A "New Marshall Plan"
for the 21st Century


Options Paper
Version 1.0



The Marshall Plan was set up by then Secretary of State George C. Marshall in June of 1947 following World War II. Marshall presented a development idea -- that at the time was of unprecedented scope and vision -- for the reconstruction of Europe to enable countries to regain a sense of balance and to move toward greater progress as democracies in post-war Europe. Similar efforts were later created in Japan with the same strikingly positive results as in Europe.


The Need Today

The commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan is coming up in June of 1997. Transitional societies and communities, with the bulk of human population and increasingly uncertain futures, dot the surface of the earth in this time of rapid global change. The original Marshall Plan efforts of 50 years ago as well as the traditional aid programs of the late 20th Century, are being found to be increasingly insufficient to address the tasks of improving and sustaining the health and prosperity of those living in these transitional societies and communities.

There is a growing need for a "New Marshall Plan" that is as bold and unprecedented today as the original Marshall Plan was in its time. It must learn from the lessons of history, yet be willing and able to apply entirely new principles and approaches to be optimally effective. It must be uniquely attuned to present and emerging conditions, in order to address and resolve key impending challenges to health and human prosperity that, over the next few decades, threaten the well-being of billions of people and the viability of the ecosystems they live in.

In today's world, many crucial world issues illustrate the need for a "New Marshall Plan." For example:

    • Overpopulation
    • Pollution
    • Poverty
    • Social Crisis
    • Environmental Degradation
    • Economic Instability

In accepting that there is a great need for a catalytic development effort that will help us address the global challenges in a manner as bold and effective as those initiated by George Marshall in the late 1940s, there are many factors that must be considered for successful implementation of a "New Marshall Plan" effort.


The Idea

Whereas the original Marshall Plan used industrial infrastructure for the reconstruction of Europe, the concept of the "New Marshall Plan" is to use information infrastructure in combination with industrial practices for creating a developmental foundation for transitional societies to rise to new potentials of health and human prosperity in balance with sustainable ecosystems.


The rapidly globalizing influences of the intelligent network -- an infrastructure merging human knowledge assets, computers, television, telephony, information services, and peripheral technologies (e.g., satellite communications, microwave, data warehouses) -- are having large impacts on the social ecology of societies worldwide. For example, over 100 countries linked through the internet and world-wide web are able to participate, as never before, in the daily transactions that fuel the growth of the global market. This is having unprecedented impacts on development for those communities and societies that are fully enabled to participate.

These impacts include accelerating the level of knowledge-based development - or, in other words, an ever increasing level of applicable information embedded in an increasing amount of products and services used and traded by the society. A concomitant improvement in the health and prosperity of their citizenry is a frequent outcome of a society engaged in knowledge-based development. The more infrastructurally enabled a society is, the more able it is move forward developmentally, and the less risk it carries for dropping into social crisis. The developmentally enabled society, committed to social justice, becomes more sustainably secure without having to engage in exorbitant expenditures in police and militia. As a result, it becomes an asset to its citizenry, its neighbors, and the other nations participating with it in the global market.


Sample Proposed Names for the Initiative:

    • New Marshall Plan
    • Electronic Marshall Plan
    • Gore Plan
    • Global Marshall Plan
    • Global Development Initiative
    • Marshall Plan for the 21st Century
    • Millennium Health and Development Trust


Options for how a "New Marshall Plan" can be organized:

    • An effort run out of the U.S. Defense Department;
    • A U.S. Government effort with broad participation by the White House & several departments and agencies. For example:

      - Department of Defense (Health Affairs)

      - NASA (Life Sciences and Commercial Center for Telemedicine)

      - Department of Health and Human Services (ASPE, AHCPR)

      - State Department

      - USAID

      - Commerce Department

      - Department of Agriculture;

    • A U.S.-based public/private sector collaboration run out of the Marshall Legacy Institute;
    • An international public/private collaboration, with the United States playing a catalytic role, run out of a series of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) coordinated through a nonprofit virtual organization structure, such as that used by the Koop Foundation to run its HII Consortium and Advanced Technology Programs.


Crucial questions that remain to be answered:

  • Should the "New Marshall Plan" be single issue focused?
    - e.g., land mine management, a women's development bank focusing on micro credit loans, a Healthy Cities communications infrastructure effort;
  • Should there be a region-specific focus?
    - e.g., former Eastern Block (middle and eastern European) nations;
  • Should it be seeded as a set of principles and capabilities that can be adopted in many regions around the world?
    - e.g., self development approach seeded within transitional societies that are at high risk of falling into social crisis, yet could - with the aid of information infrastructure and other knowledge-based development techniques - move toward productive participation in the Global Market with great improvements to the health and prosperity of their citizens.


Action steps already taken:

  • a core group of individuals interested in helping to plan and operationalize the "New Marshall Plan" has been assembled and is meeting on an ongoing basis;
  • the idea of the "New Marshall Plan" has been introduced to key stake holders in a number of United States and international settings;
  • a number of the key stakeholders have been briefed, embrace and have contributed to the idea of a "New Marshall Plan."


Proposed action steps:

  • In January 1997, President Clinton mentions the Marshall Plan and the need for bold new approaches to face the challenges of the 21st Century in his inaugural speech.
  • Vice President Gore holds a meeting discussing the potential of a "New Marshall Plan" in January or February of 1997 with a small group of key leaders (experts in health, sustainable development, sustainable security, information infrastructure, community development, and foreign affairs);
  • The White House facilitates an event at the Blair House (the historical site of the development of the original Marshall Plan) in March 1997 during which the "New Marshall Plan" is introduced. This event will kick off an operational effort to identify and develop the key elements of the "New Marshall Plan." Principles and prioritization criteria will be brainstormed at this meeting and finalized in a published document within one month of the completion of the meeting;
  • A "New Marshall Plan" awards program -- honoring 20 of the most significant development efforts in the last decade of the 20th Century that demonstrate some hope of addressing 21st Century challenges -- is announced on April 15, 1997;
  • In June 1997, a public announcement of the "New Marshall Plan" effort is made in a speech by President Clinton or Vice President Gore at Harvard University to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan;
  • In October 1997, an awards program banquet is held in honor of the winners of the 1997 "New Marshall Plan" development award.
  • An international "Millennium Health and Development Trust" is announced at the October awards banquet that will provide technical resources and matching funding for development efforts in transitional societies using principles resonant with the "New Marshall Plan."
  • Starting in January 1998, requests for proposals are distributed to those with viable business cases submitted in pre-proposal letters meeting the criteria of the "New Marshall Plan."
  • In March 1998, the first "New Marshall Plan" development projects are initiated.


Proposed types of people to engage:

By the March 1997 strategic planning session, the following types of people should be engaged:

  • an internationally known leader with a track record of developing and managing large scale international projects;
  • a core steering committee selected by Vice President Gore;
  • an operational team;
  • key departmental representatives committed to being catalysts;
  • key private sector players committed to being catalysts;
  • partner country representatives committed to being catalysts;
  • people who have made significant contributions to knowledge-based development;
  • witnesses of the original Marshall Plan;
  • beneficiaries of the original Marshall Plan;
  • potential beneficiaries of the "New Marshall Plan;"
  • an international advisory board consisting of developed and developing countries;
  • representatives of three to five potential testbeds (domestic & international);
  • members of the media.


The Economic Implications of a "New Marshall Plan"

There are strategic economic and security benefits for the United States to show leadership in the "New Marshall Plan." To find evidence for these benefits, one need look no further than to the post-war benefits the U.S. as a society received in forming vital trade relationships from its contributions during the reconstruction of Europe. It is important to note that the vast majority of those interviewed so far believe that the "New Marshall Plan" should not be an aid program in the traditional sense. It is believed that transitional societies need to have a rapidly increasing level of self development to sustain developmental improvements and achieve sustainable security.

If some advantage is to be reaped from kicking off the "New Marshall Plan" during the 50th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan, quick action will be necessary. Rapid mobilization of this type will necessitate a clear and strong call from the White House for leadership from Germany, England, Japan and three to five other countries to join with the United States to develop a "New Marshall Plan" for the 21st century. Rapid action will require an operational structure with few inhibitory regulations and bureaucratic hurdles to leap, but with the ability to tap the organizational resources of large public and private sector entities with existing channels and significant pools of discretionary funds in the first two years. It is thought that it will take at least two years for new governmental resources to be appropriated.

The cost structure for a "New Marshall Plan" initiative would be highly dependent upon its structure. For the purpose of this discussion, it will be assumed that the "New Marshall Plan" will be structured as a virtual organizational structure with a core staff of eight generalists and a pool of approximately fifty specialist and program consultants in its first two years (1997, 1998) convened through a nonprofit organization. In a 20 to 30 page white paper to follow this option paper, other financial and organizational options should be explored in more detail. The following budget outline represents the minimal possible budget to kick off a "New Marshall Plan" effort.

          Year Operations Programs
          1997 $5 million $5 million
          1998 $15 million $50 million
          1999 $30 million $150 million
          2000 $45 million $450 million
          2001 $75 million $750 million

In order to kick off the "New Marshall Plan" through a nonprofit, it is thought that a minimum $2 million would need to be committed to running the operational elements over the next six months. A minimum of another $2 million to $5 million should be raised to cover the programmatic elements of the non-profit over the next six to twelve months. These funds should be raised through a combination of U.S. and other government contributions, matched by foundations and corporate giving.

A more detailed plan regarding the amount and type of (intramural and extramural) resources needed from each U.S. government agency, foreign government partner, foundation, and private sector contributor will be described in the white paper to follow in advance of the proposed Vice President Gore January/February planning meeting.


Resource Development for
a Proposed "Millennium Health and Development Trust"


Initial efforts have been proposed by the Koop Foundation, Incorporated to raise $4 billion to endow a development trust with the working title of "Millennium Health and Development Trust." The allocation of resources and technical support from this "Trust" will follow the guidelines established for the "New Marshall Plan." The "Trust" will be a consortium of public and private sector entities committing to certain levels of support over a five year period. The proposed "Trust's" resources are not only liquid assets, but also commitments of already budgeted governmental and private sector assets that can, with a minimal amount of adjustments, be restructured to fit the principles and process of the "New Marshall Plan."

The proposed source of funds would be split into different parts as noted below. Commitments of the following amounts would be raised over a three year period:

United States
public sector $500 million
private sector $500 million

public sector $300 million
private sector $300 million

public sector $300 million
private sector $300 million

public sector $300 million
private sector $300 million

public sector $200 million
private sector $200 million

public sector $200 million
private sector $200 million

public sector $200 million
private sector $200 million

The United States, as the dominant donor country in the original Marshall Plan, benefited in the form of trade many times the value of its original commitments in aid. It is proposed that the "New Marshall Plan" sponsoring nations and companies also benefit over time from their development commitments to targeted transitional societies. This benefit will again come from trade relationships over time worth many times the value of the initial sponsored development commitments as the targeted societies and communities enter the global market.


Potential Participants and Supporters:

  • The Department of Defense (e.g., Secretary Perry, Steve Joseph, General Kicklighter, General George Anderson)
  • The Marshall Legacy Institute (e.g., retired General Gordon Sullivan)
  • The Koop Foundation, Inc. (e.g., C. Everett Koop, retired General Alexander Sloan, David Taylor, Esq., Michael D. McDonald)
  • NASA (e.g., Dan Goldin, Arnold Nicagosian)
  • Contemporary Observers of the original Marshall Plan (e.g., Warren Wiggins)
  • State Department
  • State of the World Forum authorized initiative (e.g., Mikhail Gorbechev)
  • The Carter Center (e.g., former President Jimmy Carter, William Foege)
  • Grameen Bank (e.g., Mohammed Unus)
  • WorldTel-ITU (e.g., Sam Pitroda, former India Minister of Telecommunications)
  • International Medical Informatics Association (e.g. Rheinhof)
  • United Kingdom (sponsoring country)
  • Germany (sponsoring country)
  • Peru (potential recipient country)
  • Mexico (potential recipient country)
  • India (potential recipient country)
  • Algeria (potential recipient country)
  • Brazil (potential recipient country)
  • Zimbabwe (potential recipient country)
  • Cuba (potential recipient country)
  • Russia (potential recipient country)
  • Georgia (potential recipient country)
  • Ukraine (potential recipient country)
  • Bosnia (potential recipient country)
  • San Antonio (potential healthy city testbed recipient)
  • San Francisco (potential healthy city testbed recipient)
  • Washington D.C. (potential healthy city testbed recipient)
  • World Health Organization (e.g., Salah Mandil)
  • Pan American Health Organization (e.g., Roberto Rodriques)
  • World Bank (e.g., Peter Knight)
  • Inter American Development Bank (e.g., Warren Buhler)
  • George Washington University
  • Harvard University, Public Health School
  • University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health
  • Women's Opportunity Bank
  • Health Information Infrastructure Consortium (e.g., Oracle, Oxford Health Plan, Sprint, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Digital Equipment Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo Welcome, Kaiser Permanente Health Plan, Mayo Clinic, AT&T, PictureTel, Microsoft, Time Warner)
  • Global Information Infrastructure Commission
  • Global Information Industry Association

public sector $200 million
private sector $200 million

public sector $200 million
private sector $200 million

public sector $200 million
private sector $200 million

The United States, as the dominant donor country in the original Marshall Plan, benefited in the form of trade many times the value of its original commitments in aid. It is proposed that the "New Marshall Plan" sponsoring nations and companies also benefit over time from their development commitments to targeted transitional societies. This benefit will again come from trade relationships over time worth many times the value of the initial sponsored development commitments as the targeted societies and communities enter the global market.


Potential Participants and Supporters: