No result found
Pew Global Attitudes Project;
Presents survey findings about views of the United States and its foreign policy, President Barack Obama, China, economic issues, and Iran, with ratings of other world leaders as well as countries and multilateral institutions.
This study, written by Joan Spero during her two-year tenure as visiting fellow at the Foundation Center, draws upon interviews with foundation presidents, program officers, and philanthropic experts; Foundation Center data; and Ms. Spero's own past experience as president of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation to paint a detailed historical picture of international work by U.S. foundations from the Cold War to the present. It focuses on how foundations have addressed five global challenges -- health disparities, poverty, climate change, democracy and civil society, and peace and security -- and raises important questions regarding the assessment of foundation impact, the role of foundations in global governance, and institutional accountability.
Giving by U.S. foundations for international purposes held virtually steady last year, generating $6.7 billion, down just 4 percent. According to International Grantmaking Update: A Snapshot of U.S. Foundation Trends, a new report prepared by the Foundation Center in cooperation with the Council on Foundations, this decrease was less than half the 8.4 percent estimated decline in foundation giving overall last year. This latest update of the Foundation Center's benchmark series on international grantmaking examines changes in overall giving through 2009 based on a survey of leading funders. It also documents trends in giving through 2008 based on actual grants awarded by over 1,000 of the largest U.S. foundations.
Institute of Medicine;
Outlines the need for making a commitment to improving global health an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Suggestions include creating a White House Interagency Committee on Global Health and directing more funds to chronic disease programs.
Funders Concerned About AIDS;
Analyzes data on U.S. foundations' HIV/AIDS-related funding compared with previous years and projected funding for 2010. Examines trends by type of funder, recipient region, types of organizations and projects supported, and population served.
Center for Economic and Policy Research;
Recent estimates of the U.S. economic gains that would result from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are very small -- only 0.13 percent of GDP by 2025. Taking into account the un-equalizing effect of trade on wages, this paper finds the median wage earner will probably lose as a result of any such agreement. In fact, most workers are likely to lose -- the exceptions being some of the bottom quarter or so whose earnings are determined by the minimum wage; and those with the highest wages who are more protected from international competition. Rather, many top incomes will rise as a result of TPP expansion of the terms and enforcement of copyrights and patents. The long-term losses, going forward over the same period (to 2025), from the failure to restore full employment to the United States have been some 25 times greater than the potential gains of the TPP, and more than five times as large as the possible gains resulting from a much broader trade agenda.
The U.S. Congress should fully fund the administration's $47.8 billion request for base international affairs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. This request represents a 6% reduction from FY 12 funding levels and a 14% reduction from the FY 13 request, reflecting the difficult budget environment that lawmakers currently face. The foreign affairs budget, which represents less than 1% of the annual U.S. budget, provides an invaluable set of tools for advancing U.S. foreign policy interests. The relatively modest investments that fall under the international affairs budget bear great returns, as the American government helps develop stable, democratic partners that cooperate on trade, security, immigration, and economic issues. Amid weariness among the American people with military engagement overseas, diplomacy is an inherently less costly means of advancing interests.
In repressive countries, the smallest amount of U.S. assistance can bring hope and provide a lifeline to those who face imprisonment, torture, or even death for speaking out in support of freedom, while helping to engender the next generation of potential leaders. Recent developments in the Middle East, Russia, Burma and elsewhere show the importance of robust, strategic, and flexible funding for the United States to respond effectively to quickly changing situations on the ground and continue to play a leadership role in the international community.
The budget plans produced by the House and Senate for FY 14 differ greatly from one another and from the President's request. The House Republican budget resolution would fund international affairs at $38.7 billion for FY 14, 20% less than the President's request, and a staggering 29% less than the FY 12 actual numbers. Cuts of that magnitude would have a devastating effect on the ability of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to carry out their diplomatic work and assistance programs. While it is important at present for every federal agency to eliminate redundancies, streamline operations, and reevaluate priorities, such sweeping cuts to an already miniscule budget would do great and needless harm. The Senate budget resolution proposes $45.6 billion in base international affairs funding.
Funding for Democracy and Human Rights represents 9% of the total request for foreign assistance for FY 14, less than 1/10th of 1% of the total U.S. budget. The administration's proposal will support important initiatives that protect and promote democracy, rule of law, and human rights, including:
Flexible funding to support democratic change in the Middle East through a Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund.
Increased funding for priority regions, including Asia and Africa.
Robust funding for priority countries and territories including Afghanistan, Mexico, South Sudan, the West Bank and Gaza, and Burma.
Increases in some areas are balanced by decreases in others, including:
The elimination of the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia Account (AEECA) and decreases in the Europe and Eurasia region overall.
Large decreases in democracy funding for Iraq and Pakistan.
Regional and country-level decreases in the Western Hemisphere and in South and Central Asia.
While the administration understandably has had to make difficult tradeoffs to reach budget goals, there are some areas where decreased funding would be harmful to achieving U.S. strategic policy goals and Congress can provide additional support:
Congress should fund the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and USAID's Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) at the FY 12 levels. These two bureaus provide leadership within their agencies on democracy and human rights policy and require adequate resources to continue doing so.
Congress should allow the administration to meet the United States' assessed obligations to the United Nations for FY14. Moreover, Congress should reinstate funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which supports many cultural, social, and educational programs in line with the U.S.'s own values.
The administration must work with Congress to identify innovative ways to support civil society in countries with difficult operating environments, including Russia, Bolivia, Egypt, and Ethiopia.
Robust funding for international affairs in FY 14 will give America's diplomats the tools they need to advance U.S. interests abroad and maintain the United States' role as a global leader. Such funding alone is not enough, however. The administration must match a strong budget with clear policy decisions and a consistently forceful message, communicated both publicly and privately, that democracy and human rights are of the utmost importance to the United States.
This report summarizes the most notable requests, changes, and new developments within the administration's democracy and human rights budget for FY14. It also offers policy recommendations and suggestions for budget adjustments to better align funding allocations with U.S. interests.
Examines domestic and international factors affecting the bilateral relationship, especially in the context of economic normalization between the two countries and a changing international environment in the Asia-Pacific region.
Analyzes the political and economic conditions in Burma, economic sanctions, and links between the people's economic welfare and human rights. Makes recommendations for a calibrated approach to U.S. engagement and tying the removal of sanctions to reform.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation;
The Kaiser Family Foundation 2013 Survey of Americans on the U.S. Role in Global Health is the fifth in a series of surveys designed, conducted, and analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation in order to shed light on the American public's perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes about the role of the United States in efforts to improve health for people in developing countries. This latest survey updates trends from Kaiser's previous surveys dating back to 2009, and explores new questions including the public's perception of the "bang for the buck" of U.S. aid and its ability to promote self-sufficiency in developing countries, views of spending reductions in the context of the federal budget deficit, and more detail on people's sources of information, including how much news they report hearing about specific global health issues. For the first time, the survey also includes some more detailed questions on perceptions and awareness of polio.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation;
Defines, classifies, and inventories innovative financing mechanisms for global health such as front-loading funds, public-private research partnerships, and performance incentives. Examines U.S. government involvement and policy considerations.
Compares the U.S. health system to those of twelve OECD countries based on measures of spending; physician supply and visits; utilization, supply, and prices of drugs and diagnostic imaging; and performance. Examines the causes of high U.S. spending.