23 May 2007

Marshall Plan Seen as Model for Well-Run, Short-lived Program

Success of U.S. aid program depended on bipartisan, multinational support

 

A Caterpiller bulldozer from the United States is delivered to France in 1949 as part of the Marshall plan. The bulldozers were used to help rebuild the country's electric power system. (National Archives)

A Caterpiller bulldozer from the United States is delivered to France in 1949 as part of the Marshall plan. (National Archives)

By Vince Crawley
USINFO Staff Writer

This is the third in a series of articles on the Marshall Plan.

Washington -- Historians say the events of the late 1940s in Europe and the United States were so unique that it is unlikely the Marshall Plan ever could be repeated in another setting.

However, they also say the plan -- considered one of the great foreign policy achievements of the past century -- is well worth studying as the definitive model of how to organize and run a successful international government program.

“It’s hard to imagine it working ever again,” said Larry I. Bland, senior director of the George C. Marshall Foundation in Lexington, Virginia, and editor of Marshall’s collected papers.

“Most people think of it as a welfare program,” Bland explained. “It’s really much cleverer than that.”

The plan, proposed by Marshall in June 1947, offered massive American financial aid if war-torn European governments could cooperate to spend the money for the benefit of the entire region. European governments also had to agree to match American contributions with their own funds.

The offer was generous. But the United States had a high degree of self-interest as well. An economically strong Europe no longer would require U.S. assistance, would be able to resume buying American products and could prevent a Communist takeover of the Continent.

Bland said he long ago gave up counting the number of times well-meaning people recommend a new Marshall Plan to tackle one of the world’s many economic problems. “Recovery,” he said, was the key word in the European Recovery Program – the formal name of the Marshall Plan. The goal was not to develop trade and expertise where none had existed, but to help restore Europe to its former wealth. Western Europe already had a working legal system, respect for private property and ownership, and centuries of evolution toward democratic governance.

“We’re dealing with people who already know how to do the job, already had middle class values,” Bland said. “It’s not like we had to go teach these people to be democratic and to be capitalists.”

Still, Bland and others say the Marshall Plan can serve as an example of a well-run government program.

“What worked once in a bygone era should not be forgotten,” said Barry Machado, author of In Search of a Usable Past: The Marshall Plan and Postwar Reconstruction Today.

The Marshall Plan’s successful elements included:

• Bipartisan support. The State Department and the Truman administration developed strong public support for the plan at a time when the White House and Congress were controlled by opposing political parties. Marshall, who was Truman’s secretary of state, was admired widely for being nonpartisan because he did not vote in presidential elections.

• Public support. Marshall and other U.S. officials toured the United States explaining the importance of the plan to citizens’ groups in cities, towns and rural areas. War-weary Americans were being asked to pay higher taxes and to ship agricultural equipment to Europe, creating temporary shortages at home. Yet, the extensive speaking program gained widespread U.S. support from businessmen, farmers and workers.

• International support. Countries accepting Marshall Plan money were required to participate in a major public relations program to explain the plan to their people. Accomplished American media leaders teamed with European artists, writers and filmmakers to promote the Marshall Plan. They competed against a well-financed Soviet-backed Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) that sought to undermine public support for the Marshall Plan. American labor union leaders were sent on speaking tours across Europe to promote the U.S. ideal of a nonadversarial relationship between workers and management.

• Multilateral approach. Instead of telling Europeans how to spend the money and reorganize their countries, Marshall insisted on European governments taking the lead, while the United States – as the donor nation – retained veto power over spending plans.

• Independent agency. Congress created a new U.S. government agency specifically to run the program and reduce interagency rivalries. The Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) was headed in Washington by Paul Hoffman, a Republican Party leader and a respected auto industry executive. Hoffman’s deputy, based in Paris, was W. Averell Harriman, an equally respected Democratic Party leader, former ambassador, businessman and banker. Each member nation also had an in-country U.S. team.

• Little bureaucracy, much talent. The ECA existed for just four years. As a separate agency with a special mission, it attracted hundreds of talented candidates for each job opening. By the time bureaucratic bloat began to develop, the ECA was closing down. Flexibility and initiative were encouraged. Many ECA employees were young idealists who would go on to become leaders in their field. Others were seasoned civil servants who in the previous 15 years had helped guide the United States out of the Great Depression and through World War II. ECA veterans included two future Nobel Prize winners, two future Pulitzer Prize winners, eight future college deans or presidents, 12 future ambassadors and a future executive director of UNICEF.

• Transparency. Countries receiving Marshall Plan aid had to disclose fully their national finances and carefully account for how Marshall Plan funds were spent. The ECA itself was scrutinized closely by Congress, which wanted a thorough review of spending each year before additional funds were appropriated.

• Lack of corruption. Considering the fact that the ECA in its first 18 months administered 2 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, the agency was remarkably free of corruption and scandal. Hiring decisions were made solely on ability, not patronage. In one case, an influential congressman asked to have a highly qualified relative put on the ECA staff. To avoid the appearance of favoritism, the congressman’s relative was not hired.

Josef Joffe, editor and publisher of the German newspaper Die Zeit, wrote in 2006 that a lasting lessons of the Marshall Plan, aside from its focus on cross-border cooperation, was a strategic and far-sighted willingness to “advance American interests by serving those of others.”

The full text of In Search of a Usable Past: The Marshall Plan and Postwar Reconstruction Today is available on the Marshall Foundation Web site.

For additional information, see “Marshall Plan for Rebuilding Europe Still Echoes After 60 Years” and "Marshall Plan Placed Europe on Path Toward Unity."