Comments

Hi John! I’m really pleased that you’re engaging with the blogs. You are one of the people we are learning from about the value of adaptive programming in PNG. The way you work and the results you get when you are able to be flexible and respond to changes in context on the ground is really impressive. I hope we can engage with you more to learn from your approach (including the challenges you face in working adaptively and how others can support these ways of working).

Have been following adaptive programming with interest, and this is another great article from the 3. I work in the front line of implementation in aid program in PNG for many years now, and can attest that programming which is informed by proper research and learning always has a place, but unfortunately never given the proper place and space to grow. The diversity of PNG provides a challenge in aid programing, but it also provides a great research and learning environment, so as other diverse contexts in other countries I would think . Positive deviants from aid programs are also many, as well general learnings from implementations, something that can be nurtured, promoted, and importantly inform policies and aid thinking and approaches. This can be done through a solid research and learning strategy that forms an integral part of a given aid program. Adaptive programming approach provides a conducive research and learning environment, and also provides the opportunity to do 'development differently', and is promising.

Very interesting article. M&E and L is an integral part of programming. Adaptive programming just took it further, and try to make M&E and L more realistic and relevant, I believe. With multiple sources of data collection and analysis, and at various points and levels, should provide an holistic picture of the change story, and value for money- something donor programs are pressed to account for in an adaptive and complex environment. Also agree that Logframe approach is limiting in evaluating human interactions and social change, in which 'context' plays an important role, and use and application of, 'thinking and working politically', and political economy analysis, among others are necessary.

Thanks Steve and Lavinia, I think your comments point to a similar issue: the political environment to enable these ways of working is often not present and, I think in DFAT's case, is often closing. As aid budgets shrink and political concerns about demonstrating easily understood, tangible 'results' take hold, the space for taking risks on new ways of working closes. This is despite a commitment to 'innovation' - and despite some in DFAT demonstrating genuine commitment to these ways of working (including in the Effective Governance strategy). Perhaps the adaptive programming approach should explicitly brand itself as 'innovative' to tag onto government commitment to this? That could give adaptive programming some political cover. But taking such an instrumental approach does worry me as trends like 'innovation' invariably wax and wane. So that aside, I think it's about finding spaces to work differently. This may be at Posts where there is leadership committed to working these ways. It may be in small programs where there is less concern about 'failure' and concerns about the bilateral relationship do not crowd out efforts to do aid well. Or it may be under the radar working with people interested in working adaptively and making their own institutional structures accommodate this. I realise that's not an ideal answer! If we are to change the wider political environment longer term it has to be about making the case for why adaptive ways of working can deliver better results; as well as recalibrating the domestic discussions about how aid works to get away from the unhelpful simplistic results agenda. But that's all hard, long term stuff and so I suspect we're going to be focused on finding the spaces for now. Andrea might have other thoughts...

Hi Steve, I hope we didn’t give the impression that this is easy! I think implementation is really testing adaptive approaches and theories. But we are seeing some genuine interest in adaptive programming . Whether or not it can gain traction within the existing political economy of aid programs is still to be seen. But I am heartened by interactions I have with frontline program staff who intuitively want to adapt and that some of the theory behind this approach holds true for them. The challenge is helping them work this way within the current constraints (and not lose their sanity!) and convincing those further away from the front line of delivery of its value.

Thanks for your comment Lavinia! I am just finishing Jack Corbett’s excellent book on ‘Australia’s foreign aid dilemma’ which is helping me to understand the pressure on donors from domestic constituencies. I know foreign aid doesn’t enjoy broad support from the public and hence there is pressure for ‘value for money’ and efficiency from donors, but that doesn’t seem to translate to supporting learning about what works and what doesn’t and why and not repeating past mistakes. I certainly understand the challenges faced by those trying to communicate and justify aid spending to a domestic audience, and am not fooled by simplistic calls for evidence based policy, but I do think that reasearch and learning can help VFM and other donor objectives in both the short and long term.

Hi David, thanks for the contribution to this vital debate. Though I do respectfully disagree with your argument. At some level, when discussing exchange rate policy - you are trading off who gets to live in poverty – which is a nasty situation to be in. But anyway, here goes. I concur with Stephen’s comment - if we take the arguments outlined at face value then BPNG should make the exchange rate as high as possible. But given that no country on earth does this, and most intuitively know that this wouldn’t be a great idea. As such, the argument put forth seems to lack the acknowledgement of the trade off at play (where is the discussion about rural dwellers and exporters?) – which is the key factor in choosing actual value for the exchange rate – rather than just outlining an argument for “UP”, or “DOWN”. If the exchange rate shouldn’t be set as high as possible, then in the absence of quantitative analysis – the choice of rate has to ultimately be informed by individual experience, logical argument and/or anecdotes. Logic can’t tell you exactly what the exchange rate should be, - the argument in the blog is no doubt set out logically, but there is no figure suggested – nor could there be. That leaves individual experience and anecdotes - which while is valuable to an extent – is surely insufficient. It also makes sense that people living in Port Moresby would have much more contact with the anecdotes of urban dwellers, and less with those of rural dwellers. I also raise a query about the effect on employment. FX shortages don’t just happen now and then, they are directly a result of managing the exchange rate. Business says that FX shortages (caused by propping up the Kina) are the key impediment to business – if this is not behind the 5 year decline in employment, what is? There was an initial effect from the end of the LNG Project construction, however that finished in 2014, the decline in resource prices also occurred in 2014 and have stabilised or increased since then. Yet the argument seems to be that devaluation of the Kina would harm employment. Both these things can’t be the case.

The Liberal Party in Australia needs to shore up its voter support base come the next general elections. The political signals in the recent gallop done by ABC Australia indicate a changing variation to how well the Liberal Party has performed on a range of issues across the Asia-Pacific region. Is the Australian Liberal Party in need of a "political Jesus Christ" at this time, given the pendulum in international relations continues to change? The answer is yes.

I think that from the perspective of political economic development analysis, Prime Minister Morrison's elevation following the Liberal Party's caucaus vote in which political power-brokers selected Morrison rather than Julie Bishop as the Liberal's next leader was to shore up grass-root support among its members in most suburban area's throughout Australia. The internal political chessboard has been constantly changing because of the divisions in opinion within the Australian political space over asylum issues, Australia-Pacific seasonal worker schemes, Australian aid to the Pacific, West Papua, regional trading blocks such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), and China's growing commercial and economic penetration of the Pacific, climate change and the United States' so-called "pivot" to the region. Most of these issues require considerable re-evaluation to ensure that greater consensus is reached among Pacific island nation states prior to any mutually beneficial decision being reached in the region. At the moment, there is a lack of active and consistent engagement by Australia in the South Pacific region because its focus is heavily focused on other regions of the world such as Asia, with special focus on China.

I have greatly appreciated the 3 blogs on adaptive aid programming. As expressed in my earlier comment on Richard Curtain’s blog (A new perspective on aid delivery, August 21, 2018) and based on over 4 decades as a development practitioner, I am a convert to the cause. So much for what I might agree with, it is the practical implementation of such a programming of aid that I see as the real cause for concern. You reference a number of helpful examples. However, in my experience, adaptive approaches are vastly overwhelmed by the prior donor focus on short-term financial and technical fixes and the somewhat arrogant, heavily predetermined direction of assistance in the case of the majority of aid programs. Such repeatedly wasteful and failed approaches to aid are compounded by the consistent turnover of both donor and recipient staff and leadership and the prior focus on annual budgets. Unfortunately, the overall environment is not conducive to adaptive aid programming. Can adaptive aid programming expand beyond the realms of academia and the occasional donor commitment?

Bravo Yasmine, you've always had a voice and thank you for using yours to help me find and amplify mine and now your other sistas in Vanuatu.

Thanks Andrea and Lisa for a great article. You make an excellent case that learning partnerships can (and should) play a critical and varied role in programming - in particular to keep focus on the 'wicked' development problems and long-term change. In your opinion/s, how can we best incentivise this sort of change in an industry where donors may focus on (and reward) short-term, output level results that are easier to track and communicate to domestic constituencies?