Comments

Great article. I spent a few months in Cambodia last year and met some Christians from the US who had come to Cambodia to set up orphanages where the children were "encouraged" to become Christian. I remember feeling so furstrated and angry listening to one former resident of an orphanage (who, of course, wasn't actually an orphan) describe how at first she resisted praying, but then converted. She said when she went home to see her Buddhist family she felt very uncomfortable seeing them practising Buddhism. I just felt so sad that not only had she been raised separately to her family, and also had been coerced into yet another separation from them by changing her religion. I think these kind of orphanages need to be investigated too.

The credibility of any government department's evaluation of its own efficiency and effectiveness must be seen as liable to be skewed by a clear interest in self preservation of those who currently are in charge. Given that a Senate report on overseas aid was tactically released after the recent election was called and Parliament prorogued is <a href="http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2016/06/cherry-picking-the-report-on-australias-aid-program.html" rel="nofollow">a good indication of how any constructive suggestions will be lost and ignored</a> by those who are very happy, thank you, with the status quo.

Hi Paul, Thanks for leaving a comment. While I agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to make detailed comparisons between defence and aid spending, I do (obviously) think there is merit in looking at the two at a broad level. That is to say, they are comparable in that they are two sectors competing, alongside all the other sectors, for shares of the overall federal budget. On your point about setting objectives and targets – to be fair, DFAT does have a set of strategic targets and reports on progress toward them on a yearly basis which you can read about in the <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/performance-of-australian-aid-2014-15.aspx" rel="nofollow">Performance of Australian Aid report</a>. <a href="https://devpolicy.org/performance-australian-aid-good-20160519/">Not a perfect metric by any means</a> but there is some effort to track progress and achieve value for money (you can also read about DFAT’s 'Value for Money principles' <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/aid/who-we-work-with/value-for-money-principles/Pages/value-for-money-principles.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Thanks again, Camilla

Thanks and sadly true. I've spent 30 years in aid, over 20 years overseas; about half in Australian and country offices, and half at field level, mainly PNG. I'm convinced 'we' live in a parallel universe, that we've lost our way, that aid is now an instrument of foreign policy (often not a very effective one), about contractor profits and first world reputations. And the people that matter come last. I'd like to think differently but I can't say I'm optimistic when it comes to the future of Australian Aid. Cheers, Phil

To compare Australia's Overseas Development Assistance spending to our Defence spending is like comparing apples with oranges. Defence spending is made up of two main aspects. Personnel and Equipment. Spending traditionally hovers between these two aspects. Our expenditure was in peacetime hovering around three percent of GDP and that has dropped over the recent years to around 2%. If discussion was to centre on the relevant costs of predator drones as opposed to Joint Strike Fighter/bombers I could understand the debate. The concept of purchasing a very expensive purchase over many years must be budgeted and managed over the life of the hardware. The issue of reduced Overseas Aid is a totally different concept however and aside from an ethical debate about what to fund and where, the issue is one of expectations versus outcomes. We at least can review and discuss the relative benefits of military hardware after they have been purchased and operated. What is never discussed or debated is what value we get for the money we spend on overseas aid. The only way an effective analysis can be made of our aid spending is to first set objectives and targets to be achieved. Since this never seems to happen, how can we effectively compare the two areas of expenditure? That is, unless we are trying to compare the ethical value of the two as opposed to the actual objectives being achieved each year.

Hi Anthony, thanks for your thoughts on this and a call out to others interested. As you note, the rapid spread of mobile phones has meant that hard to survey populations have become much more accessible to data collectors. Innovative data collection and analysis methods really are needed, and wouldn't it be great if they ultimately help communities make their own decisions about what should happen next. The ODI has had plenty to say on the depth and breadth of what we still don't know about things like the level of maternal infant child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example. <a href="https://www.odi.org/publications/9476-data-revolution-finding-missing-millions" rel="nofollow">Here's a great article</a>, which puts innovative data into a bigger frame (local statistical offices need strengthening, for starters, not to mention what household surveys can uniquely tell us). New technologies offer very great opportunities for monitoring and evaluation: and good M and E needs an equal devotion to better use of conventional tools and existing data.

I've also just heard from Matthew Morris about a <a href="http://pngpulse.com/" rel="nofollow">project that he is involved in</a> that seeks to crowdsource data on the recent famine in PNG. Also, <a href="https://devpolicy.org/the-future-of-aid-beckons20110127">here is a link</a> to a previous blog post of his on a similar issue. Please leave a comment if you have or know of a crowdsourcing or big data for development project (particularly if it relates to PNG and the Pacific) that you would like to share.

I think the government, international development and NGOs must start focusing and diverting resources to address the root cause of the problem. They focus more on treating the problem but not the cause. I believe strongly in empowering people economically. The modern cash (money) society has put a lot of pressure on the daily lives of the people. If people are economically empowered, there will be a dramatic drop in most social problems. Example, if a woman is economically empowered she will not demand more from her husband. Some domestic violence erupted when women argue with their male partner for money. If they can make money for themselves there will minimal domestic violence.

Orphanages are not right as they institutionalize children and lead in child rights abuses in Tanzania. However govt and CSOs are deinstitutionalizing children within negotiated legal and operational systems albeit slowly due to capacity and resource challenges. The lens to look at it is from the child rights perspective and all "in the best interests of the child" as that is the RIGHT THING. Challenges to integration of children with/in 'families' will always exist..and am not going into the causes as most as context specific.

Dear Robin, Thanks so much for you elaborate review of IATI Studio. You are the first to provide one like it. Upon reading the review, I have read some valid points on which I would like to provide feedback, hoping this makes for a better understanding of the functional rationale behind some of the Chart Builder features and how they work. We more than welcome feedback and will take yours into consideration as well. First one: switching to a native currency. Your example chart is converted to USD and you get 'no data available' if you switch to native currency and leaving USD active, while having the context "Australian Government - Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade" as reporting organisation. Your are not supposed to see anything, seeing the Australian Government reports in AUD and not USD. If you would however change the active native currency to AUD, you will obviously see your data being plotted again. Give it a run, I just duplicated your chart, changed to native currency to AUD and that worked as expected. So using native currency requires the user to make it explicit. Makes sense, right? With regards to the Chart Builder being basic, that has been a choice of design. This will be enhanced by providing the user with context of data in the chart (transactions, reporting orgs, receiving org. etc) so a more complete data story can be made, rather than just the one off chart. A final note on competition: we do not perceive D-Portal as a competitor. Comparing IATI Studio to D-Portal is a bit of comparing apples and oranges to us. A complete Studio would entail a set of different tools, with a strong data infrastructure powering those tools. And as you rightfully state: the majority of funds to IATI Studio are invested by ourselves, no donor currently supports large efforts into this data initiative or any other for that matter. Very odd, seeing how we are supposed to revolutionise data for the SDG's. Do contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Siem Vaessen CEO IATI Studio

For me i think its good to balance defence spending and aid. This will mean funds are going back to the communities to assist in social development.

Nice information there. It seems the Oil prices is the key driver to this changes.