President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to double U.S. foreign aid, and Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, has stated that foreign aid reform will be on the agenda of the 111th Congress. Yet the field of development has changed significantly over the past decade, with the creation of novel assistance programs like the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the emergence of entrepreneurial philanthropists. These new players are bringing market-based solutions to longstanding development challenges and transforming the approaches of donor agencies and developing-country governments.

How should foreign aid advance American purpose in the developing world, and can reform efforts bolster the U.S. foreign policy troika of defense, diplomacy, and development? Indeed, the difficulties of economic recovery in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate the need for a more effective development policy to support core national security priorities. Could a development policy that looks beyond aid transform America’s relationships in the developing world while accelerating the fight against global poverty? Join us as distinguished participants discuss these and other important issues in a series of uniquely structured forums.

For video and audio of the second day of this event please click here.

Tuesday, January 6

In this discussion, experts from AEI and the Center for Global Development will discuss what is wrong with the U.S. foreign aid system and how it should be reformed, focusing on some of the proposals put forward recently by a number of independent commissions, including the HELP Commission and the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network. 

Advocates of market-based approaches to poverty reduction often invoke the slogan “trade, not aid.” How viable is this alternative under the current international trade regime? What obstacles to trade-based growth in poor countries would remain if trade barriers were removed? Why do developing countries sometimes seem to adopt negotiating positions at odds with their national interests? How could the United States better integrate its trade and development policies, notably through trade capacity-building assistance, to promote better outcomes in global trade negotiations?

There is growing consensus in Africa that private enterprise is the engine of truly sustainable development. In this session, experts will discuss four key strategies for stimulating Africa’s private sector—investing in infrastructure, facilitating trade, reforming the business climate, and developing enterprise—and how U.S. development policy could better promote them.

Wednesday, January 7

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a capstone of U.S. global health policy, has won bipartisan praise as one of President George W. Bush’s most successful programs for the developing world. In addition to providing treatment for more than 2 million HIV/AIDS patients and preventative education for millions more, it has generated significant diplomatic benefits for the United States. Yet the program carries a $50 billion price tag. Is PEPFAR sustainable, and how effective is the current allocation of funds? Mark Dybul, the U.S. global AIDS coordinator, will deliver a keynote address.

In 2006, American individuals and organizations gave more than $34 billion in private philanthropy to the developing world—$10 billion more than official development aid. An increasing number of development practitioners are focusing on strengthening entrepreneurial approaches to development. In this session, an accomplished group of experts, practitioners, and donors will discuss and debate the role of this growing form of aid and what it means for the United States.  

The global “Long War” against terror increasingly blurs the line between military and economic action. American success in volatile regions across the developing world depends not only on alleviating tensions but also on preventing them. But U.S. military and economic presence abroad has all too often been plagued by bureaucratic infighting and poor interagency coordination. An alternative strategy is to devolve more power to on-the-ground “country teams,” led by chiefs-of-mission who oversee U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic actions in-country. In this public exercise, AEI’s Thomas Donnelly and a team of military, diplomatic, and economic experts will simulate the decision-making process of a U.S. country team in Nigeria—exhibiting how a threat can be diffused before it becomes a crisis.