Comments

It's not a surprise that labs have a short lifespan. Bureaucracies have little absorptive capacity to embed such counter-intuitive capabilities and often there is no intent to do so. Bureaucracies are perfectly designed to sustain themselves and maintain the status quo as is. Labs are a reflection tool to gauge whether it's worth or needed for a bureaucracy to change itself. And the answer usually is: "no, we're good" – even if it's not good – and life goes on. As such a reflection tool, labs have by design a limited life span. For that reason, I don't think the downfall is swept under the carpet. When labs have come to the end of the runway, their journey ends, they were never meant to take off. Labs come, and die. It's a fact of labs' life. A "critical reflection" is not going to change that. Instead, a broader critical reflection on why bureaucracies fail to reinvent or renew themselves in times of disruption and fast paced change will be of more value I believe.

Looking forward to the Pacific engagement visa applications opening in July. This will greatly ease the labor crisis in PNG and give greater opportunities to Papua New Guineans and Pacific Islanders to take on the challenge of resettling in Australia as skilled migrants.

Thanks Rose. Great comment! I totally agree. Terence

Thanks again Terence for this. I started my career in the NGO space in the Pacific and have seen some wonderful transformation from the work of NGOs, and some not-so-great outcomes as well. Yes to independent evaluations sponsored by donors that sit outside of the project for obvious reasons. I'd love to see aid, through NGO to be contextualized and promote government-NGO partnership, not only for implementing social and economic initiatives but also support for policy development and legislative reform for improved governance, planning, budgeting, monitoring & evaluation and resource allocation.

This is such an important topic that doesn't attract enough attention and airtime. Thank you for keeping this on the radar.

Thanks Peter and Stephen. I agree with you both. It would be much better if we had an abundance of quality evaluation based evidence on what worked and where. Thanks again. Terence

Thanks (times two) Terence, for your welcome for-and-against comments. Having been involved with foreign aid lobbying since 1986, I always shuddered when single examples of aid "failure" were brought up (rather too frequently). This more than often morphed into allegations that "all aid is wasted", or "why give aid to corrupt governments". Not having read "Being Good in a World of Need", my first observation was in the title - not starting with "Doing" as an active verb. My next thought was in the proportions of aid that "failed" versus that which "succeeded/was demonstrably effective". As I've commented elsewhere, Australian Foreign Ministers (and elsewhere) do not seem inclined to highlight positive aid stories. So that anyone interested in such outcomes has really to go hunting to find the evidence. Stories about the amount of money in the aid budget or being given to particular recipients are neglectfully inadequate. Examples of microfinance lending to rural women in Bangladesh by the Grameen Bank, (especially under the leadership of Professor Yunus) are largely unknown in Australia. Small amounts of $50-100 were shown to transform their lives. Arguments about local governments needing to raise sufficient taxes in the place of foreign aid seem to reek a little of condescension about the realities of political life overseas. I support Medecins San Frontiere precisiely because in too many places it provides the only local health services. Instead of bemoaning self-described "aid failures", I'd prefer balance with stories of aid that works and not so much generalisation, either.

Thank you Terence. I think you have just strengthened the case for evaluating NGOs, particularly locally based ones and supporting good models of development to create greater impact.

A thoroughly collected information beneficial for local, national and international political analysts. Job well done by Thomas and Steve.

It's strange but a consistent record that people in bureaucracies somehow are incompatible with enterprise. In some ways the same thing happened with the early initially successful model of community-based micro-finance projects operating within the aid sector. Really different mindsets are needed with less risk aversion. Mind you the first flushes of enthusiasm for tech solutions to all kinds of development problems did throw up some absurdities. My favourite was the rice farmer, smartphone and app on one hand, being guided in where and how to plant his rice. It was almost as absurd as a the counter HIV/AIDs initiative that provided African men with condoms too small for their ... equipment.

So many labs and pilots in Asia. A lot have questionable practices, many use local participation as a token, to tick a box, and many mistaken innovations with bright, shiny new tech products. The list goes on. You can count so many apps and portals created as "innovation" and have very little utility. Love this article.

Hi Pete, Interesting question. Sorry I don't know of any research that has been done on that. Tamas