The Millennium

Watching the State of the Union, Megan McArdle reflected that "he's talking up the Millenium project, which is actually one of the great things this administration has done. This doesn't get nearly enough good press." The Millennium Challenge Corporation is certainly a good idea, but as Max Bermann points out one reason it doesn't get much good press is that the implementation has been problematic:

The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a federal agency set up almost four years ago to reinvent foreign aid, has taken far longer to help poor, well-governed countries than its supporters expected or its critics say is reasonable.

The agency, a rare Bush administration proposal to be enacted with bipartisan support, has spent only $155 million of the $4.8 billion it has approved for ambitious projects in 15 countries in Africa, Central America and other regions.

If Bush wants to salvage any kind of positive legacy, this initiative is going to be one of the few things he'll have to rely on. Given that, it'd be nice to think that he'll spend the next 12 months really trying to make sure these trains are running correctly and really fighting to keep the relatively modest amount of money in play here flowing from the Congress. Instead, though, all the energy seems to go into surveillance and pouring more cash and lives down the drain in Iraq.

Comments

Megan's credibility is inversely proportional to her height.

Posted by tinisoli | January 29, 2008 3:40 PM

I concur. You didn't know Megan was retarded? Oh well her jokes about the oh-so-funny-when-he's-dead Heath Ledger and HIS FAMILY should have tipped you off.

Posted by RICKM | January 29, 2008 3:42 PM

Megan got sucked in by empty rhetoric?

STOP THE PRESSES!

Posted by Jamey | January 29, 2008 3:44 PM

There's currently a proposal in Congress to create a similar Corporation to help improve the governance institutions of Indian tribes; it'd be good to see it go forward.

I agree with you that he should keep the funding for the MCC going; I don't even think it would be that big of a "lift" to do. The hitch is, as you imply, that Bush and his OMB are laboring to keep their upcoming budget from ballooning completely out of control. They do this by proposing to cut programs so their budgets come in under the line, let Congress refund these programs, then blame the Democrats for out of control earmarking. It's an obvious sham, but Bush wouldn't ask for another $4.6 billion in funding for poor countries when he needs to put a pretend budget cut.

Additionally, five years per project isn't very long, especially when you need to cut corruption, set up capable institutions, and train individuals to run them before you start actual construction (or lending or whatever the project is). I think people are being a little impatient.

Posted by Adam | January 29, 2008 3:50 PM

I just looked up the FY 08 funding (enacted in December) for the MCC: $1,555,000,000. We all should probably have looked at that first.

Posted by Adam | January 29, 2008 3:56 PM

Another example of D-Squared's law in action:

[C]an anyone, particularly the rather more Bush-friendly recent arrivals to the board, give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics:
It is a policy initiative of the current Bush administration
It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it)
It wasn't in some important way completely fucked up during the execution.

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_archive.html

Posted by rea | January 29, 2008 3:59 PM

Maybe they found out it was being spent on food stamps for fatties and not Ayn Rand-Approved Altriusm Eradication By Fire Kits.

Posted by B-$ | January 29, 2008 4:32 PM

It is not unusual, undesirable, nor unexpected for the MCC to have disbursed a fraction of the $5.5 billion is has committed to 16 countries (according to the number of Compacts approved), as these programs were designed to run for 5 years each, with disbursements occurring as the projects move forward and as funding is needed. Most of the initial implementation of the Compacts involves extensive planning and setting up controls and procedures for assuring that the money will be spent well and the projects will be sustainable. It is not reasonable nor responsible to suggest that MCC should hand over large checks upfront to outside entities (or Beltway Bandits) who would end up doing work that the country must learn to do itself. Why is the measure of success of a program the amount of money that has been spent? The money has been committed, so it will arrive when it needs to. Ask anyone in the countries involved, it is much more valuable for them to learn how to run their own development programs, however long it takes. Building Capacity, not spending money quickly, should in the end be the goal of the MCC. This is something the American people would appreciate if they ever had a chance to hear this side of the story.

Posted by Ruth | January 29, 2008 4:42 PM

It is not unusual, undesirable, nor unexpected for the MCC to have disbursed a fraction of the $5.5 billion is has committed to 16 countries (according to the number of Compacts approved), as these programs were designed to run for 5 years each, with disbursements occurring as the projects move forward and as funding is needed. Most of the initial implementation of the Compacts involves extensive planning and setting up controls and procedures for assuring that the money will be spent well and the projects will be sustainable. It is not reasonable nor responsible to suggest that MCC should hand over large checks upfront to outside entities (or Beltway Bandits) who would end up doing work that the country must learn to do itself. Why is the measure of success of a program the amount of money that has been spent? The money has been committed, so it will arrive when it needs to. Ask anyone in the countries involved, it is much more valuable for them to learn how to run their own development programs, however long it takes. Building Capacity, not spending money quickly, should in the end be the goal of the MCC. This is something the American people would appreciate if they ever had a chance to hear this side of the story.

Posted by Ruth | January 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Projects are nice and all, but if we really want to help people in the developing world better their situations, ending farm subsidies would do far more to help than any billions of dollars we spend to make ourselves feel better.

Posted by Angry Sam | January 29, 2008 5:06 PM

"Why is the measure of success of a program the amount of money that has been spent?"

As anyone who has planned a large enterprise - indeed, anyone with basic business training - will tell you, that is an indicator that it is behind schedule. This program is poorly managed.

Posted by Aaron | January 29, 2008 6:43 PM