Since 2008, when sudden steep increases in the cost of
basic foods resulted in tens of millions of newly hungry
people, the G-8 has focused on enabling developing countries to build food security. In May 2012, just before the
United States hosted the most recent G-8 summit, President Obama gave the first speech on global hunger ever
given by an American president while in office. He announced a new partnership to speed efforts to end hunger
and improve child nutrition, particularly in the 1,000-day
“window of opportunity” between pregnancy and a child’s
second birthday. The president also reaffirmed the commitments made by the G-8 at the 2009 summit in L’Aquila,
Italy, to strengthen agriculture and food security. The United States initiated the L’Aquila plan, and our country is on
track to fulfill its financial commitment, largely through the
relatively new Feed the Future initiative.
Increasingly, countries with “emerging” economies—
such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa—are starting their own development assistance programs, augmenting the resources provided by traditional donors such as the
United States. Many of these new donors are middle-income
countries (meaning those with incomes ranging from about
$1,000 to $12,000 per person per year). Often, they are
“graduates” of development assistance themselves. Some still
receive assistance with specific projects but are experienced
donors in other areas. Many emerging donors have the advantage of being able to share their own recent experiences
with efforts to build a stronger economy and enable more
people to benefit from it. New donors are also important
because aid budgets from traditional donors are constrained.
Until fairly recently, developing countries were commonly referred to as aid “recipients” and too often relegated
to the passive role that this term suggests. They rarely had
much influence when decisions were made about priorities for foreign assistance programs or strategies for carrying them out. But this model of development assistance is
changing rapidly.
International Development:
Who Are Our Partners?
David Snyder
Some international partnerships are “bilateral,” or between the United States and one other country. Others
are group or “multilateral” efforts. These can range from
supporting and participating in large organizations such as
UNICEF or the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization
to working in teams with fewer partners and a narrower
focus—perhaps preventing and curing dengue fever, or developing better ways to capture and purify rainwater.
Two important partnerships are the G-8 and G-20,
shorthand for the “group of 8” and “group of 20” countries.
The G-8 countries are mainly traditional development donors, such as the U.K., France, and Canada, while the G-20
brings together many of the world’s largest economies. Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, the United States, and the
European Union are all G-20 members. Both groups were
created in the recognition that many issues require collective action: no single country has enough power or influence to solve the problem.
Creating More Effective Partnerships
A woman weeds crops by hand. Coordination among development partners is particularly important in agriculture programs,
including this one that focuses on equipping farmers in Malawi to
increase food supplies by planting crops year-round.
The “donor-led” model of development ha s important
disadvantages. Development programs may be less effective,
.06 percent
About 85 percent:
amount of Kenya’s public
spending paid for by Kenyan
taxpayers.
Percentage of U.S. budget spent
on development assistance.
2