What remains of the intl development field

[Anonymous]

There are always jobs supporting Fortune 500 companies' "charitable" aka tax and market power programs abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are always jobs supporting Fortune 500 companies' "charitable" aka tax and market power programs abroad.

Are corportate development jobs still humming along despite all the changes in the field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Official development assistance is being cut almost everywhere. US was the biggest but the Brits, various EU members are all scaling back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Official development assistance is being cut almost everywhere. US was the biggest but the Brits, various EU members are all scaling back.

This, no other countries are not stepping up, no international organizations are not stepping up either, no international NGOs are not stepping up either (where do you think they get their funding?). Quite the contrary, this field has been gutted and it may never recover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The field has been decimated.

And I’m wondering why the advocates haven’t found a way to launch a mutiny against for-profits like Chemonics (and other Beltway bandits) who absolutely should not be funded by federal tax dollars to implement projects nonprofits are better suited to handle.

^^^
Coalitions should focus on an advocacy campaign to light a fire under Congress to take action. And take it to the American people who would likely be shocked to hear this Admin is prioritizing funding for-profits.

I agree with taking it to the American people but absolutely disagree with taking it to Congress. What advocates should be doing is coming together to collaborate and build their own thing. They should be creating Social Enterprise organizations and creating their own lobbyist. Depending on Congress right now is the absolutely worse idea and not one anyone I know in these fields is on board with.

But if you talk to the American people outside this DC bubble, dramatically cutting USAID resulted in zero impact in their lives, so they either don't think of it at all beyond saving money, and if they do think of it their reaction 9/10 is good riddance to a waste of taxpayer money.

Taking it to the American people will not likely result in the outcry you might be expecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Official development assistance is being cut almost everywhere. US was the biggest but the Brits, various EU members are all scaling back.

This, no other countries are not stepping up, no international organizations are not stepping up either, no international NGOs are not stepping up either (where do you think they get their funding?). Quite the contrary, this field has been gutted and it may never recover.

What about Gates, Ford, Coca Cola, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Official development assistance is being cut almost everywhere. US was the biggest but the Brits, various EU members are all scaling back.

This, no other countries are not stepping up, no international organizations are not stepping up either, no international NGOs are not stepping up either (where do you think they get their funding?). Quite the contrary, this field has been gutted and it may never recover.

What about Gates, Ford, Coca Cola, etc.?

Niche, limited opportunities for employment.

Giving money away is less popular when companies aren't experiencing explosive growth and/or don't feel the need to give away profits which otherwise would go to their employees, stockholders, or be reinvested in the businesses. On the public side, using tax revenue to support foreign populations is becoming less acceptable to taxpayers in wealthier countries who historically have provided such funding.

This is not likely to be a field with many good professional prospects for would-be employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Official development assistance is being cut almost everywhere. US was the biggest but the Brits, various EU members are all scaling back.

This, no other countries are not stepping up, no international organizations are not stepping up either, no international NGOs are not stepping up either (where do you think they get their funding?). Quite the contrary, this field has been gutted and it may never recover.

What about Gates, Ford, Coca Cola, etc.?

The Gates Foundation has already announced it's shutting down...other foundations cannot step into this chasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Official development assistance is being cut almost everywhere. US was the biggest but the Brits, various EU members are all scaling back.

This, no other countries are not stepping up, no international organizations are not stepping up either, no international NGOs are not stepping up either (where do you think they get their funding?). Quite the contrary, this field has been gutted and it may never recover.

What about Gates, Ford, Coca Cola, etc.?

The Gates Foundation has already announced it's shutting down...other foundations cannot step into this chasm.

Gates is shutting down in 19 years so plenty of funding to be given away over the next 19 years and great jobs still if you have the skills they are looking for. I wager they pay the highest for positions in international development. That being said they just announced plans to reduce workforce by approx 25% by 2030 so nobody is immune from the chaos hitting the sector right now unfortunately/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs which are not with the USG, obviously. Many may be with foreign employers overseas. Expand your horizons if you're committed to that line of work.

+1. The US is not the biggest game in town in international development, but USAID was obviously one of the biggest employers of Americans.

But many NGOs remain, plus the multilateral institutions continue to employ large numbers.

Which countries are more significant than the US?

The EU countries + EU spend more on international aid than the US did.

+1 Japan is also a big donor. Are the cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance a loss that is hugely destructive to foreign aid? Absolutely. But there are still many organizations continuing in this work--bilateral aid agencies from specific countries, multilateral and NGOs.

The problem is that bilateral aid agencies are prioritizing either their own organizations (so, Global Affairs Canada prioritizes Canadian implementers, FCDO prioritizes British ones, etc) or they are direct funding local organizations and inserting their own staff as oversight.

Either way, the jobs for US nationals without dual citizenship are extremely difficult to come by.

True. That's a consequence for US nationals of American priorities changing. But the point is that the international development field remains, and even if it's harder for Americans to get hired, the work continues, even if Americans may have to go to live in countries that they may not consider as desirable to get hired.

Official development assistance is being cut almost everywhere. US was the biggest but the Brits, various EU members are all scaling back.

This, no other countries are not stepping up, no international organizations are not stepping up either, no international NGOs are not stepping up either (where do you think they get their funding?). Quite the contrary, this field has been gutted and it may never recover.

What about Gates, Ford, Coca Cola, etc.?

The Gates Foundation has already announced it's shutting down...other foundations cannot step into this chasm.

Gates is shutting down in 19 years so plenty of funding to be given away over the next 19 years and great jobs still if you have the skills they are looking for. I wager they pay the highest for positions in international development. That being said they just announced plans to reduce workforce by approx 25% by 2030 so nobody is immune from the chaos hitting the sector right now unfortunately/

Are there rumbling of other large organizations following suit?

[Anonymous]

For better or worse, we are in a brave new world geopolitically. Other western countries (UK, France, ...) are already having trouble reconciling their deficits, entitlement programs, and suddenly much larger defense spending needs. Pouring money into niche causes / soft power has been taken down a few pegs.

[Anonymous]

Cuts coming at the world bank for sure