Aid in the Age of Austerity

In an effort to reduce the nation's debt, Congress has proposed radical cuts to the State Department, which will limit America's projected influence abroad, The New York Times reports.

These cuts mark the most significant reduction in the U.S. aid budget in nearly two decades, echoing times in the early Clinton Administration soon after the end of the Cold War. Just as in the early 1990s, today's Republicans and Democrats place fiscal austerity at the top of the Congressional agenda.

This makes U.S. development and security efforts abroad much more challenging, as the State Department begins prioritizing its goals. Democratic and Republican propose cuts across the board, shrinking the Obama administration's proposal of $59 billion down by as much as 20%. Both proposals include a contingency fund of at least $7.6 billion for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in anticipation of upcoming troop withdraws. Conditions have been placed on aid to Pakistan, Egypt and Palestine as insurance against mismanagement in these volatile areas. One of the largest single recipients of U.S. aid, Israel will keep all of its $3 billion.

The Obama Administration's reliance on 'smart power,' a mixture of coercion, soft power, and economic initiatives will be harder to sustain without the funds necessary to address foreign development. Jim Norris, a former U.S.A.I.D. official warned that the budget reduction might lead to increasing American isolationism and return to a pre-9/11 atmosphere that failed to notice impending threats from abroad.

Others warn that cuts to foreign aid weaken America's image as a global friend to those in crisis. They argue that these cuts make only negligible contributions to debt reduction and that the effect on would-be recipients presents a much greater threat to U.S. interests. American influence depends heavily on foreign aid, so spending cuts threaten to undermine America's ability to project itself on the global stage.

Some argue that inflated governmental budgets result from bureaucratic inefficiency and that the spending cuts will force the State Department to streamline initiatives and remove project duplication. Recent proposals also signal a return to long-standing Republican values, barring organizations that perform abortions or engage in needle exchanges from receiving funds.

What are the implications of decreased U.S. development aid around the world? Are these spending cuts likely to make the State Department a more efficient global actor or render it impotent?

-Rachel