Old wine in new bottles

This is the fifth of seven parts in the Devex series “Foreign aid effectiveness: A radical rethink,” written by Diana Ohlbaum — a former deputy director of USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives and senior professional staff member of the two congressional panels overseeing U.S. foreign affairs.

Ask a member of the U.S. Congress what is meant by “country ownership,” and if you get anything other than a blank stare, it is likely to be something along the lines of “an entitlement for corrupt foreign governments.” The idea that development works better if the people with a direct stake in the outcome play a leading role in selecting priorities, designing strategies, managing programs and evaluating results is one that hasn’t quite penetrated the Capital Beltway.

Yet country ownership is a concept that politicians, administration officials and aid practitioners will need to embrace if they are serious about ending aid dependency and helping countries “graduate” from assistance. Exerting tight control over aid resources may seem like the responsible way to conduct oversight in the short term, but as we continue to pile on restrictions and requirements that are designed to feed U.S. political processes rather than to build local capacity and self-reliance, we are defeating the entire point of the aid enterprise.