Lessons for the Next QDDR

By: Diana Ohlbaum and Connie Veillette | 29-Jul-2013

This article originally was posted on the Center for Strategic and International Studies website here.


 It’s hard to believe that it’s been two and a half years since the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) was released to much fanfare in December 2010. Yet, since the final product was a year and a half in the making, it’s time to begin the process anew. As Secretary of State John Kerry and his team prepare to make decisions regarding whether and how to repeat the effort, here are five lessons we took from the last go-round:

1. Do it for the right reasons. The point of the QDDR is not to have a glossy public relations brochure or to fight turf wars. It’s to challenge the assumptions behind our foreign policy, identify the gaps and weaknesses in our civilian capacity to carry it out, and set out a path toward making the necessary changes. Last time, it seemed the entire QDDR process was motivated by the State Department’s desire to ensure that the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development, which was under way at the same time, did not infringe on the department’s authority by giving too independent a voice to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Unfortunately, the legislation that the State Department supports to mandate the QDDR would cement the department’s upper hand and give USAID no formal standing in the process. If the point is to better integrate diplomacy and development in support of U.S. foreign policy, then the task at hand is how to use both tools to their greatest effectiveness while recognizing and exploiting the unique contributions of each.

2. View consultation as an opportunity, not a formality. Consultation needs to be done at two key stages in the process: at the outset, when deciding the key parameters and focus areas of the review; and once there are some clear ideas about the choices to be made and potential recommendations. The first QDDR was broadly consultative within the State Department and USAID, requiring a high level of involvement by a large number of people over a long period of time. The problem was that you cannot expect the bureaucracy to come up with ideas about how to reform itself, and what emerged from the process was a “least common denominator” document that reflected neither bold new thinking nor the administration’s political imprint. As a result, the secretary’s inner circle chose to rewrite it virtually from scratch. This provoked a high degree of frustration and cynicism among those who had put so much time and effort into it. At the same time, consultations with Capitol Hill, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and even with other U.S. government agencies, were little more than status updates, which offered no opportunity for meaningful exchange of views. This deprived the authors of potentially valuable feedback that could have been used to determine which ideas had the most political support and which ones would encounter the most resistance.

3. Include security assistance. The first QDDR was so heavily focused on using development assistance as an instrument of civilian power that it forgot all about security assistance: arms sales, military training, counternarcotics and counterterrorism assistance, law enforcement cooperation, and the like. While focus is a good thing (see recommendation #5), this omission seemed more like an oversight than a deliberate choice. Security assistance falls squarely under the State Department’s purview, yet it remains almost entirely unexamined for impact and effectiveness. It’s time for the department to see the entire range of foreign assistance tools as worthy of review and improvement. Interestingly, despite numerous studies—internal and external—flagging the need for better monitoring and evaluation of security assistance, the State Department continues to fight any inclusion of security assistance in legislation requiring greater transparency and accountability of foreign aid.

4. Don’t forget about implementation. The exhaustive effort that went into the first QDDR left no energy or appetite for its execution. Several key figures left the administration shortly after its completion, and the job of developing an implementation plan never quite got off the ground, other than a few isolated pieces. Instead of making an implementation plan an afterthought, make it part of the QDDR process—or at least assign it the same level of priority as the big-picture strategy. Doing so will require a third stage of consultation, focused on those who would be carrying out the changes or whose current modes of operation would be altered.

5. Focus. There is no end to the number of foreign policy challenges facing the United States nor a limit to the number of course corrections that can be made. Instead of trying to fix everything all at once, with limited budget and personnel resources, it may be worth focusing on a given subset of issues over the next four years. Perhaps it could be modernizing the structure, training, rules, and incentives of the Foreign Service. Or building a better toolkit for preventive diplomacy. Or integrating new technologies and improved data collection into U.S. foreign policy development and execution. The National Security Strategy already sets out a grand vision for the United States role in the world; the QDDR would be a far better use of everyone’s time if it resulted in an agenda for change that was realistic and achievable.


Diana Ohlbaum is a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Connie Veillette is also a senior associate at CSIS, a senior fellow at the Lugar Center, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.


comments powered by Disqus

Senator Lugar discusses ISIS in Iraq and Syria on Bloomberg TV

Solving Global Issues

Global Food Security
WMD Nonproliferation
Aid Effectiveness

What's New At The Center

LISTEN: Senator Lugar discusses ISIS, Ukraine, and Russia on The Takeaway with John Hockenberry

By: The Takeaway | 05-Sep-2014
Senator Richard Lugar, former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1985 to 1987 and again from 2003 to 2007, has experience formulating U.S. policy on Europe, Russia and the Middle east going back to the mid 1980's. Is any chance of peace on the horizon in Eastern Europe or the Middle East? Today Sen. Lugar shares his expertise. . . . . READ MORE

Former Senator Lugar urges enduring US-Pakistan partnership

By: Business Recorder | 20-Aug-2014
WASHINGTON: Acknowledging Pakistan's vital importance to regional stability and US national security interests, former US Senator Richard Lugar has called for sustained American support for the South Asian country's efforts towards economic development and security. . . . . READ MORE

Senator Lugar discusses cooperation with Russia on HuffPost Live

By: HuffPost Live | 07-Aug-2014
Former Senator Richard Lugar discusses whether nuclear nonproliferation cooperation with Russia is possible in the current diplomatic climate—and whether the world is in nuclear danger. . . . . READ MORE


Saving Lives Through Efficient Food Aid Delivery

By: Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ret.) | 07-May-2014
Early this year our government made real progress in improving the way we provide food aid to chronically hungry people and those in crises. Unfortunately, recent actions by the House of Representatives threaten to undermine important reforms that would make food aid programs more effective and efficient. If the House action stands, the result will be more hungry people in the world, less efficiency in U.S. food assistance programs, and reduced benefit to U.S. diplomacy from these programs. . . . . READ MORE

Aid Effectiveness: The Way Forward for Donors and Recipients

By: Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ret.) | 25-Apr-2014
The Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) recently issued a new report, The Way Forward: A Reform Agenda for 2014 and Beyond. This policy paper is the first major product of a reformulated MFAN, and it underscores the core mission of the organization. MFAN was formed in 2008 as a coalition of organizations and leading think tanks that work with or frequently intersect U.S. development programs. MFAN functions as an advocate for policies that make U.S. foreign assistance more effective and transparent. . . . . READ MORE

The Lugar Center Launches Resources for Researchers

By: Lori Rowley and Dr. Connie Veillette | 24-Apr-2014
Global food security is indeed a complex issue. If you are unfamiliar with it or wonder what it really means, we encourage you to read a brief overview of the problem on the Global Food Security tab of our webpage. Because numerous hurdles and complexities exacerbate the challenge of achieving a food secure world, we have developed a new set of documents we are calling Resources for Researchers that we hope may better inform policy-makers, educators and citizens about the issue. With this effort, we hope to live up to our mandate to bring evidence to bear on difficult issues confronting the United States and the world. . . . . READ MORE
               Newsletter Sign-Up                                               

Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   Flickr