Establishing the President's Global Development Council

Overview

Purpose and Establishment

Executive Order 13600, issued by President Barack Obama on February 9, 2012, establishes the President's Global Development Council. This directive aims to strengthen the United States' global development efforts by promoting development as a fundamental aspect of national power. By integrating development with diplomacy and defense, the order seeks to protect national security and advance America's economic and strategic interests worldwide. It highlights the importance of development in achieving a just and sustainable international order, a core tenet of the 2010 National Security Strategy and the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development.

Structural Formation

The Executive Order sets up the Council within the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), guided by the foreign policy and budgetary oversight of the Secretary of State. The Council's composition includes senior government officials and up to twelve external individuals from diverse sectors. These sectors include higher education, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, civil society, and private industry, ensuring a range of perspectives and expertise informs the Council's operations.

Functional Objectives

A core mission of the Council is to inform U.S. global development policy through strategic advice to the President on various issues. These include innovations in development practice, collaboration between the government and private sectors, and promoting public awareness on crucial global development matters. The Council is tasked with identifying best practices and fostering public-private partnerships to further economic development priorities. By soliciting public input and addressing emerging issues, the Council aims to create more effective and sustainable development policy solutions.

Commitment to Evidence-Based Decisions

The order emphasizes the use of evidence-based decision-making in development programs, aiming to increase the effectiveness of U.S. development policy. By fostering global development expertise and learning, the order commits to enhancing the quality and impact of U.S. development efforts. The requirement for periodic meetings and provision for public and stakeholder engagement ensures constant evaluation and adjustment of strategies as needed.

Temporal Limitations and Continuity

The order specifies that the Council will terminate two years after its establishment unless renewed by the President, highlighting a built-in review mechanism that allows for assessment and adjustment of its mandates as necessary. This structure supports the dynamic nature of global development challenges and reflects an adaptive governance approach allowing modifications based on evolving global needs and priorities.

Legal and Policy Implications

Alignment with National Security Strategy

The Executive Order builds upon the 2010 National Security Strategy, thereby embedding development as an integral part of national power alongside defense and diplomacy. By codifying development policy, it elevates its importance within the national security framework, potentially leading to increased resources and policy attention toward global development initiatives.

Statutory Authority and Constitutionality

The order is issued under the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and U.S. laws. As with many executive directives, it asserts the President's authority to organize and direct executive departments to achieve policy objectives. The creation of the Council does not amend any existing laws but operates within the framework provided by current statutes, emphasizing interdepartmental collaboration and strategy alignment with existing foreign aid laws and budgets.

Policy Paradigm Shift

This order signifies a policy shift towards a more holistic approach to global engagement, recognizing development's potential to achieve security and economic objectives. It implies a strategic rethinking of how the U.S. can leverage its resources and influence in international development, potentially affecting how aid is distributed and how partnerships are formed both domestically and internationally.

Commitment to Public-Private Partnerships

The emphasis on public-private partnerships underscores a policy direction that recognizes the value of collaboration with the private sector in development. This approach could lead to policy adjustments that encourage or mandate greater corporate involvement in development activities, impacting sectors ranging from technology and finance to education and health care.

Impact on Agency Operations

The order tasks USAID with providing administrative support to the Council, which may lead to increased coordination within executive departments. It could also influence USAID's operational focus, directing attention and resources to aligning its projects with the broader strategic objectives outlined in the order, potentially influencing future budgets and agency priorities.

Who Benefits

Beneficiaries in Global Development

The primary beneficiaries of Executive Order 13600 are likely to be developing countries that receive U.S. aid. By focusing on innovative, evidence-based approaches and longer-term solutions to development challenges, the order aims to improve the impact and effectiveness of U.S. development assistance, potentially enhancing conditions in recipient countries.

Private Sector Engagement

The directive benefits the private sector, especially companies and industries involved in sectors such as infrastructure, technology, and sustainable development. By encouraging public-private partnerships, the order creates opportunities for businesses to engage in development projects that can open new markets and generate economic opportunities while aligning with corporate social responsibility goals.

Non-Profit Organizations and NGOs

Non-profit organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) stand to benefit from increased participation in shaping development policy. The inclusion of external Council members from these sectors suggests an openness to incorporating diverse, field-based insights into policy discussions, which may enhance the effectiveness of development programs and lead to more holistic solutions.

Educational Institutions

Academic institutions could benefit from this order by being involved in research and policy discussions concerning development. The emphasis on research and development in low and middle-income economies presents opportunities for universities to contribute expertise, participate in development projects, and attract funding for research initiatives aligned with national priorities.

Civic Engagement and Public Awareness

The emphasis on promoting public awareness and soliciting public input could empower communities and individuals to participate more actively in shaping U.S. development policies. This could lead to increased civic engagement and the integration of grassroots perspectives in strategic planning, ultimately improving policy relevance and acceptance.

Who Suffers

Budget Reallocation Concerns

One potential consequence is the redirection of resources within already tight government budgets, which could inadvertently underfund other domestic priorities or programs. If development initiatives prioritized by the Council require significant funding, this could necessitate shifts that might negatively affect other areas.

Potential Industry Disadvantages

Certain industries that do not align with green or sustainable development priorities may face challenges, as policies shift towards supporting development models that emphasize sustainability and low-carbon futures. This could affect sectors like fossil fuel extraction if policies encourage divestment or limit funding for projects not aligned with sustainable development goals.

Impact on Smaller NGOs

While NGOs broadly could benefit, smaller organizations might face challenges competing for attention and funding against larger, more established NGOs. The requirement of demonstrable impact and scalability could favor larger organizations with more resources and established track records, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller entities.

Concerns of Overreach

Critics might see this Executive Order as an expansion of executive power in foreign policy, with concerns about bureaucratic overreach or a lack of checks and balances. Such a perception could undermine support for the Council's initiatives among stakeholders concerned about concentrated decision-making authority in the executive branch.

International Relations Ramifications

While the intention is to bolster global partnerships, there's a risk that other countries may perceive this move as a unilateral U.S. effort to impose its development agendas, potentially leading to diplomatic friction or resistance to American-led initiatives. This perception could complicate partnerships with other nations and multilateral organizations.

Historical Context

Obama Administration's Policy Directions

The establishment of the President's Global Development Council fits within the broader policy trend of the Obama administration to engage globally through comprehensive strategies integrating development with security and diplomacy. It aligns with the administration’s view of development as indispensable to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.

Historical Shifts in Development Policy

This order reflects a shift from traditional aid models towards more integrated, partnership-driven approaches, emphasizing sustainability and evidence-based strategies. Historically, U.S. development efforts have evolved from a primary focus on providing financial aid to fostering international collaboration and promoting systemic change in recipient countries.

Comparative Executive Actions

Compared to past administrations, the Obama administration sought to redefine U.S. foreign aid policy by focusing on long-term development impacts rather than immediate outputs. This reflects a broader global shift towards understanding development as a multifaceted process that requires collaboration across sectors and borders.

Link to National Security Strategy

The order draws directly from the 2010 National Security Strategy, which posited that development is equally important as diplomacy and defense in securing a nationally and globally stable environment. This triad approach represents a significant policy evolution, positioning development as a core national interest rather than peripheral support.

Continuity and Change

While the establishment of the Council represents a strategic evolution, it is also a continuation of longstanding U.S. efforts to use foreign aid as a tool for international influence and stability. The structural and functional innovations introduced here echo earlier trends but with enhanced coordination and strategic focus reflective of 21st-century challenges.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Legal Challenges and Executive Power

While the Council operates within the President's executive authority, there could be legal challenges regarding the scope and impact of its influence, particularly if stakeholders perceive it as overstepping congressional powers or budgetary controls. Legal disputes could arise over the delineation of powers between branches of government.

Congressional Oversight and Approval

Congress may scrutinize the Council's operations and decisions, particularly regarding budget allocations and the integration of defense and development initiatives. Concerned lawmakers might argue for increased oversight and input, potentially resulting in legislative proposals to amend or restrict the Council's authority and operations.

Operational and Implementation Hurdles

As with any new governmental body, the Council may face operational challenges in establishing its processes, achieving objectives, and effectively coordinating with numerous stakeholders. Delays or inefficiencies in implementation could hinder its ability to fulfill its mandates, resulting in critiques of its effectiveness and relevance.

International Perception and Diplomacy

There is a risk that despite the order’s intentions, international perceptions may misconstrue U.S. development policies as self-serving. The success of the Council might depend heavily on diplomatic efforts to reassure global partners of the mutual benefits and equitable intentions behind proposed initiatives and strategies.

Resource and Priority Balancing

Ensuring balanced allocation of resources between the Council’s objectives and other federal priorities could become a contentious point. Any perceived trade-offs might lead to domestic political challenges, challenging the administration to justify and defend the reallocation of resources against competing national interests or pressing domestic issues.