Reactions to the QDDR

The release of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) has so far been received with cautious optimism. Josh Rogin writes that several development NGOs have “praised” the QDDR, while also expressing skepticism: “Paul O’Brien, vice president of policy and advocacy campaigns for Oxfam America, noted that while the QDDR clearly puts ambassadors and chiefs of missions at the head of country teams as the so-call ‘CEOs’ of American diplomacy, it doesn’t tackle how the inevitable conflicts between short-term foreign policy objectives and longer-term development goals are resolved.”

Connie Veillette, writing at the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance blog, says that there are “many things to like,” including a “focus on improving hiring, staffing, and filling the mid-level gap through more flexible mechanisms.” However, she does list several points of “unfinished business,” including “how will State and USAID grapple with managing more than two dozen government agencies engaged in some type of foreign assistance program?” Siddartha Mahanta sounds a pessimistic note: “the United States diplomatic corps might get a major boost in power and personnel. Realistically? They probably won’t.” He goes on to describe the political roadblocks facing the reforms, and how Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who has advocated for cuts in the State Department budget and is set to become the chairperson of the House Foreign Services Committee, may prove to be uncooperative.