by Mary Wong
July 30, 2024 ~
Introduction
U.S. cities, municipalities and states have been engaged in international affairs well before the nation was established, but their status and role in foreign policymaking had not been formally recognized at the national level until the past several years (see March 2021 and February 2020 blogs), resulting in their elevated status through the 2022 inaugural appointment of a U.S. Representative for Subnational Diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State, shortly followed by enactment of FY23 U.S. legislation outlining Congress’ intent for the Subnational Diplomacy Unit, and this month’s announcement of the first cohort of the Reta Jo Lewis Subnational Diplomacy Fellows to be hosted this year by the cities of Chattanooga, Kansas City, San Antonio and San Diego, to highlight a few.
With the development of each (new) diplomatic tool, there is the increasing expectation that these efforts are subject to assessment, monitoring and evaluation. The newly launched July 25 Multilevel Diplomacy Map by the Truman Center for National Policy can present such an opportunity to contribute to evidence-building to inform better foreign policymaking and incorporate evaluation and assessment from its inception. From this first of its kind initiative, I share a brief review and analysis of the data and how emerging and baseline data may be used to evaluate efforts for international engagements at the subnational level.
Review and Analysis
In review, the Truman Center’s consolidated multilevel diplomacy map at the city, city network, county, region, state and country levels, provides a helpful snapshot in time of a variety of international “engagements” using data provided by U.S. government offices and agencies. As of July 26, the dashboard shows a total of 3,042 international engagements, broken down by nine different categories of engagements. Of note, the highest number of international engagements is at 900 “outgoing delegations or trade missions” category and 587 “incoming delegations or trade missions” category.
Image: July 30, 2024 Snapshot of Truman Center Multilevel Diplomacy Map
Hovering over these entries also allows the reader to view these engagements across seven issue areas from “economic (FDI, trade and tourism)” to “democracy, equity, migration and human rights”. Further, my quick study of the data shows in rank order by total number of engagements and that, unsurprisingly, Los Angeles, California is ranked first and that the state of California is ranked third with the state of Hawaii ranked second. Another helpful feature of the map is that data can be filtered at the global level and readers can quickly identify where in the world and the extent in which the U.S. is engaged at subnational levels across the globe. From the reported data, Japan ranks at the top of the list.
On initial analysis, first and foremost, this multilevel map is an informative educational and data visualization tool. The creation of this consolidated platform on levels of diplomacy establishes a baseline and generates questions for broader measurement, and eventually, for more precise measurement and improvement of international engagements. As I understand it, this map is not meant to or should be used as standalone information. Rather it should accompany narratives, stories and/or meanings behind the data and numbers.
Second, this data contributes to conversations that may help to prioritize efforts that could lead to more effective and efficient ways to identify and capture results and outcomes in addition to outputs and perhaps even for impact. Also, this multilevel diplomacy data and map has potential to answer eight questions that were posed in the Department of State’s Learning Agenda for 2022-2026. In particular, this emerging data could be responsive to these four questions:
o How can the State Department improve the effectiveness of its diplomatic interventions to better advance foreign policy objectives?
o How can the Department’s tools best address the climate crisis?
o How can the Department better respond to unpredictable international events and emergencies such as global pandemics?
o How can the Department utilize performance management and evaluation data and data systems to improve decision-making?
Third and finally, sharing such information in a timely and transparent manner for the (U.S. and foreign) public can foster synergies, cooperation and collaboration among the many levels of international engagements. International crises, in particular, can evolve quickly and having access to potentially real-time data in which to draw from when making decisions could minimize misinformation and disinformation.
Additionally, Truman colleagues may take into consideration a few follow-up questions more specific to methodology, metrics and models:
1. On methodology, we can see that a brief explanation of the data collection process was provided, but what was the data analysis process, if any? It’s also not clear that data sources are provided either to validate the data or for follow up to update the data. Have identified issue areas been defined for the contributing entity? Providing definitions (i.e., city network) would be helpful not only for the submitting entity, but also for the reader. Also, what steps have been taken to ensure data validity and reliability? It will be helpful to have guidance to the contributing office/agency on how frequently to update the data and to provide data quality standards as well as criteria being used.
2. On metrics, viewers should already be aware that the data are incomplete and not comprehensive as the data are provided voluntarily and that it is on reporting government offices and agencies to submit and then update the data. Are the metrics being used relevant to the purpose and questions being asked?
3. On models, what are the range of organizational models being used by these submitting entities? Is grouping together Public Safety, Health and Security as an issue area a model that works and under what circumstances? Might disaggregating this data yield additional insights?
Summary and Conclusion
From a program evaluation perspective, having such data creates an opportunity for learning and improvement. Evaluations, if done correctly, can be a source of empowerment with continued learning and improvement from better alignment of activities, processes and resources to identification of performance gaps to integration of program, management and policy reforms. From a strategic planning and performance management perspective, this data has great potential to be a source of data and information for decision-making.
I am encouraged by the number and range of submissions at the varying levels of government toward this effort. This initiative could result in increased communication, cooperation and collaboration not only between the levels of government, but also across sectors and industries and build on efforts for data-driven U.S. foreign policies and effective U.S. subnational diplomacy.
Comments