The Politics of Development

Winning Hearts and Minds at Home

A few years ago, I gave a college lecture entitled The Business of Development, based on my belief that a) it was important to share how the supply chain of non-lethal foreign assistance actually works (worked) to benefit the American people and b) there were a lot of good actors in the system, including those of us working for private sector enterprises – who were in the business of development – that were achieving tremendously impactful results. Given the destruction of that supply chain over the past few months, I am shifting gears to focus on the main cause of that destruction. It was not performance or results or budget cuts. It was politics. This will not be news to many readers, but it provides a segue to discuss the role politics played not only in the elimination of a key tool in the U.S. diplomatic arsenal but also the role politics will play in the resumption of foreign assistance, because it will resume.

It may seem absurd to start plotting a comeback at what is (hopefully) the ebb of existence, but as we all know, the plot from the other side – Project 2025 – was not written in 2025. Others have written about how USAID’s greatest failing was its inability to articulate and promote its success and that when asked in generic terms, Americans overwhelming agree with the objectives of foreign assistance. So, taking this as a starting point, we can and we will build back better. But rather than assume that a general belief in altruism will lead to a logical policy outcome (something Democrats do way too often), the approach to reengaging in the exercise of improving livelihoods around the world has to be a tactical one.

The first tactic I propose is to recognize that foreign assistance is inherently part of foreign policy. Many practitioners object to this, arguing that saving lives should be about saving lives, irrespective of where people live or who governs them. I agree with this argument, but even at the height of spending under the Biden administration, demand far outweighed supply. There will never be enough money to go around and choices have to be made. Those are foreign policy decisions.

So how do we change U.S. policy on foreign assistance? The same way most policies are changed – we reframe it in a way that convinces enough people to come on board believing they are getting the outcome they desire.

For most people reading today’s headlines, international development has boiled down to providing basic health care and humanitarian assistance to those who need it most. The toll of U.S. cuts to foreign assistance is being measured by the numbers of lives lost to preventable illnesses and the amount of food and medicine going to waste because delivery was halted. There is also talk of the loss of “soft power” – the goodwill amassed by assistance that helps the U.S. win the hearts and minds in countries where China, Russia, and the like are competing for influence with us. The prevailing attitude about both of these issues among the America First crowd seems to be, so be it. Framing answers to the question of what outcomes the skeptics of development assistance would like to see in regard to infant mortality in the developing world or the geopolitical strength of China in Latin America or Africa will take careful thought, not just taglines. But these are the questions the policy wonks and political operatives should be chewing on.

Where to Start?

I understand that at a time when we feel like we are drowning at sea and the tsunamis of destruction aren’t letting up, some would argue this might not be the time for designing longer-term strategies and tactics. But there are a lot of us practitioners with time on our hands at the moment, and I see from LinkedIn and elsewhere, groups are forming, presumably to tackle these and other existential questions. The point here is to broaden that group and to ask those who haven’t made careers of this work to contribute to the conversation by asking questions that may challenge us as well as support us. All constructive critical thinking welcome.

I’ve spent a good deal of my career navigating the politics of the countries I’ve worked in to develop local strategies to improve program implementation. That will be a topic of future posts. But it will also be hard to get away from the topic of how to tactically reengage in the U.S. political discourse on how to reshape development policy to help regain America’s standing as a global leader, even if it takes a while. There is work to be done.