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