The LAFF Society

By Steven Lawry, who from 1992 to 2006 was Program Officer in Namibia, Representative in Cairo and Director in the Office of Management Services.

by Radhika Balakrishnan, former Program Officer in the Asia Programs and James Heintz

from The Huffington Post of July 28, 2010

This January the U.S. Supreme Court issued a shattering ruling that will intensify corporate influence in our democracy to an unprecedented degree. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that government restrictions on corporate election spending are unconstitutional because such restrictions violated corporations’ right to free speech as set out in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. In effect, the Court was evoking a core civil right to advance corporate power. This is a dangerous precedent, one that will undermine the obligation of the government to respect and protect human rights by giving corporations full reign to advance their own interests in the democratic - yet increasingly plutocratic - United States.

The idea that corporations have the same rights as you and me comes from a Supreme Court decision over 120 years ago - Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) - the focus of which was whether railroads could deduct their debts from the value of their property for tax purposes. The Supreme Court laid down a much broader ruling, effectively stating that corporations should enjoy the same equal protections under the law as individuals. Equal protection under the law was spelled out in the 14th Amendment which was adopted following the Civil War. The original motivation for the amendment had little to do with advancing corporate influence. It overturned the Dred Scott decision (in which slaves were denied citizenship) and laid the groundwork for ending segregation in the U.S. and subsequent civil rights laws.

The Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision extended the individual human rights of real people, including those in the Bill of Rights, to corporations whose personhood is simply a legal contrivance. The current Court has now decided that such protections guarantee the right of corporations to use their substantial economic clout to influence election outcomes.

None of this would matter of course if money played no role in politics. But in the U.S., campaign spending is of paramount importance. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending over election cycles, found that in 2008, winners of Senate races spent an average of $8,531,267 on their campaigns, while losers spent less than half this amount, $4,130,078. In election contests for seats in the House, the ratio approached three to one - winners spent an average of $1,372,539 while losers were able to muster only $492,928.

In addition, a recent report from the International Monetary Fund found that there was a direct link between the political contributions of companies and the risky behavior behind the financial crisis. They show that “lenders that lobby more intensively on these specific issues have (i) more lax lending standards measured by loan-to-income ratio, (ii) greater tendency to securitize, and (iii) faster growing mortgage loan portfolios.” The increasing influence of campaign contributions dilutes the ability of the government to set up regulations that stabilize the economy and ensure economic and social rights.

Corporations do not act with impunity and cannot always claim first amendment protections. An important legal distinction is made between ‘free speech’ and ‘commercial speech’. What’s the difference? Commercial speech is done on behalf of a business in order to help that business make a profit. Therefore, it has a different legal standing than other categories of speech. Commercial speech can be regulated if there are potentially harmful consequences of such speech. For example, pharmaceutical companies are not free to make false (and possibly life-threatening) claims about their products simply to boost their market share. The Food and Drug Administration still regulates such ’speech’.

Not everyone agrees that commercial speech should be regulated differently - let alone the current Supreme Court justices. Justice Thomas, in an opinion on the 1996 case 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, said that “I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that ‘commercial’ speech is of ‘lower value’ than ‘noncommercial’ speech.” Thomas is an adamant supporter of the ruling that first amendment protections should be extended to corporate campaign contributions.

The lines between commercial speech and free speech have always been blurry and have become increasingly so in recent years. This is not a trivial development. The government cannot regulate corporate activities which have been judged to constitute free speech.

Consider the role of the credit ratings agencies in the economic crisis. These companies are meant to assess the risks of financial products and to provide accurate information to investors. Three large U.S. corporations dominate the ratings industry globally - Standard & Poors, Moody’s, and Fitch. These firms gave excessively favorable ratings to the mortgage-back securities behind the current economic crisis. Many of the securities received the highest possible rating - triple-A - even though the risks underlying these assets were far greater. The ratings agencies were only too glad to give high marks, since they were paid by the people requesting the ratings, a fundamental conflict of interest. Corporate profits soared, at least until the financial markets crashed - causing people to lose their homes, their jobs, and much of the value of their pensions. With an accurate assessment of the risk associated with these securities, the financial crisis would probably not have happened at all.

The ratings industry has claimed that it should be sheltered from liability and future regulation, since their credit ratings represent mere ‘public opinions’ which should enjoy first amendment protections. Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin disagreed last year, opening the way for the ratings agencies to be sued for their actions. However, the ‘free speech’ argument has been used in the past to stave off efforts to regulate the industry and will likely resurface again as the issue makes its way through the courts.

Those who think corporations should enjoy free speech protections often argue that corporations just represent groups of people, shareholders, and any group of people is entitled to its opinion. ‘Freedom of association’ guarantees the right to form groups in order to advance particular viewpoints. The proponents of first amendment protections for corporations argue that corporations simply represent one way of forming a group among like-minded people.

But corporations are institutions with significant economic power. That’s why laws exist to prevent people from coming together with the purpose of exploiting their collective economic might in ways that impose costs on society. Anti-trust laws prevent collusive action and price setting behavior. Adam Smith, who is frequently evoked to support a free-market doctrine, famously wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices.” It is the very real possibility of conspiracies against the public which justify different rules for corporations.

But the Supreme Court ruling would have us believe differently. It is not okay for corporations to exert undue influence on market prices, but it is fine for them to exert undue influence in democratic elections. Once in office, representatives whose campaigns depended on corporate donations would be loathe to enact legislation which goes against their supporter’s interest. Policies will mirror the corporate agenda even more than they do today. The role of insurance companies in determining our healthcare choices will be harder to question, the labor protections that currently exist will be increasingly difficult to maintain, and struggles to hold corporations liable for their actions will become more challenging. Such issues are of enormous concern as we reflect on the aftermath of the financial crisis, the slow progress on climate change, or BP’s disastrous oil spillage in the Gulf of Mexico.

Supreme Court decisions have held a prominent place in the history of human rights in the U.S. Progress has been achieved when unjust decisions have been overturned. We only have to think of the watershed case, Brown v. the Board of Education, to understand the importance of overturning an earlier injustice. The ruling on corporate campaign contributions represents an historic step backwards for the country. If human rights are to stand a chance against corporate rights, this decision must be overturned.

Three former Foundation staff members, James Hokans (Urban Poverty, Nairobi, 1987-1992), Chris Page (Rural Poverty/Economic Development, New York, 1992-1999) and Jennefer Sebstad (Rural Community Development/Women’s Employment, Nairobi, 1984-1988) have joined forces on an innovative project to improve access to financial services for the poor.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation recently announced a three-year $9.5 million grant to the nonprofit Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) in New York, where Chris is Senior Vice President. The grant supports Gateway Financial Innovations for Savings (GAFIS), a program that will work with financial institutions in five countries to create savings accounts that are affordable for poor families and profitable for banks over the long term. RPA has awarded the contract for field-based management of the program to Bankable Frontier Associates (BFA) in Boston where Jim is a Director. BFA is a niche consulting company with a successful track record in promoting financial inclusion for poor people, especially in the fields of technology, housing finance and social investment in emerging markets. Jennefer, currently based in Boulder, CO after stints in Ethiopia, Kenya, and India, is a development consultant on income, employment and asset building strategies. She has been appointed by RPA to serve with Chris on the GAFIS program advisory committee.

GAFIS will partner with large banks in Latin America, Asia, and Africa to develop or expand savings products and approaches, including those using mobile phone technologies. Among other things, GAFIS will explore savings opportunities for the estimated one hundred and fifty million people who make regular bank visits to collect government welfare payments and remittances. The program also will support market, product, and business research to help develop appropriate distribution channels for savings products and encourage families to keep a diary of their daily financial lives and needs. The resulting data is expected to inform the development and roll-out of new, large-scale, high-quality savings products by institutions participating in the program.

In addition to breaking through cultural and institutional barriers preventing the poor from building assets, all three Ford alums believe the outcomes will help to develop new banking models that can serve poor communities worldwide. Interested colleagues can monitor the progress at www.gatewaytosavings.org and learn more about RPA’s work at www.rockpa.org.

Deborah Geithner of Orleans is the mother of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the wife of Peter Geithner who was with the Foundation from 1968 to 1996 in the International Division and the Developing Country Programs.  He is also the former president of The LAFF Society.

By Stephanie Foster

The Cape Codder

Posted May 07, 2010 @ 07:04 AM

ORLEANS —

Deborah Geithner will be alone with her husband, Peter, on Mother’s Day this Sunday but she won’t be lonely. Her Orleans home will be filled with flowers, laughter and the sound of a ringing phone.

One call will be from Washington, when her eldest child, Tim, 48, the Secretary of the Treasury, checks in. Sarah, 47, has already sent a card from Bangkok where she works for World Bank. Twin sons, Jon, 44, an analyst at the Center for Naval Analysis in Okinawa, and David, 44, a senior vice president at Time Inc., will telephone as well.

Geithner, a slender woman with soft russet hair and an easy smile, looks younger than her 71 years. Her home is as comfortable and relaxed as she is. Floor to ceiling windows fill the open spaces with so much light and airiness, it’s like being outdoors. Shelves and tables are filled with personal treasures that range from pottery to art and collections of “lucky” striped stones she will return to the beach one day. Origami, seashells and pinecones have the same importance as Oriental carpets, a carved Chinese screen and Swiss music box.

Casual though it may be, this is a cultured home filled with books, art and music. Two Steinways form a focal point on one side and an inviting sitting area on the other. Vases of flowers are everywhere. The whole attests to her love of life in all its colors and textures.

Known as a pianist and teacher, Geithner says, “Music is my life. I love to play the piano. I’ve gotten involved in chamber music on the Cape. It’s the making of music with other people I just love. I am crazy for it. And in my teaching, if I can expose students to pieces they love, that is all they need. Their life is enhanced.”

Geithner is surprisingly candid, a trait that keeps the Treasury’s public relations department on its toes. She says she went to college to find a husband. She selected Peter Geithner, her brother’s classmate at Dartmouth.

“My father brought me up to believe in diversity. It was a great coming together of people from different backgrounds. He was a government major and the captain of the basketball team and Phi Beta Kappa. He was very smart. The Navy put him through school. He was also a pilot. That was part of the whole romance. I snagged him just before my graduation. Poor Peter. He’s never quite gotten over it,” she says with a laugh. “It was a good gene contribution. It was what I dreamed of.”

Peter worked for Carbon International before she urged him to take a position with an American agency in Africa. They tucked tiny Tim into a backpack when they visited ancient civilizations in Zimbabwe where Sarah was born. Later, she bore twins in Washington. But their exotic travel wasn’t over. The family moved to India for five years, then Thailand for four when Peter worked for the Ford Foundation. “Obama was growing up in Indonesia when Tim was in India,” says Geithner, noting they are only two weeks apart in age.

World travel brought the Geithners closer together and the children are fiercely loyal to each other. “We had a rare life experience together. We went out as a family to foreign countries. We did a lot of traveling and grew up in strange, new houses together. We shared a lot.” With all the uprooting, she says, the Cape became the place for them to return to and provided a sense of unity in their lives.

Once a mother, always a mother

Geithner worries about all of her children. “The kids are on top of my heart list. When I wake up, I say to myself, ‘Who will it be today?’” With a troubled economy, Tim is a constant. “I have anxiety about the toll it takes on his family life. He’s had to make sacrifices and I don’t know the half of it. I listen closely to his voice on the phone and try to read it. I worry he doesn’t get enough sleep or exercise. I am very proud he is serving his country but no one had any idea of what it would be like for him, and Obama, and the whole nation.”

She displays a smiling baby photograph to prove that he does smile. “He has a great sense of humor and has always been a big tease. His high energy was apparent from the day of his birth.” Then, she points out her “shrine,” a grouping of photographs featuring Tim with the president. Her eyes crinkle in amusement. “He would be embarrassed if he knew,” she says. The other children suspect Tim is her favorite but she says it’s not true.

“Tim wrote me last spring about what he thought I have given him. I’ve kept it. But I won’t share it. It’s a personal tribute. The kids are all good at writing personal notes.”

Geithner loves being a mother. “I got married to have children. I don’t live through them but they are the greatest gifts of my life. I couldn’t have flourished as a wife and mother without the structure and stability of my husband. I’ve been fortunate. I had the good fortune to be able to pick him.”

By Robert Schrank who was with the Foundation from 1970 to 1982.

Raymond Offenheiser was a Program Officer and Acting Representative in the Andean and Southern Cone Office and Representative to the Bangladesh Country Office.

From Foreign Policy, July/August 2010

Edgar O. Edwards was born in Foxborough, Massachusetts in 1919 and earned an associate of arts degree from Green Mountain College in 1939. Following service in the Pacific with the U. S. Army during World War II, he earned a bachelor’s degree from Washington and Jefferson College and masters and doctoral degrees in political economy from The Johns Hopkins University. Following nine years on the faculty of Princeton University, he was named Hargrove Professor of Economics at Rice University.  His work at The Ford Foundation included the following positions:

August 1963 to July 1965 - Project Specialist-Economics in Kenya advising the government

August 1965 to April 1966 - Consultant

September 1966 to September 1969 - Project Specialist-Economic Planning in Kenya

September 1969 to October 1974 - Economic Advisor for Asia and Pacific

November 1974 to April 1977 - Program Specialist -  Macro Economics in Nairobi

May 1977 to December 1977  - Program Specialist – Macro Economics In NY

He retired from the Foundation in December 1977, but continued to be a consultant until 1979.

Professor Edwards played important advisory roles for the governments of Kenya, Botswana, and Lebanon.  He is author or co-author of over a dozen books and monographs and more than 20 articles in scholarly journals bridging economic development, planning, and accounting, including the classic text on business income, “The Theory and Measurement of Business Income”, published in 1964 with Philip Bell.  Professor Edwards resided in Poultney, Vermont.  He passed away on June 5, 2010.   He is survived by his wife Jean and their three children, Kathryn, Carolyn, and Douglas.

Jeffrey Puryear was at the Foundation from 1973 to 1990 in the Latin America and Caribbean Program.

By Jeffrey Puryear

May 18, 2010

Originally published in Jeffrey Puryear’s “Human Capital” column in the Dialogue’s daily Latin America Advisor

WASHINGTON—It’s worth noting that inequality has declined recently in much of Latin America. The most commonly used indicator for income inequality, the Gini coefficient, decreased in 13 Latin American countries between 2002 and 2007. Among them is Brazil–the region’s largest country and one of its most unequal. But are these decreases part of a long-term trend? Has Latin America found an effective and sustainable strategy for reducing inequality?

We should certainly be encouraged. Latin America is the most unequal region in the world, so any progress in reducing inequality is positive and deserves applause.

But it is unclear if a long-term trend is underway. The declines in inequality have coincided with an extraordinary boom in commodity prices and an increase in remittances—both of which have since been reversed by the global economic crisis. Absent robust economic growth, it is not clear that inequality will continue to fall.

Moreover, few Latin American governments have adopted the fundamental policy changes that would systematically bring inequality down. To be sure, most countries have increased social spending over the past decade. But the programs they fund have a sorry record of helping the poor. Social programs tend to be neutral or even regressive in Latin America, favoring the richest 40 percent and doing little for the poor.

The big exception is conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs), which provide the extreme poor with a monthly stipend in return for positive behaviors like keeping children in school or regular visits to health clinics. These programs have clearly reduced inequality by establishing an income floor for very poor families. But they are only a small part of social spending.

Larger social programs like education are of such low quality that they contribute little to giving the poor a leg up in the job market. Pension programs, which dwarf spending on CCTs, overwhelmingly benefit the richest 40 percent. Tax revenues are relatively low in most countries, and fail to shift the burden of funding government from poor and middle-income households to the rich.

Latin America has probably gotten as much reduction in inequality as it can from the commodities boom and relatively small progressive programs like CCTs. Additional, sustained progress will depend on qualitatively different policies that will be much more difficult to enact. Governments will have to reduce tax evasion and close loopholes, particularly in personal income taxes. They will have to re-engineer education and improve teaching so that poor children learn what they need in order to be successful in modern job markets. And they will have to establish pension programs that benefit the poor, rather than just the richest 40 percent.

Making these changes will involve tough choices. Leaders will have to invest significant political capital to get them approved and implemented. Those who benefit from the status quo will fiercely resist these changes. But the alternative is hardly preferable: the world’s highest rates of inequality and fertile ground for authoritarian, populist politicians.

Jeffrey Puryear is vice president for social policy at the Inter-American Dialogue and co-director of the Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas (PREAL).

Radhika Balakrishnan worked at the Foundation from 1992 to 1995 in the Asia Programs.

From The Huffington Post June 7, 2010

By Radhika Balakrishnan and James Heintz

On April 24th and 25th, the International Monetary Fund, together with the World Bank, will meet in Washington, D.C. to assess their work, their policies, and their future role in the world economy. In April 2009, the IMF got a huge boost from the G-20 with a promised injection of new funds. The resources are meant to support low-income and emerging market economies as they struggle against the global economic crisis. Now that the IMF is looking forward with a new lease on life, we should demand that the policies set by the IMF be scrutinized by international human rights standards.

However, the world’s premier international financial institutions, the IMF and World Bank, have until recently paid little attention to human rights. The World Bank has recognized the human rights dimensions of its activities, but sees human rights, at best, as one more item of its laundry list of development objectives — not as a set of principles to which it should be held accountable. The IMF is even less concerned with human rights and does not routinely consider whether the conditionalities it attaches to loans may themselves obstruct the efforts of governments to meet their basic human rights obligations.

The IMF is officially a part of the United Nations system. And lest we forget, the human rights framework — including workers’ and women’s rights, rights to education, health and housing — is a fundamental pillar of the UN system as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These obligations have been spelled out more fully through a number of treaties, agreements, and mechanisms.

States, as part of the UN, are required to contribute to international cooperation in the full realization of human rights. When acting within inter-governmental fora, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF, states must guarantee that their policies are consistent and conducive to the realization of human rights. Although the IMF is not a party to the fundamental international agreements on human rights, it has a direct and immediate impact on the policy decisions that governments undertake. Given this influence, the IMF should support the efforts of countries to realize human rights standards and norms. However, many of the policies required by the IMF — in particular the conditionalities attached to loans — imply that governments receiving IMF loans may have to violate their economic and social rights obligations to get access to these badly needed resources. Cooperation in the realization of human rights is frequently impaired when macro economic policy conditions are demanded by international financial institutions and donors.

Three human rights obligations are particularly pertinent to the macroeconomic policies of the IMF:
(1) Obligation of progressive realization and non-retrogression, which means that governments must move as expeditiously and effectively as possible to realize economic and social rights, and cannot take steps backward.
(2) Non-discrimination and equality, which means that governments have an immediate obligation for ensuring that deliberate, targeted measures are put into place to secure substantive economic equality of all and that all people have an equal opportunity to enjoy basic human rights, and
(3) The principle of maximum available resources, which means that a government, even in the face of public revenue limitations, must use the maximum resources available to fulfill economic and social rights.

In the heyday of the IMF’s structural adjustment programs in the late 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 1990s, developing countries which borrowed from the IMF often were required to pursue economic reforms that included reductions in the money supply and in government spending, privatization, trade liberalization, shock devaluations of national currencies, and financial deregulation. One of the stated objectives of the reforms was to restore economic stability. This goal is laudable - no one would advocate for increasing economic instability. However, the costs of the IMF approach in human rights terms - including the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to education and health, and the right to life - were not factored in. Even on the basis of the IMF’s narrow objective of faster growth, the policies often failed to deliver. In terms of economic and social rights, the policies were frequently a disaster, in effect coercing the countries which received loans violate the obligation of non-retrogression, by cutting social services, such as education and healthcare.

Structural adjustment loan facilities have now been renamed ‘Poverty Reduction and Growth Facilities’ or PRGFs. Instead of Structural Adjustment Programs, low income countries are required to develop Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs). However, the core macroeconomic policies remain remarkably the same. Though the PRSs include sizable chapters on social services, they are still often not accompanied by macro economic policies that will allow for an increase in social spending. It is unclear where the resources will come from to finance the public services outlined in the PRSs and which are directly tied to the realization of economic and social rights.

Receipt of an IMF PRGF loan is seen as a sign of ‘good housekeeping’, and is generally followed by an increase in aid from donors. However, IMF conditionalities often require recipient governments to ’sterilize’ the injection of additional resources so they do not increase the level of demand in the national economy. What does it mean to sterilize the inflow of resources? In effect, countries either reduce their domestic money supply to ‘make room’ for the overseas assistance or they take steps to prevent the funds from entering their economy in the first place. For example, IMF conditionalities may require the Central Bank in a recipient country to contract the domestic money supply to offset the inflows of foreign aid. Such contractionary policies reduce domestic credit, raise interest rates, and slow down economic growth, and hinder job creation. Or governments may be required to simply park the aid at the Central Bank in dollar-denominated accounts (that is, keep them as ‘foreign reserves’).

The whole objective of sterilization is to minimize the impacts of the development assistance, because of fears that the inflow of funds will lead to inflation or leave the country short of foreign exchange if inflows of foreign capital were to reverse themselves. However, this approach ignores the basic fact that donor dollars not only add to the demand in a country, but they also help increase productivity to meet that demand. Because they seek to counteract the impact of development assistance, such sterilization policies may violate the obligation to use the maximum available resources to realize human rights.

None of this discussion implies that important trade-offs do not exist. Very high rates of inflation are indeed costly and destabilizing and hinder the realization of economic and social rights, but that does not mean that near-zero inflation is best. Policies to maintain very low rates of inflation entail loss of employment and cutbacks in public expenditure. Running short of the foreign exchange required to buy essential monthly imports, such as food or energy, is disastrous, but it would be better to deal with foreign exchange problems by coordinating policies across countries and regulating international financial flows.

In setting the conditions attached to loans to the poorest countries, the IMF has ignored the implications its policies have for governments’ ability to meet their human rights obligations. Instead, the IMF narrows its focus to stable growth and lower inflation. Adding human rights into the mix involves more than an additional chapter tacked onto a Poverty Reduction Strategy. It requires a fundamental change in how the IMF supports development. Human rights obligations represent the constraints under which macroeconomic policies must operate, not the other way around.

The G-20 - a group of states with clear human rights obligations - has bailed out the IMF using taxpayer money. It’s time for some new thinking on conditionalities for the poorest countries. In exchange for the G-20’s financial support, the IMF must be held accountable for advancing human rights for all.

Between the years of 1984 and 1997, David Arnold worked for the Ford Foundation, serving as its first program officer in the field of governance and then as the organization’s representative in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

June 07, 2010 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time

SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–David D. Arnold will become the new president and CEO of The Asia Foundation, the premier non-profit, non-governmental organization working to promote reform, development, and prosperity in Asia. Mr. Arnold will formally begin his new role January 1, 2011, overseeing all aspects of The Asia Foundation, including its field offices across 18 Asia-Pacific nations, offices in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., as well as working closely with Give2Asia, its sister organization. Mr. Arnold is currently the president of the American University in Cairo and is a former Ford Foundation representative who worked for years in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. He also served as executive vice president and interim president at the Institute of International Education in New York.

“David is an experienced leader, a respected educator, and an administrator with a wide-ranging background in development and governance practices in Asia. He possesses the ideal combination of skills needed for the president of The Asia Foundation”

Mr. Arnold succeeds former Congressman Douglas Bereuter as president and CEO, who retires from his leadership position September 30, 2010, having fulfilled a six-year commitment to the Board of Trustees. In a related statement this morning, The Asia Foundation announced it has experienced unprecedented growth and diversification in programming, funding, and staff under Congressman Bereuter’s successful tenure.

“I have known and admired the work of The Asia Foundation for many years, and am honored to be the next president of this visionary organization,” said Mr. Arnold. “Sensitivity, knowledge, and agility have long been hallmarks of the Foundation’s programs and people, and the assistance it provides throughout Asia is critical to the future development of the region. I am joining The Asia Foundation with great enthusiasm and a strong commitment to its mission, values, and aspirations.”

“David is an experienced leader, a respected educator, and an administrator with a wide-ranging background in development and governance practices in Asia. He possesses the ideal combination of skills needed for the president of The Asia Foundation,” said Michael H. Armacost, chairman of the Board and Executive Committee of The Asia Foundation and former U.S. ambassador and under secretary of state. “Asia is changing and The Asia Foundation is changing. Our field offices and specialists on the ground are pioneering daring, new methods to advance reform, prosperity, and peace, based on deep local networks of partners and staff—our defining approach. David has worked on the cutting-edge of international development, philanthropy, and education and is highly knowledgeable about the areas in which the Foundation works: promoting the rule of law, empowering women, advancing human rights, reforming economic policy, and advancing prosperity, justice and peace in Asia. He has lived and worked for years in Asia and the Middle East, and understands local cultures, structures, and institutions. This combination led the Board to a unanimous decision.”

“Millions in Asia remain under threat and are vulnerable, and societies continue to suffer from impasses and deadlocks,” said Surin Pitsuwan, secretary-general of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and a trustee of The Asia Foundation. “Mr. Arnold understands the myriad of challenges facing the region—and he shares our belief that Asians themselves must contribute to, and participate in, Asian reforms and Asian agendas. I have full confidence in him as a leader, and I anticipate his presidency to be deft, robust, and inclusive.”

Mr. Arnold is a skilled and respected veteran of large, successful non-profit organizations active in philanthropy, higher education, international exchange, and development. He maintains a global network of contacts and is uniquely adept at creating international partnerships and alliances. Mr. Bereuter said of the appointment: “David Arnold has shown himself to be a strong and effective leader and I am confident he will guide The Asia Foundation to further heights of achievement and contributions to international development in Asia. He has significant first-hand knowledge, gleaned from living and working in the region, along with practical experience from his innovative work with the Ford Foundation in Asia and his leadership of renowned international educational institutions. I am extremely pleased he has accepted an appointment to be the next president and CEO of the Foundation, and I have no doubt that he will expand upon all the Foundation has already become in its long and productive history.”

About Mr. Arnold

In 2003, Mr. Arnold became the tenth president of the American University in Cairo. He oversaw the construction of a new, state-of-the-art $400 million campus, including the region’s largest English-language library and the first public park in the suburb of New Cairo. He was responsible for spearheading AUC’s $125 million fundraising campaign, the largest in the University’s history, and also oversaw the launch of several new academic programs, including the University’s first Ph.D. program and new masters’ programs in education, biotechnology, gender studies, digital journalism, and refugee studies. Under Mr. Arnold’s leadership, AUC expanded its continuing education and community outreach programs and created new scholarship opportunities funded by private donors, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative.

Prior to that, he served for six years as executive vice president of the Institute of International Education, the world’s largest educational exchange organization.

Between the years of 1984 and 1997, he worked for the Ford Foundation, serving as its first program officer in the field of governance and then as the organization’s representative in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

Arnold began his public service career in 1975 in his home state of Michigan as a program budget analyst with the Michigan Department of Labor. He moved to Washington, D.C., in 1977 to join the National Governors Association, where he handled intergovernmental relations in the areas of employment, housing, and economic development. He later served as executive director of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, a regional think tank and policy institute.

Mr. Arnold holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and a master’s degree in public administration from Michigan State University.

About The Asia Foundation

The Asia Foundation is a non-profit, non-governmental organization committed to the development of a peaceful, prosperous, just, and open Asia-Pacific region. The Foundation supports programs in Asia that help improve governance, law, and civil society; women’s empowerment; economic reform and development; and international relations. Drawing on nearly 60 years of experience in Asia, the Foundation collaborates with private and public partners to support leadership and institutional development, exchanges, and policy research.

With 18 offices throughout Asia, an office in Washington, D.C., and its headquarters in San Francisco, the Foundation addresses these issues on both a country and regional level. In 2009, the Foundation provided more than $86 million in program support and distributed nearly one million books and journals valued at over $43 million.