenges of globalization, and what should and shouldn’t be done about it. In recent years global trade has helped to lift 100 million Chinese from poverty—the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of the world—and through cheap imports helped to hold down inflation, too. Would America be better-off if this had not happened?

We care about trade at CGD because we work for shared global prosperity. Expanding trade is generally win-win: countries on both sides of the deal benefit, and most of their people do, too. The real question for American leaders, as the New York Times points out, is not who is best at bashing trade but how to help those people who do lose from trade expansion to adapt. And since I’m dreaming, perhaps the candidates could begin to speak about their ideas for improving U.S. leadership on development.

Not convinced? Check out these accessible CGD resources:

* Global Trade, the United States, and Developing Countries (Rich World, Poor World Brief)
* A Better Way Forward on Trade and Labor Standards, by Kimberly Elliott (Policy Brief)
* Made in China, a provocative video with two workers’ experience of trade expansion, one in China and one in the U.S.

And for the policy adept, two important CGD books:

* Delivering on Doha: Farm Trade and the Poor, by Kimberly Elliott
* Trade Policy and Global Poverty, by William Cline

Delve deeper into the world of microcredit in this interview with David Roodman, a Research Fellow at the Center for Global Development, whose expertise includes microfinance. He speaks about microcredit in the context of the full-length documentary film, “The New Silver,” from which our short film, “How Do you Solve a Problem like Maria’s?” was excerpted.

Interested in seeing the full-length film? Shortly, we will release four films from the “A Dollar a Day” international documentary series produced by EMF Films.

Interested in hosting a screening? These full-length films are a great way to springboard a discussion between friends, church-groups, student groups—anyone who is engaged in the many topics contained within global development. Sign up here to be notified when we launch our “Host-a-Screening” program.

You may have heard about Obama’s Global Poverty Bill that is setting the Conservative blogging community ablaze. However, it isn’t currently receiving much coverage in the mainstream press.

If it becomes law, it would commit the president to creating and implementing a strategy to help eradicate global poverty. The number of people living on less than a dollar a day would be halved by 2015—which means we would achieve Millennium Development Goal #1.

This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign relations. Check it out for yourself–you can read the entire bill here. (It isn’t too long).

We here at Global Development Matters hope that all of the candidates make global development a priority.