In February 1962, I joined the Agency for International Development, the agency which administers the United States Government's program of economic assistance to the less developed countries, just after Congress had approved the reorganization of the foreign aid program proposed by President Kennedy. The Agency for International Development, commonly referred to in the alphabet jargon of Washington as A.I.D., was created through a merger of two older organizations to carry out the revised foreign aid program.
I came to Washington uncertain as to what to expect as to the quality of the foreign aid program, about which I had heard and read so much criticism about the quality and energy of government servants. Of course, the stereotype of the government servant is of a tired bureaucrat consumed primarily with the size of his office and the size of his staff, anxious to avoid as many decisions as possible and to leave the office promptly at 5 o’clock. During my years with the agency, however, I found within it people of extraordinary skill and judgement, prepared to work long hours with considerable energy.
I found among the staff of the agency widespread interest and dedication to its program and to the less developed nations served by the program. I also believe that A.I.D. has done a very credible job of administering our government’s program of economic assistance to the less developed countries. Check the growth rates in India, Pakistan, and Turkey in recent years. Ironically, just at the point in time when the effectiveness of the aid program has been established, bitter criticism of the program on the part of Trump-Musk advocates seems to have reached its height. I am convinced, however, that A.I.D. has developed an effective strategy for achieving its aims.
True, after some 30 years of assistance to the less developed countries we may be just beginning to master the art of economic development. This should not be surprising. Economic aid is, after all, still essentially an infant art. Considering the revolutionary nature of the changes we are seeking to facilitate through the aid program, we have spent relatively few years to master the art. We are still experimenting, then, in the aid business — as we should be — and still learning. This is not disquieting, for the urgent need today is not to fix our ideas but to reaffirm our intent to help those in need — and to increase our ability to assist those who can benefit from our help.
The A.I.D. program may not be perfect, but certainly for me — and many others in this country and elsewhere — the program reflects the best face of America.
In February 1962, I joined the Agency for International Development, the agency which administers the United States Government's program of economic assistance to the less developed countries, just after Congress had approved the reorganization of the foreign aid program proposed by President Kennedy. The Agency for International Development, commonly referred to in the alphabet jargon of Washington as A.I.D., was created through a merger of two older organizations to carry out the revised foreign aid program.
I came to Washington uncertain as to what to expect as to the quality of the foreign aid program, about which I had heard and read so much criticism about the quality and energy of government servants. Of course, the stereotype of the government servant is of a tired bureaucrat consumed primarily with the size of his office and the size of his staff, anxious to avoid as many decisions as possible and to leave the office promptly at 5 o’clock. During my years with the agency, however, I found within it people of extraordinary skill and judgement, prepared to work long hours with considerable energy.
I found among the staff of the agency widespread interest and dedication to its program and to the less developed nations served by the program. I also believe that A.I.D. has done a very credible job of administering our government’s program of economic assistance to the less developed countries. Check the growth rates in India, Pakistan, and Turkey in recent years. Ironically, just at the point in time when the effectiveness of the aid program has been established, bitter criticism of the program on the part of Trump-Musk advocates seems to have reached its height. I am convinced, however, that A.I.D. has developed an effective strategy for achieving its aims.
True, after some 30 years of assistance to the less developed countries we may be just beginning to master the art of economic development. This should not be surprising. Economic aid is, after all, still essentially an infant art. Considering the revolutionary nature of the changes we are seeking to facilitate through the aid program, we have spent relatively few years to master the art. We are still experimenting, then, in the aid business — as we should be — and still learning. This is not disquieting, for the urgent need today is not to fix our ideas but to reaffirm our intent to help those in need — and to increase our ability to assist those who can benefit from our help.
The A.I.D. program may not be perfect, but certainly for me — and many others in this country and elsewhere — the program reflects the best face of America.