Comments

Thanks all for this piece, it's an important contribution to our understanding of the relevant issues in this area. It also provides some interesting points of comparison with the work of the OGCIO and TRR in Vanuatu, also captured in the Pacific Conversations series.

Thanks Chris. I suspect its not the lack of awareness of the need for change that is holding the sector back nor the form the change needs to take (although we might disagree on some of the detail), but the ability to lead impactful change agendas within INGOs. Many INGOs have diffuse global governance structures and a plethora of stakeholders that make negotiating change difficult. Freeing up resources to invest in new approaches is fiendishly difficult when there are so many competing demands. And there is an overwhelming lack of capacity to manage these complex change processes inside INGOs.

Thanks Bal!

Reading the article, I do agree with all that has been said. However the support or lack of support facing women is not necessarily the central issue of very few women (esp in PNG) being elected to Parliament. The fundamental issue is the 'concept of power and the ownership of the voice'. This is a culturally embedded concept and would need greater participatory approach that is inclusive of members of communities to look into themselves. Both men and women need to unpack this concept in order to create a greater opening for women's participation in governance and politics.

NGOs in poor countries serve the prorities of the donor countries and often they benefit the host country but not always. A case in point is energy poverty pitted against the climate change agenda of the SDG. So in cases where a poor country desperately needs to increase fossil fuel emissions, foreign funded NGOs are preaching climate change and renewable energy and so in. These NGOs are serving their own financial needs and not the needs of the people. There is a gross disconnect here between the values and priorities of donors and those of the host country. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2812034

Hear, hear Paul. INGOs (who do great work as a general rule!) have done little in recent decades to engage funders, the public and policy-makers in genuine dialogue about the impact of their work and how it might be enhanced. Instead, "success" is still frequently measured in fundraising growth and similar non-impact measures. We estimate $120-150billion a year is generated by a sector which continues to define itself by what it isn't! (Not-for-profit). The good news is that increasingly we are seeing the emergence of real efforts to become a true "for-purpose" sector. One that is characterised by transparency of impact and an equal-footing dialogue with funders and policy-makers in creating the necessary changes to lives, and the system in which those lives can be allowed to flourish. With the tragic decline in humanitarian values in national leadership, it is more imperative than ever that a strong voice arises from the humanitarian sectors, to speak loudly, and with rigour, to redefine what "prosperity" and "progress" mean to all of society, not just the wealthy.

Paul you may want to look at <a href="https://practiceforchange.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/the-end-of-the-golden-age-of-ngos.pdf" rel="nofollow">this paper</a> which Andrew Hewett and I wrote in 2013 which had a similar title to this blog. We suggested eight things (listed below) International NGOs might want to consider it they want to remain relevant. There are some interesting overlaps and differences of emphasis with what you are suggesting. 1. INGOs should clarify their identities and present themselves and indeed act as vehicles for social change and social justice, and should no longer present themselves as aid organisations. . 2. INGOs should focus their development programming on challenging unequal power relations and the political, economic and social processes that drive these. 3. More INGOs should ask themselves if they should cease direct service delivery programming, especially in middle income countries 4. INGOs should also focus on building connections between their supporters in their home countries and communities and their organisations in developing countries. 5. INGOs should aim to ‘bring it all home’ recognising the porous boundaries of global social justice concerns. 6. INGOs should have clear guidelines for their relationship with ODA agencies including being clear about their response to the conditions that come with funding. 7. INGOs need to transform their organisational structures and ways of working to emphasize nimbleness and flexibility 8. INGOs could begin a more coherent and focussed discussion on whether institutional growth is necessary for INGOs to be effective vehicles for social justice

Thank you Terence and team for setting up this database - an important contribution to PNG electoral records! It will certainly inform research as well as the public on their electoral history and allow better campaign strategies.

Enjoyed this article. So agree with your comment: "There are enormous opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness in the sector if CEOs and their boards are prepared to put ego to one side and genuinely consider the benefits of merging with organisations that share a similar mission." Mergers and territory sharing aside (both good by the way), there also needs to be a meaningful examination of the quality of outputs and their actual, rather than assumed, contribution to stated outcomes. I have witnessed incredibly shoddy project outputs from INGOs on the ground. It is not enough to simply state that 'not for profit' must automatically mean 'more cost efficient' - if the outputs are poor then any supposed savings become meaningless. Global politics aside, it may also be that INGOs have lost some local support due to confusion between their sometimes simultaneous roles (eg advocate or contractor?). Let us not forget the obvious clangers such as World Vision in Israel with the apparent diversion of more than $40 million in donor funds to terrorist groups. Room for improvement indeed as is the case at the end of any golden age. Your article points the way for some opportunites for much needed reinvention in the sector.

Thanks Richard for the facts. There is one critical missing information in this discussions. How much effort and funding is invested in employers in the receiving countries. Example DFAT Australia does not communicate with employers directly. All funds and effort is spent in LSU countries and employers are expected to recruit thousands that are in work ready pools. There are less then one hundred businesses approved to recruit for SWP and half of those are labour hire companies in Australia This is an Aid program as identified however there massive red tape in the proecedures for a farmer to become approved employer. It litterally takes 12 months for a farmer to be approved in Australia. DFAT needs to be aware of the time the cost and the stress the farm owners go through to make SWP work, no point having thousands of workers in the pacific availabe when there is limited places in the recieving countries.

PNG has no network in place to recruit competent and productive individuals from the rural communities. The Government really needs to create avenues for direct relation with community farming groups and RSEs. From my experience while working as a Community Development Worker under an Australian Aid Program Strongim Pupil Strongim Nesen or SPSN I have helped trained farners in Rural Communities and also providing them seedlings to improve their farming techniques and methology. These groups are established and are actively carrying out projects. I am in the view that Australian Recognized Seasonal Employers RSE should lias with these farmers which are direct beneficiaries of Australian Tax Payers through Aid.

Thanks Matthew Absolutely agree that impacts are context-specific and determined by (changing) political dynamics in the recipient country. My experience is that in many cases the officials in the central planning/finance ministries have significant influence over which policies get included in any policy action matrix attached to budget support programs (which may not have the same level of commitment from the sector ministry officials most involved in policy implementation). In some cases these central agency officials might be politically aligned with the ruling government, but there are other countries where the officials have their own agendas, and attempt to increase the political and donor pressure for reform. Adding to the complexity is the fact that the development partners each have their own agendas and do not necessarily share the same policy reform priorities. China and Taiwan in particular tend to bypass the central agency officials to engage directly at a political level, including for the district or constituency support funds.