Asif Shaikh's Remarks from January 13th SID-W Chapter Event

 SID-Washington January Chapter Event

CIDC: Introducing the New Kid on the Block

Asif Shaikh, President, International Resources Group (IRG)

Friday, January 13, 2012

Thank you, Betsy, and let me also thank our friends at SID-Washington for hosting us today. And our Fearless Leader, Dan Runde. It’s been a while since I was introduced under the heading of “The New Kid on the Block,” so I am especially pleased to be here!

I want to talk about three things:

• I will start with a few words about CIDC< without repeating what Betsy has already covered.

• I then want to shift the focus of this discussion. To move from looking inward at the implementer community to looking outward at the needs of developing countries and thier people. We need to start with what people need, and work backward from there to decide what to provide and who should provide it. I have said many times that development is what they do; not what we do. We can only help.
• I will close with why this discussion is relevant to CIDC, and, I believe, to all of us in this room and community.

Nothing exhaustive - just a few words on each point to make the point and to spur the discussion.

A BRIEF WORD ABOUT CIDC

At the outset, there was uncertainty whether the CIDC could productively represent the interests of the entire development effort.

• When we officially launched CIDC back in June, I think some in the development community assumed we would seek to drive a wedge between the for-profit sector and NGOs.  There was a concern, not just in the non-CIDC community, but amongst its members, about forming an organization that might not just be misunderstood by the community at large, but also by itself. Now, just over 6 months later, I am pleased with how we’ve turned out: it’s clear that we are not here to divide the community.    
  

The CIDC seeks to foster an environment where binaries, like non-profit vs. for-profit, government vs. non-government implementers, are broken down so that we can focus on our purpose: the pursuit of effective development.

• The reality is that the seemingly simple term “development” lumps together programs with myriad complex goals and processes affecting billions of people most in need around the world.  Smart development policy – the kind of policy we at the CIDC support – should leverage the best that America has to offer, whether it comes from our companies, or non-profits, or think tanks, or universities, or government.  The “best” resides in all of these places, often times working in tandem. I have spent a lifetime working to break down the boundaries between the various development actors, so that we can move beyond the false dichotomies that hinder our ability to be effective.

We, the CIDC, support the goals USAID has put forward over the past two years to improve foreign aid effectiveness, better measure results, and promote local capacity building. 

• Those are efforts we have been supporting for decades, by building competitive free markets and multi-stakeholder societies.  CIDC members work under contracts that give the government direct control over our work and our results.

WHAT DO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THEIR PEOPLE NEED?

I speak purely for myself on this subject; not for the CIDC, not for IRG. So let me be clear about what I believe: I believe the necessary conditions for development are 1) equitable economic growth and 2) good governance. It does not have to be perfect. But I know of no examples in history (and if there are, they are the exceptions that prove the rule), where large numbers of people have been lifted out of poverty without:

• Self-sustaining economic growth that creates opportunity and spreads prosperity.
• A reasonably stable, moderately benign and reasonably predictable governance framework
  
  • Countries have to work. But they do not have to be perfect.  Look at India and China, who have collectively lifted 700 million people into the middle class in thirty years.

Those are the GOALS. The key is to be careful about confusing goals with means. The implications are huge for programming and policy.

Let's take the example of a hot topic: "country ownership." The ultimate goal of development, country ownership, means a country and its people can own their destiny. Country ownership is a goal, not a means. In achieving that goal, there is no "one size fits all."

• In some cases, this involves owning the money that is given for development assistance. I don’t think I would surprise anyone here by saying that giving dollars to some governments does not mean giving to the people the governments claim to represent.  There is an MCC-like set of criteria needed here: where countries and national public and private institutions are proving themselves, it makes perfect sense for them to be primary implementers.  They know their own countries best, and using them is far more cost-effective.  But not all countries – and not all sectors within a country – are there yet.  Issues that contribute to this -- lack of transparency, different standards of how “business is done,”  and different practices of public financial accountability -- these are things we know exist. Yet, we must not forget that there are some foreign organizations that have proven themselves capable. Often, however, cash isn’t the key problem. Capacity is the issue. Ultimately, we must transition to empowering those organizations and governments toward country ownership. Country ownership is the goal; it is not always the means.

Development is what people, societies and governments do for themselves, aned America's ever-more-scarce foreign aid dollars must be targeted to help them get there.

• Donors are a minority shareholder in development. What is the majority? Private investment (domestic and international), technology, knowledge, ideas and peoples’ innate genius for creating success when enabling conditions are right.
• Today, 85% of the capital flows from the U.S. to developing countries are private.  When you add in the other forces that will shape the future of development, including technology, knowledge and ideas, donors are probably 5% shareholders.  This changes not just the proportion of what we do, but it must also change the nature of what we do.  We must focus our resources on helping make countries the kinds of countries that can attract and unleash private initiative, and that allow ideas and knowledge and initiative to flourish.
• So foreign aid is a lever, but the drivers come from non-aid tools: technology, trade, investment, connectivity, a framework of common values and the spread of opportunity. Access to knowledge, and thus, ideas, generated by national development companies, universitites, think-tanks. And most importantly accountable governments. 

Any organization doing substantially the same kinds of the things in 10 years as it's doing now doesn't deserve to stay in business because the needs of developing countries are changing.

• They need solutions, not just advice. The CIDC stands for bringing real expertise, being held to standards of acountibility and transparency, and above all, working for the government to achieve its goals in foreign policy. this raises an imnportant point that I've made before, but bears repeating in this context: ultimately, it is not about what "we," the implementers, do. It is about how the U.S. government allocates funding to foreign assistance to bend the curve and change the scale and trajectory of global poverty and inequality. We exist to help the government do these things correctly.
  
  

WHY IS THIS RELEVANT TO THE CIDC MESSAGE?

• Thinking in terms of Dan Runde’s term about the “Development Ecosystem,” supporting development success means we must provide the best that America has to offer.
• There are certain types of expertise best ofrfered for the for-profit sector, and other types offered by non-profits, universities, think tanks, and by government. This is our core message. it is in support of these core beliefs that the CIDC has emerged and will continue to work.