The US has the unusal distinction of being once the OECD's largest
contributor of development assistance, in dollar terms, and its smallest,
when measured as a percentage of national income.  Its aid policies were
reviewed by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee in 2002.  That
assessment observed that "the United States has a substantial impact on
promoting economic growth and reducing poverty in developing countries"
because of its economic and political influence.

The study, conducted by representatives of two other OEDC countries and the
OECD Secretariat, noted, however, that the US government's ability to forge
strong partnerships and improve coordination with other donors severely
hampered by the large number of government agencies that provide ODA - some
50 seperate and largely autonomous bodies ranging from the State Department
to defence and health ministries.  Competing agendas and the absence of a
shared strategic vision, it asserted, "can leave the United States in a
position of ad-hoc development decision-making."  The report called for the
US Agency for International Development (USAID), which currently controls
only about half of Washington's aid budget, to be given greater authority
over ODA disbursements.

The congressional practice of setting aside, or 'earmarking,' aid for
specific countries and legislation requiring that most US development
assistance be tied to the purchase of US goods and services further limits
the effectiveness of Washington's aid programmes.  These practices, the
reviewers said, can sometimes be an 'impediment' to stronger cooperation
with donors and recipients, and direct assistance away from the countries in
greatest need.

The failure to integrate aid, trade, defence and other aspects of US foreign
policy into a coherent approach to developing countries reduced aid
effectiveness and had 'major repercussions' for poor countries' development
prospects, the study noted.  It recommended that USAID be given greater
responsibility within the government for improving policy coherence and
efficiency in ODA delivery.  It urged the US to untie more of its aid and
consider ways to better harmonize ODA priorities with recepients' poverty
reduction and development strategies.  Washington was urged to work with
OECD countries to reduce and standardize project reporting requirements and
integrate development priorities more thoroughly into its foriegn policy.
Finally the OECD panel recommended that legal restrictions on USAID advocacy
for ODA programmes be relaxed to strengthen public and parliamentary support
for US development activities.

OECD peer reviews, observed Ms. Eeveline Herfkens, UN MDG campaign
coordinator and former Dutch development minister, 'are terrific reports,
serious and deep.'  Unfortunately, she said, few policy makers and advocates
know about them.  After meetings with parliamentarians in 10 OECD countries,
she said, "I was shocked by how few were aware of them.  The reviews can be
found on the OECD web page at:

http://www/oecd.org/infobycountry/0,2646,en_2649_34603_1_1_1_1_37413,00.html



***Africa Recovery, United Nations Department of Public Information  Vol.17
No. 4 January 2004

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~