The slashing of PEPFAR is the proof that evidence wasn’t the problem. PEPFAR had superb, easily documented outcomes— people who didn’t die, people who didn’t give their kids HIV and so on and it didn’t matter. It didn’t matter because the administration, by empowering known white-supremacist Elon Musk, made cutting off medicine to Black people a top priority. And the Rs in Congress are, almost to a man, afraid to push back on the administration. They’d push back on tax hikes on the rich, gun control, abortion, but that’s about it.
How many evangelicals who genuinely care about PEPFAR—and there were a lot—were willing to penalize Trump and his enablers for this? Not many. Even for the Rs for whom it’s a priority, it usually a second or third tier priority
The conclusion is spot on ... So many of these discussions presume that what doomed USAID was development (in)effectiveness. Thus the solution is "do development better." As much as I would like to see it, I tend to agree that any proposal for a more (developmentally) effective set-up is not going to do much to rebuild a domestic constituency for foreign assistance. What I think may be needed instead is a cogent argument that can appeal to the American people and their representatives for why US support for development - understood as structural transformation and progressively more inclusive governance in low-income countries - remains in the interests of the United States. As a member of the development community, the argument is self-evident to me, but what seemed like a popular consensus - particularly during the Cold War but even as recently as 15 years ago - feels like it has eroded considerably. Why that is, I don't quite know ... So I second your qualitative research proposal.
The slashing of PEPFAR is the proof that evidence wasn’t the problem. PEPFAR had superb, easily documented outcomes— people who didn’t die, people who didn’t give their kids HIV and so on and it didn’t matter. It didn’t matter because the administration, by empowering known white-supremacist Elon Musk, made cutting off medicine to Black people a top priority. And the Rs in Congress are, almost to a man, afraid to push back on the administration. They’d push back on tax hikes on the rich, gun control, abortion, but that’s about it.
How many evangelicals who genuinely care about PEPFAR—and there were a lot—were willing to penalize Trump and his enablers for this? Not many. Even for the Rs for whom it’s a priority, it usually a second or third tier priority
The conclusion is spot on ... So many of these discussions presume that what doomed USAID was development (in)effectiveness. Thus the solution is "do development better." As much as I would like to see it, I tend to agree that any proposal for a more (developmentally) effective set-up is not going to do much to rebuild a domestic constituency for foreign assistance. What I think may be needed instead is a cogent argument that can appeal to the American people and their representatives for why US support for development - understood as structural transformation and progressively more inclusive governance in low-income countries - remains in the interests of the United States. As a member of the development community, the argument is self-evident to me, but what seemed like a popular consensus - particularly during the Cold War but even as recently as 15 years ago - feels like it has eroded considerably. Why that is, I don't quite know ... So I second your qualitative research proposal.
Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
I agree - we do not need one more white paper.
There is a lot of fuzzy thinking around what caused the USAID shutdown, and what could bring it back. https://usaidmedia.org/posts/what-happened-to-usaid
Good science is empirical. Where have poor countries made significant progress?
What were Adam Smith’s findings? How do you avoid corruption. We are not doing well in California with state corruption at high levels.