Stanford scholar warns aid–diplomacy mergers carry hidden costs
International relations lecturer Rachel George presented her research on aid and diplomacy agency mergers at an event sponsored by the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) on Tuesday.
Her study found that such mergers have destabilizing effects in countries worldwide as the Trump administration shuts down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and merges its remaining operations into the Department of State.
“Generally, if agencies merge their aid apparatus into a Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aid spending reduces.” George said.
The merger of aid and diplomacy agencies is not a new idea but an ongoing pattern outside the U.S. Countries such as the U.K., Australia and Canada have been on track to developing a more integrated aid-diplomacy system. Except for a few outliers, George observes that most of the sample countries struggled to maintain their commitment to provide 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) to support developing nations in accordance with a U.N. goal.
According to George, mergers also tend to erode development expertise inside governments. Specialized staff are often replaced by generalist diplomats, senior development posts are cut and long-standing relationships with local partners weaken. In the case of Australia, she said, 13 of 16 senior officials who left their position after the merger came from the aid side.
The mergers have not been without benefits. George pointed to cases in Canada and the U.K. where co-locating diplomats and development officials improved coordination and fostered mutual understanding.
“In the UK, the Ebola response in Uganda was seen as some form of merger success,” George said. “The FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office), at the time, was able to deploy an integrated humanitarian, political and technical response…and people were sort of all working on the same team.”
George said despite her research focus on mergers in non-U.S. countries, her findings might help make sense of the implications of the USAID closure and its merger with the State Department.
Emily Tallo, a post doc fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), probed the scope of George’s research question after the presentation.
“Maybe the question shouldn’t be are mergers good or bad, but when are mergers good and when are mergers bad?” Tallo said in an interview with The Daily. “Understanding whether I find the problem to be with the policy or with the people running the policy is important.”
Political science professor and Freeman Spogli Institute director Michael McFaul, attended the presentation and expressed his dismay at the closure of USAID.
“I believe it has been absolutely devastating for the American national interest to shut down USAID,” McFaul said to The Daily after the presentation. “To think that America can compete with China in the 21st-century without USAID is naïve and extremely dangerous.”
The post Stanford scholar warns aid–diplomacy mergers carry hidden costs appeared first on The Stanford Daily.