The dismantling of U.S.A.I.D. was contemptible for so many reasons333bet, not least of which that it was based on false claims and puts millions of the world’s most vulnerable at risk. If you think the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was bad, consider the chaos and death since this administration’s abrupt withdrawal from the entire world. Instead of winding down projects responsibly, the U.S. government left like a thief in the night, owing money, breaking promises and abandoning American aid workers in conflict zones.

h3pg

Although a federal judge on Tuesday cast U.S.A.I.D. a temporary lifeline, foreign aid as we knew it is gone. While some contracts might be brought back under the State Department, it’s unlikely that the U.S. government — the largest donor in the world, according to recent data — will soon restore its foreign aid to the level it was. That doesn’t mean the rest of us should give up trying to help other nations. Those who care about the world and America’s role in it need to create a new vision for what foreign aid could be.

It’s early days in the effort to reimagine aid, but this much is clear: It should be leaner and less bureaucratic. It should be based on partnerships that respond to local needs, not pronouncements from Washington. And it will sometimes be fueled by private donations rather than taxpayer dollars. A public discussion has already begun. For instance, Unlock Aid, a group that has been trying to reform foreign aid for years, is unveiling a series of new ideas this month.

The first step is acknowledging that the old system had flaws. To be sure, millions of lives were saved during famines and epidemics. But let’s be honest. U.S.A.I.D. could be inefficient and wasteful. It’s hard to talk about that because such acknowledgments get misused as weapons against foreign aid, but building a better blueprint requires it.

Part of the blame lies with Congress, which loaded up U.S.A.I.D. with burdensome regulations. That’s why, year after year, grants and contracts flowed to the same American behemoths that perfected the art of federal fund-raising. Last fiscal year, only about $2 billion — out of some tens of billions of dollars — went directly to local partners on the ground. Much of the rest of the money was funneled through international organizations like the World Bank, or big American nonprofits and companies that can spend as much as half of their budget on overhead costs like rent and salaries in the United States.

Top recipients of U.S.A.I.D. funds include the Baltimore-based Catholic Relief Services, which gets high marks for its work, and the Washington-based for-profit company Chemonics, which often doesn’t. (Chemonics just agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle claims of fraudulent billing, providing fodder for Elon Musk’s assault on aid.) Organizations like these pay local partners around the world to work on U.S.A.I.D.’s behalf. But it doesn’t always end well. According to one survey, many local partners who worked on subcontracts from U.S.A.I.D. said that they were barely consulted on budgets and work plans, and were paid less than what they were promised.

7jogos slots From the commentsVVincent KayijukaKigali, Rwanda

USAID doesn’t equal foreign aid. The problem with the concept of foreign aid is that it is “foreign” and it involves “aid”. If simple things that can be done by people themselves, such as a community seedling for vegetables, have to be done with and by USAID, then there is a fundamental issue. For every (local) initiative funded from foreign assistance, you can point to 2-4 genuinely initiatives that are “killed” or undermined. Don’t think in terms of aid, think in terms of investment, sharing technological advance and market opportunities.

Farah StockmanEditorial Board Member

@Vincent Kayijuka Thanks for your comment. Are there US programs that you feel ARE working? People often say "trade not aid" but it's not clear that this administration looks fondly on trade either.

Investors seem to think the central bank got it right. S&P 500 futures jumped on Thursday after the benchmark fell in volatile trading following the Fed’s decision. The prices of bonds and cryptocurrencies are rising, too. And this just in: The Bank of England voted to keep rates unchanged.

If the inflation continues to slow and the economy evolves as policymakers expect, “we should be able to reduce rates gradually over time,” Andrew Bailey, the governor of the cental bank, said in a statement on Thursday.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.333bet