By Francis Mwaijande, Ph.D
fmwaijande@amcips.org

Abstract:
The concept of “problem definition” is used for defining public issues and problems into political attention. Scholars studying issues such as education (Portz, 1996), water (2008), homelessness (Rochefort & Cobb, 1992), and air transport regulation (Baumgrtner & Jones, 1994) used problem definition for the interest of setting policy agendas. Although the application of “problem definition” has been widely used in the domestic and local policies, this paper extends the application of problem definition for determining the U.S 44th President Policy for Africa. The previous U.S Presidents defined categorical socio-economic policies for Africa like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) as an icon for promoting economic growth, trade, and investment, whereas PEPFAR as the U.S policy agenda for humanitarian and global participation. Following the Obama’s presidential campaign issues, Africa featured in the priority list in the U.S foreign policy. This paper argues for problem definition to guide the 44th Presidential policy agenda for Africa.
Defining the 44th U.S. President policy towards Africa would be strongly determined by problem definition. Policy problem definition is understood as “the meanings and interpretations people attach to problems” (Rochefort & Cobb, 1994). The contemporary problems in Africa can well be addressed when there is clear definition and interpretations. The U.S foreign policy towards Africa in many ways have been complementing the global development agenda. For example, the U.S Congress enacted African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) of 2000, President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), President’s Emergency fund for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), and the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) of 2003 have made significant impact on development problems facing the continent. Despite the continued huge aid, yet, Africa is far from absolute socio-economic development. This is partly attributed to the failure of problem definition to guide development policy. With the new presidential agenda for Africa shaped in the Obama’s campaign, Africa is among the given priority in the 44th U.S President foreign policy. Since, Africa faces many socio-economic and political problems, clear problem definition becomes necessary.
The complexities involved in the problem definition partly contribute to false and non-directional development policies. For example, should aid policies define the U.S- Africa socio-economic development policy? or should entrepreneurship partnership define the U.S- Africa socio-economic development policy? Shaping the 44th U.S Presidential policy towards Africa requires problem definition of the core development problems in Africa. The 44th U.S President is celebrated by many Africans with the great hope to overcoming socio-economic development challenges in the continent. The great hope built on the new elected president cannot be realized without collaborative problem definition between African governments and the U.S leadership as the partners in development.
Of course, the United States has become and would remain an important development partner to Africa. Over the past eight years of two U.S Presidents, have provided substantive aid and humanitarian assistance. Yet their policies and directed aid through AGOA, PEPFAR, or the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) have yet eliminated the Africa’s socio-economic development problems.
This article has twofold objectives: 1) to re-examine the past U.S policies and program support to Africa, and 2) to define the U.S – Africa development policy agenda. I use content analysis of the past eight years U.S foreign development policies for Africa to guide problem definition in the future policies towards Africa. Problem definition theory (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Bursteten & Bricher, 1997) is a predominant policy tool used to shape policy agenda. Two competing problem definitions are critical for directing development policies; should more aid be the basis for overcoming socio-economic problem in Africa? Or should partnership and entrepreneurship be the basis for overcoming socio-economic problem in Africa? The most acceptable problem definition should be determined by the Africans in partnership with the U.S development partners. The new direction of the 44th U.S President’s agenda for Africa development policy should examine the past programs and policies to understand the present, and determine the future policies.
Problem Definition in the U.S policy for Africa Socio-economic Development
Problem definition provide the basis for developing policies, it seems logical therefore to define “problem definition” before we define the U.S policy problem definition for Africa development policy. Defining problem definition is a problem by itself as various scholars of policy studies have defined it differently. Stone (1989) define problem definition in terms of “causal stories” in which political actors transform difficult conditions into public problems; Rochefort & Cobb (1994) define problem definition as “the meanings and interpretations people attach to problems”. Important in the Stones’ definition is the identification of difficulties and description of causes. This is relevant to defining the U.S- Africa policy problem definition is important to identify the difficulties and description of causes for socio-economic stagnation in Africa. Any sustainable options for the U.S – Africa policy is likely to succeed only with clear problem definition of what Africans themselves see as a problem needing external support from developing partners.
The President elect Obama said during his presidential campaign that he would double foreign aid spending from $25 billion in 2008 to $50 billion by the end of his first term. Of course, Africa needs foreign aid for development, but it is important to examine would aid policies or more partnership and entrepreneurship do better for Africa? What should then be the presidential agenda for Africa? Indeed the new 44th President Agenda for Africa should be to expand economic prosperity in Africa and foster African entrepreneurship capitalizing on the existing U.S. policies and development framework for Africa. However, the much needed aid should be limited in cash aid, but more expanded on capacity building for sustainable development. For example, the food and hunger problem in Africa should be defined as the lack of capacity to produce despite of Africa having adequate arable land. The sustainable policy response should be to develop capacity for food production rather than humanitarian cash or food aid.
I use the U.S African Growth and Opportunity Act of 2000 as the President Bill Clinton agenda for wider market access for the African goods and Bush’s President’s Emergence Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) as the platform for the 44th U.S President incremental policy agenda for Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) enacted by the U.S Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000 defines the U.S foreign trade and investment policy in the Sub-Saharan Africa. The objectives of AGOA include enabling African goods access the U.S. markets and enhance economic growth in the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The U.S government through Congress defined the economic progress in Africa based on mutual economic linkages between United States and Sub-Saharan Africa and ability to promote stable and sustainable economic growth and development in the region (19 U.S.C 3712). The AGOA problem definition looked at lack of good governance as the cause for economic stagnation. To address the problem, the African Growth and Opportunity Act put governance criteria including transition to rule of law, reduction in corruption and protection of human rights as a qualifying condition for accessing AGOA benefits. The qualifying countries were expected to embrace free market principles and adoption of poverty alleviation agenda. It is important to note that the governance criteria were picked up, because it is key for security, peace, and economic prosperity.
Following the implementation of AGOA, there have significant contribution in the African economies in countries that had embraced more open market policies as well as strengthening of democracy. Trade statistics indicate that U.S exports to the Sub-Saharan African countries grew from $6.1 millions in 2003 to $12.1 billion in 2006 (U.S Department of Commerce, 2007). By the first quarter of 2008, AGOA trade was $21.3 billion (U.S Department of Commerce) indicating 57 percent growth increase in two years. On the other hand, the U.S imports from Sub-Saharan Africa increased from$25.6 millions in 2003 to $59.1 millions in 2006 (U.S Department of Commerce, 2007). However, there are implementation gaps that the 44th U.S President through incremental policies needs to address for AGOA to achieve the earlier intended goals. AGOA maintained strict regulatory requirements which most African businesses and entrepreneurs could afford. There are still logistical constrains in the movement of exports of goods due to poor infrastructure and inadequate investment in the infrastructure development. Suffice to say problem definition in the AGOA provided a clear Presidential agenda that defined the economic, trade, and investment for Africa as key for overcoming poverty during the President Bill Clinton administration.
President George W. Bush’s initiatives for Africa defined the 43rd U.S President agenda for global development and in particular support to Africa. For the past 5 years the U.S government has been supporting Africa to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. This was an outcome of the Congress problem definition that HIV/AIDS is a major “global health, national security, development, and humanitarian crisis”. The U.S Congress passed a Public law 108 – 25 [H.R 1298] of May 27, 2003 titled “The United States Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003”. It has become to be popularly known by Bush’s President’s emergency plan for aids relief (PEPFAR) with a major objective “to provide assistance for the prevention, treatment, and control of HIV/AIDS”. The strategic policy implementation recognizes innovative partnerships between governments, the private sector, faith-based organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. The emphasis on public-private partnerships has delivered local capacity building and increased the participation in the program countries.
In 2007, PEPFAR provided $601 million to support prevention activities including sexual transmission, mother-to-child transmission, and the transmission of HIV through unsafe blood and medical injections, and male circumcision in program countries. It is recognized that the public-private partnerships for combating HIV/AIDS in Africa maximizes the unique capabilities of each program country and stakeholders and that the financial aid alone cannot succeed fighting HIV/AIDS.
The President’s Emergency Plan for Aids relief is boosting for major implementation success of being able to prevent “mother-to-child HIV transmission services for about 12.7 million pregnancies, provision of antiretroviral prophylaxis for more than 1 million pregnant women, and prevention of an estimated 194,000 infant infections” ( retrieved from http://www.pepfar.gov, November 22, 2008). These success stories are the outcome of clear problem definition that led to the successful program formulation and implementation.
However, Africa’s agenda for socio-economic development is far away to be realized. The agenda for the U.S policy for Africa can be drawn from the long list including economic growth, democracy, human rights, wars and peacekeeping. Currently there are about five documented political or power struggle conflicts in Africa including war in Sudan, Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Somalia, and Zimbabwe where the democracy is at risk. Poverty, hunger, HIV AIDS, fragile democracy, corruption, ethnic conflicts, arms and ammunition trafficking, environmental destruction, and terrorism. Certainly, these evils of human kind do need global policy approach and response. Obama’s victory is viewed as an inspiration for Africans to build strong political and economic institutions that will produce a new generation of African leaders with great policy tie in the U.S development policy to Africa.
The guiding principle of policy incrementalism (Edwards and Sharkansky, 1978) should provide the foundation for the 44th U.S President to define policies towards Africa. The existing AGOA, PEPFAR, or the Millennium Development Challenge should be strengthened to provide more accurate policy goals. Nevertheless, clear problem definitions must address the competing issues for development in Africa. Indeed aid is required for scaling up development; however, calculated policy decisions must take into consideration on the problem definition ownership (Rochefort & Cobb, 1994) by the African governments to determine whether aid or partnerships and entrepreneurship for capacity building would make significant impact to African socio-economic development. There is need to define comprehensively the problems in Africa in order to set an agenda for shaping the 44th U.S President policy for Africa, because problem definition is key for agenda setting (Dery, 2000).
In conclusion, this paper highlighted ‘problem definition” as the basis for policy agenda setting. Having said the need for problem definition in shaping the 44th U.S President policy for Africa, it is important to recognize that overcoming poverty in Africa must be guided by sustainable policies. Aid policies play great role for African development assistance (Elling, 1998), however aid policies alone are not panacea to African development problems. While, the U.S new leadership is getting on global financial turmoil, it is imperative necessary to define the U.S policy for Africa incrementallily focusing on sustainable socio-economic development. Focused policies on issues that would create greater and sustainable development for Africa should be given high priority. There is need to define what is crucial for Africa and how the 44th U.S President policy for Africa can make a difference. This paper argues for more entrepreneurship, partnership and capacity building for food production (agriculture), because this has potential linkages to many socio-economic development problems in Africa. It is imperative important to streamline foreign aid policy towards the second generation of “green revolution” to enable Africa feed itself. This is important, because over 75 percent of the population is employed in the agriculture sector and Africa needs capacity for food sustainability. Along with supporting the second green revolution, other issues pertaining to good governance, infrastructure, technology; expanded free trade, foreign direct investments, and market access for African goods requires redirected U.S presidential policy agenda for Africa.

References
Burstein, P. & Brincher, M. (1997). Problem Definition and Public Policy: Congressional Committees Confront Work, Family, and Gender, 1945 – 1990.Social Forces Issue 75(4).
Dery, D. (2000). Agenda Setting and Problem Definition. Policy Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1
Edwards, G.C & Sharkansky, I. (1978). The Policy Predicament: Making and Implementing
Public policy. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco
Elling, Tjonnland. (1998). Aid, Development, and Politics in Southern Africa: A Critical look at
New Conditionalities in Official Development Assistance. Development southern Africa, Vol. 15, No.2 pp 185 – 200
Portz, J. (1996). Problem Definitions and policy Agendas: Shaping the educational Agenda in
Boston. Policy studies Journal, Vol. 24, No.3
Rochefort, D. & Cobb, R. (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the policy Agenda. University Press of Kansas
U.S. Congress. (2000). The African Growth and Opportunity Act. 19 U.S.C. 3721,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. (2004). 108th Congress, 2nd Session in the Senate of the United States,
H.R 4103., Washington, D.C
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2007). 2007 Comprehensive Report on U.S Trade and
Investment Policy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa and Implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Washington, D.C
United States Statutes at Large. (2003). United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government. White house Fact Sheet: A Historic and Lifesaving Commitment to
HIV/AIDS ( retrieved from http://www.pepfar.gov, November 22, 2008).