753 



ascribe all programs as ei:har of primary benefit to die uS or of ^ricarv 

 benefit to other countries that creates some of the dif f icjlTies of 

 using effectively the capabilities of the domestic agencies. 



Management procedures emphasize budgeting by objective, in order to 

 r.ake clear the lines of authority and responsibility, and to simplify 

 co:nparisons among; programs. Thus, programs that are seen as being 

 primarily of benefit to other countries, whatever agency is involved, 

 should be funded from the foreign assistance appropriation, with funds 

 transferred from .^ID, and in the future ISTC as'well, to the agencv 

 'concerned. . This procedure allows a single ZB3 process for ranking' of 

 programs, and single presentation to the Congress. It minimizes the 

 problems of coordination and appears to ensure efficient use of resources. 



If such procedures can be realistically and effectively applied, 

 and can achieve the desired objectives, they are obviously to be preferred. 

 However, it is not always possible or appropriate to compartmentalize in 

 this way. An attempt to force programs into this sharply demarcated 

 mold can have serious costs: 



1. Departments and agencies are unlikely (at best) to develop and 

 maintain quality programs if the funding always cones froa other agencies. 

 It means a dependence on budgets over which they have no control, an 

 inability to develop regular staff positions and thus a line of advancement, 

 little influence within the agency since the budget does not go through 

 agency processes, no requirement for program commitment on the part of 



the agency leadership or the relevant Congressional cocmittees, dependence 

 on an e.xternal bureaucracy with different goals, and often a limited 

 role in program development on the part of those who will have to carry 

 out the program. Any given program may work well, and there are many 

 examples; but as a way of tapping the SiT resources of the US Government 

 for development purposes, compartmentalization in this way is not a 

 route for sustained quality results. 



2. The difficulty of building programs within agencies which 

 depend wholly on outside funds also tends to reinforce the increasingly 

 artificial separation between domestic and international objectives. It 

 makes more difficult the development of sensitivity to possible applications 

 of US RiD in developing countries, and reduces Che opportunity to learn 

 from what others are doing. Both sides of that coin are Lmportanc. 



Much more of domestically-oriented US RiD is likely to be relevant to 



developing countries than is generally realized. The most effective way 



of determining relevance and making the work accessible is not by "information 



banks," but by involvement of more ,\nierican scientists and engineers, 



?.ni of RtD managers in development-related activities. With regard to 



learning froa others, the results of increasingly competent KLO efforts 



in developing countries especially those with "middle-income" status, 



are likely to be of growing interest and pertinence to the US. This 



country no longer dominates the SiT scene as it once did, while at the 



