McGinty Consulting Co Blog

USAID’s freeze has thrust the entire global aid system into uncertainty

Borja Santos Porras — Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:00:00 GMT

The Trump administration’s decision to suspend USAID workers for 90 days and pause most of its international aid work has rocked the foundations of the global aid system. The move, which has sparked outrage in the international community, threatens to destabilise vulnerable regions and halt decades of progress in economic development, health, and human rights.

Since its inception in 1961, USAID has been the cornerstone of US humanitarian assistance. It operates in around 130 countries, provides essential relief in humanitarian crises and health emergencies, and supports economic development in the world’s most vulnerable regions.

Its possible shutdown raises a crucial question: who will fill the void left by one of the world’s largest international aid agencies?

The impact of USAID cuts

If USAID closes down for good, it will mean an drop of around $40 billion in international aid per year, which will have dire consequences in certain key areas:

Humanitarian crises and food security: in countries such as Yemen, South Sudan and Syria, where millions of people depend on international aid, reduced funding threatens food security, disaster relief and health interventions. International aid agencies have warned that reduced funding will lead to the collapse of many assistance programmes in war zones.
Public health and disease prevention: essential programmes such as those covering HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, vaccination, and maternal and child care will be slashed. Suspending programmes like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) will leave 21 million people without treatment, reversing many of the gains that have been made. Pio Smith, UNFPA’s Asia-Pacific regional director, has warned that in Afghanistan alone, the absence of US support could lead to 1,200 maternal deaths and 109,000 additional unwanted pregnancies between 2025 and 2028. In regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, the withdrawal of funds will weaken efforts to contain infectious diseases, leaving millions of people without access to essential medical services.
Economic development and employment: Thousands of small businesses and communities will lose access to microcredit and financing. This will reduce job opportunities and slow economic growth in low-income countries. Without USAID support, many vulnerable communities will lose opportunities for employment and economic growth. USAID also employs over 10,000 people around the world, who now face an uncertain future.
Democracy and human rights: USAID’s withdrawal will weaken struggles for democracy and respect for human rights in countries where civil society faces increasing threats. Education and gender equality programmes have been hit hard, with USAID’s suspension cutting projects designed to improve access to education for girls, and people in marginalised communities.

According to UN data, the US government funded about 47% of the world’s humanitarian initiatives in 2024. The suspension of USAID leaves a huge gap in humanitarian aid.

The international community has reacted with alarm to the new US administration’s announcement. Abby Maxman, CEO and president of Oxfam America, has described the crisis as “a callous, destructive political power play that would have deadly consequences for millions of people living in dire humanitarian emergencies and extreme poverty”.

How effective is USAID?

It should be noted that the US international aid agency has not always adhered to the criteria set out in the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. These are divided into the following five commitments:

Ownership: For truly sustainable development, recipient countries need to design their own development policies and strategies with the support of donor countries. Recipients must also lead and manage the work on the ground.
Alignment: Donors need to firmly align their aid with the priorities outlined in national development strategies. They must use local procedures and institutions to manage their aid and build sustainable structures in recipient countries.
Harmonisation: Donors need to coordinate their development work in order to avoid duplicating efforts, or causing high costs for poorer countries.
Managing for results: All parties need to focus on the outcome, and on developing systems and tools to measure an aid programme’s impact.
Mutual accountability: Donors and recipients must be accountable to each other for how aid is used. This should also be extended to their own citizens and parliaments.

Generally speaking, USAID has worked as an instrument that serves US strategic interests. However, given the sheer volume of funds it handles, it will be difficult to find donors to take its place.

Moreover, USAID’s withdrawal reconfigures the geopolitical map of international aid. With the US out, other global actors could take its place.

China or Europe may fill the aid vacuum

The EU could be key to mitigating the impact of USAID’s shutdown. However, in 2021 the Commission switched from a more traditional model of development aid to one of global partnerships.

Through its Global Gateway Initiative, it has pledged investments of €300 billion in sectors such as health, infrastructure and sustainability between 2021 and 2027. The EU now has the geostrategic opportunity to prove itself as a reliable alternative at a critical moment.

China has emerged in recent decades as another rising alternative in international aid. Through its Belt and Road initiative, it has significantly increased its investment and presence in Africa and Latin America, though in some cases, its excessive funding has been criticised as “debt-trap diplomacy”.

The withdrawal of USAID presents China with an opportunity to further expand its soft power in emerging and low-income regions by providing funding and assistance to countries that were previously dependent on the US.

Development banks (entities such as the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean) may also take a more active role in filling the vacuum by channelling funding to critical projects in health, education and infrastructure. It remains to be seen, however, whether US participation in some of these organisations will be affected, and how much influence it will retain over them.

The private sector can also play a key role in mitigating the crisis through expanded funding and philanthropic endeavours.

The new panorama for international aid

Beyond the debate over how effective foreign aid is, USAID’s withdrawal reflects significant changes in global politics. The US appears to be turning its back on its legacy of leadership in development and humanitarian assistance, and this new reality demands a coordinated response. If the international community does not act quickly, the setbacks in health, education, food security and human rights in developing countries will be devastating.

The question is no longer just who will fill the vacuum left by USAID, but whether the world is ready to collectively take responsibility for global aid. In a context of rising nationalism and weakening multilateralism, the values that underpin international cooperation are at risk, as is the future of millions of people.

Original article here

Seven Monitoring & Evaluation Trends in Monitoring & Evaluation in 2024

Ann Murray Brown Institute — Sun, 19 Jan 2025 23:00:00 GMT

Artificial Intelligence

The use of AI will have increasing prominence in data analysis and reporting. Monitoring and Evaluation professionals will need to be proficient in the use of AI models to maintain their relevance in the marketplace.

Equity & Inclusion

M&E practitioners will be increasingly called upon to ensure that M&E activities are conducted in a way that addresses issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion. This involves examining the impacts of programs on marginalized populations and understanding how to measure progress in these areas. M&E methods that focus on participation, equity and inclusion will be in demand.

Adaptive and 'Complexity-Aware' methods

These approaches recognize that programmes and interventions are complex, dynamic and may require ongoing adjustments. As such, methods that allow for real-time feedback and adaptation will continue to be given attention. Likewise, evaluations will become more future sensitive so there will be exploration of methods such as foresight in the evaluation practice.

Environment & Climate

With a growing focus on sustainability and climate change, there is an increased interest in 'footprint evaluations' to gauge the effectiveness of programmes and interventions in this area.

Data Visualization, Story-Telling and Communication

Effectively communicating evaluation findings will continue to be relevant. This involves using data visualization and storytelling techniques to make complex information more accessible and

Understandable to a broader audience. Cultural Competency in Evaluation

This involves understanding and respecting the cultural context in which evaluations take place, and ensuring that evaluation methods are culturally sensitive and appropriate.

Focus on System Evaluation

This approach will increasingly be used to understand and assess complex social systems (which can encompass a wide range of entities such as organizations, networks, communities, or entire sectors).

Grab the PDF version here.

Guerre à Gaza : Les gagnants d’un cessez-le-feu sans paix

Abdelhak Bassou — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:00:00 GMT

La dynamique qui anime aujourd’hui le conflit israélo-palestinien, notamment la guerre que mènent à Gaza les troupes du Tsahal et les combattants du Hamas, appuyés par le Jihad islamique et les autres factions armées palestiniennes, laisse espérer un accord entre les parties prenantes pour mettre fin à une guerre qui a généré des dizaines de milliers de morts et de blessés. Espoirs nourris par le dernier discours (31 mai) du président américain qui détaille, on ne peut plus clair, les étapes d’un plan de paix auquel Joe Biden voudrait voir Israël et Hamas adhérer sans réserve.

La question reste cependant posée de savoir si les pressions américaines, après celles de la communauté internationale, arriveraient à rassembler les deux belligérants autour d’une table de négociation qui finaliserait l’accord et mettrait fin à la guerre :

- d’une part, Israël continue à entretenir le brouillard en déclarant qu’elle a élargi les marges de ses négociateurs pour parvenir à un accord, tout en maintenant ses positions initiales consistant en son refus de tout cessez-le-feu préalable à l’affaiblissement des capacités militaires et de gouvernement du Hamas de manière que cette organisation ne puisse à l’avenir détenir aucun rôle dans l’autorité qui gouvernera Gaza après la guerre et ;

- d’autre part, Hamas, qui dit considérer positivement les clauses du discours du président américain, affirme qu’il ne saurait être question de son exclusion d’un quelconque gouvernement à Gaza après la guerre, et qu’aucun accord ne prévoyant pas un cessez-le-feu total et définitif assorti de l’évacuation de toutes les forces israéliennes présentes dans la bande de Gaza, ne pourrait être accepté par l’organisation.

L’espoir reste donc altéré par le doute que suggèrent les postures des deux protagonistes qui prennent leur temps pour manœuvrer au grand dam des populations palestiniennes et israéliennes qui subissent les affres de la guerre.

Où allons-nous donc dans cette guerre ? Se prolongerait-elle sans fin ? Ou cesserait-elle, comme le veut le président américain et une large partie de la communauté internationale ?

Il est une analyse qui laisse penser que les deux parties ne tarderont pas à trouver la voie vers un accord qui leur permettrait, chacun de son côté, de proclamer la victoire ; surtout qu’un cessez-le-feu qui autorise le retour au statu quo d’avant le 7 octobre semble être une solution dont les deux parties tireraient profit. Solution favorable, également, au président Joe Biden qui, en mettant fin à la guerre, marquerait des points supplémentaires dans sa campagne électorale.

Biden sauverait l’accusé Netanyahou et gagnerait un argument de campagne

Le président Biden, donné perdant par tous les sondages d’opinion face à Donald Trump, aurait fort besoin d’un succès qui lui permettrait de redorer son blason face à l’électorat américain. Cependant, la grande réussite que serait la cessation de la guerre de Gaza et dont aurait besoin le président Biden ne saurait être obtenue sans l’accord de Netanyahou, un premier ministre qui risque, non seulement d’être trainé devant les tribunaux israéliens, mais certainement jugé et emprisonné. La seule manière d’obtenir sa collaboration est de l’aider à être lavé de tout soupçon, voire à conserver son poste :

- très influents dans la politique intérieure israélienne, les Américains pourraient intervenir, dans les coulisses, auprès des protagonistes de Netanyahou et notamment ceux qui encouragent la fin de la guerre, afin d’obtenir le blanchiment de l’ardoise judiciaire de Netanyahou, au cas où celui-ci ne s’oppose pas et n’entrave pas un accord de cessez-le-feu et d’échange de prisonniers avec le Hamas ;

- Netanyahou pourrait même être aidé à aller jusqu’à la fin de son mandat, même s’il est lâché par son extrême droite. Le chef de l’opposition israélienne Yair Lapide, avait même déclaré le 1er juin -peut-être en accord avec l’administration Biden- qu’il offrirait au premier ministre israélien un « filet de sécurité » au cas où il est menacé, par la droite extrême, de dissolution de l’actuel majorité. Reste seulement à savoir si Netanyahou fait confiance à Yair lapide, sans une garantie américaine.

Si l’accord de cessation des hostilités est conclu, le président Biden ferait figure du grand président qui aura géré un conflit des plus complexes et qui aura évité à la région une escalade dangereuse. Il n’aura ainsi pas grand mal à rattraper le retard sur le candidat Trump entamé par sa condamnation pour quelques 34 chefs d’accusation par le tribunal de New York. Un tel gain justifierait le plein engagement du président Biden qui, dans son discours du 30 mai, avait semblé fortement résolu à faire parvenir Israël et le Hamas à un accord.

Le Hamas obtient une image de victoire qui lui permet de conserver le pouvoir à Gaza et d’échapper à une mainmise de l’autorité palestinienne.

En dépit des dommages subis par la population de Gaza, le Hamas pourrait proclamer la victoire dans la guerre contre un ennemi qui n’aurait pas réussi à l’éradiquer. L’image des combattants d’Al Qassam, des brigades Al Quds et autres factions armées tirant en l’air et clamant la victoire contre une grande armée, voilerait et relèguerait au second plan le lourd prix payé par la population de Gaza (36 000 morts et 80 000 blessés) pour une victoire à la Pyrrhusdu Hamas.

Le Hamas pourrait s’enorgueillir d’avoir empêché l’armée israélienne d’atteindre les objectifs stratégiques définis par Netanyahou le 8 octobre 2023, consistant en :

- la libération par la pression militaire des otages, détenus à Gaza par les différentes factions armées de la résistance ;

- l’éradication du Hamas ou, du moins, l’affaiblissement de ses capacités militaires et administratives dans la bande de Gaza ;

- l’instauration de la sécurité pour les agglomérations de l’enveloppe entourant Gaza en éradiquant les capacités balistiques du Hamas.

Avec une telle image, l’autorité palestinienne ne pourrait plus prétendre pouvoir revenir à la bande de Gaza et Hamas échapperait à la mainmise de ses frères ennemis de l’OLP.

À qui profite un cessez-le-feu sans paix ?

Si Netanyahou est assuré de terminer son mandat et d’échapper à la justice de son pays et que le Hamas est assuré de garder sa domination sur Gaza, le grand perdant ne peut être que la cause palestinienne. Hamas est opposée à la solution des deux États, tout comme Netanyahou. Chacun d’entre eux prétend que sa mère-patrie est toute la Palestine « de la mer au fleuve », et que l’autre doit disparaitre. En attendant, ils s’accommodent de la situation de ni guerre ni paix qui permet au Hamas de s’accaparer de Gaza et d’avoir un espace à gouverner en dehors de toute autre autorité palestinienne et, à Israël, de toujours évoquer le déchirement des Palestiniens pour n'adhérer à aucune initiative de solution à deux États.

Le président Biden aura gagné d’avoir un argument de campagne qui lui permet de combler l’écart qui le sépare de son antagoniste, amoindri par les affaires judicaires.

Si l’éclatement de la guerre avait nourri l’espoir de voir les extrémismes palestinien et israélien disparaitre pour laisser place à des gouvernements plus raisonnables qui adhérent à la solution des deux États, le projet de cessez-le-feu annoncé par le président Biden semble leur permettre de survivre et de prolonger l’état de ni guerre ni paix dont Netanyahou et Hamas s’accommodent en attendant la réalisation de leur rêve ultime : régner sur toute la Palestine.

Netanyahou et Hamas sont certes ennemis, mais ils se rencontrent dans leur opposition à une solution à deux États. Ils peuvent s’entendre sur un cessez-le-feu sans paix et un retour à la situation pré-sept octobre, qui ne peut léser que la solution juste et véritable, celle des deux États.

Entre la période des négociations (3 à 6 mois) et la longue période de reconstruction (3 à 5 ans), d’autres événements viendront faire oublier la question de base : celle de la création d’un État palestinien. Lorsque les armes se tairont, rien ne presserait pour une solution finale ; il n’y aurait plus le feu au lac.

Article d'origine ici

World Economic Outlook — Steady but Slow : Resilience amid Divergence

International Monetary Fund — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 GMT

Economic activity was surprisingly resilient through the global disinflation of 2022–23. As global inflation descended from its mid-2022 peak, economic activity grew steadily, defying warnings of stagflation and global recession. Growth in employment and incomes held steady, reflecting supportive demand developments, including greater-than-expected government spending and household consumption, as well as a supply-side expansion, notably an unanticipated boost to labor force participation. The unexpected economic resilience, despite significant central bank interest rate hikes aimed at restoring price stability, also reflects the ability of households in major advanced economies to draw on substantial savings accumulated during the pandemic. Additionally, changes in mortgage and housing markets over the prepandemic decade of low interest rates moderated the near-term impact of policy rate hikes. As inflation converges toward target levels and central banks pivot toward policy easing in many economies, a tightening of fiscal policies aimed at curbing high government debt, with higher taxes and lower government spending, is expected to weigh on growth.

Global growth, estimated at 3.2 percent in 2023, is projected to continue at the same pace in 2024 and 2025. The forecast for 2024 is revised up by 0.1 percentage point from the January 2024 World Economic Outlook (WEO) Update, and by 0.3 percentage point from the October 2023 WEO. The pace of expansion is low by historical standards, owing to both near-term factors, such as still-high borrowing costs and withdrawal of fiscal support, and longer-term effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; weak growth in productivity; and increasing geoeconomic fragmentation. Global headline inflation is expected to fall from an annual average of 6.8 percent in 2023 to 5.9 percent in 2024 and 4.5 percent in 2025, with advanced economies returning to their inflation targets sooner than emerging market and developing economies. The latest forecast for global growth five years from now, at 3.1 percent, is at its lowest in decades. The pace of convergence toward higher living standards for middle- and lower-income countries has slowed, implying a persistence in global economic disparities. The relatively weak medium-term outlook reflects lower growth in GDP per person stemming, notably, from persistent structural frictions preventing capital and labor from moving to productive firms. Additionally, dimmer prospects for growth in China and other large emerging market economies, given their increasing share of the global economy, will weigh on the prospects of trading partners.

Risks to the global outlook are now broadly balanced. On the downside, new price spikes stemming from geopolitical tensions, including those from the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza and Israel, could, along with persistent core inflation where labor markets are still tight, raise interest rate expectations and reduce asset prices. A divergence in disinflation speeds among major economies could also cause currency movements that put financial sectors under pressure. High interest rates could have greater cooling effects than envisaged as fixed-rate mortgages reset and households contend with high debt, causing financial stress. In China, without a comprehensive response to the troubled property sector, growth could falter, hurting trading partners. Amid high government debt in many economies, a disruptive turn to tax hikes and spending cuts could weaken activity, erode confidence, and sap support for reform and spending to reduce risks from climate change. Geoeconomic fragmentation could intensify, with higher barriers to the flow of goods, capital, and people implying a supply-side slowdown. On the upside, looser fiscal policy than necessary and assumed in projections could raise economic activity in the short term, although risking more costly policy adjustment later on. Inflation could fall faster than expected amid further gains in labor force participation, allowing central banks to bring easing plans forward. Artificial intelligence and stronger structural reforms than anticipated could spur productivity.

As the global economy approaches a soft landing, the near-term priority for central banks is to ensure that inflation touches down smoothly, by neither easing policies prematurely nor delaying too long.

Original report here