Review of the ANE Bureau's PL-480 Title I and III programs : a summary of key findings and issues

480 Title I and III programs in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The evaluation focuses on the economic and policy aspects of these programs. Contrary to common perceptions, the Asia/Near East Bureau's Title I/III programs, rather than providing additional food, permit savings in foreign exchange to help ease the recipient country's balance of payments problems. The programs thus should be viewed largely as economic resource transfers. The policy regimes that determine the efficiency with which P.L. 480 resources are used vary widely from highly efficient (e.g., Egypt) to acceptable (e.g., Pakistan). Unsound food pricing and marketing policies in some countries create disincentives to domestic food production, but in the majority of cases, Title I/III programs have not contributed to these disincentives. Egypt is the most notable example of a Title I program actually contributing to the continuance of economically unsound food policies. Experience indicates that producer and consumer pricing policies and food and agricultural inpuit marketing systems need to be monitored to ensure that they provide appropriate production incetnives, and to identify the need for policy changes. Local currency generations from food aid have often contributed to further economic growth by augmenting host country budgets for development activities during periods of fiscal austerity. On the other hand, greater programming of local currency has also resulted in increased demands on management and staff time and often reduced the influence of P.L. 480 resources. Thus, very detailed programming may run contrary to A.I.D. policy objectives. Although A.I.D.'s efforts to develop policy dialogue via the Title I/III programs have sometimes been undermined by U.S. market development objectives, the self-help measures included in Title I/III agreements have produced important agriculture policy changes and promoted private sector development in several countries. On the negative side, the self-help measures in many cases were found to be ambiguous. It is recommended that these measures be stated more specifically to improve program monitoring and evaluation. In addition, since P.L. 480 programs in this region largely serve foreign exchange requirements, self-help measures need not necessarily be restricted to policy and institutional reforms within the agriculture sector.