Comments

Thanks everyone for your comments and thoughtful debate on this article. ABC Radio hosted a panel session (with Simon Berry and Tim Costello, among others) that addressed some of these issues - it can be found <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s4281063.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Sam

Thanks Angus, I think I follow you. I take your point to be that we (the world of aid) may do our best learning if we seek to emulate my stylised model of innovation in the private sector by starting with a blank sheet for bright ideas but then subjecting ideas to "competition" in the world of ideas through "rigorous testing against knowledge drawn from existing and historic programs". Innovation in this sense seems fine to me -- now that it's shorn of its gee-whiz factor. This seems fine to me. Though I think your question "How then to extract and package the relevant learnings and knowledge about context around emerging innovations to improve their traction, and reduce risks associated with failure?" is the crucial one. Part of my response is that we will do a better job if we simply, explicitly admit that we need to study and to learn. The second part is that we need to devote a higher share of our aid spend to resources for learning. i.e. M&E and research, and to having sufficient aid staff in aid agencies that they can take the time to learn. Thanks again. Terence

Thanks Karori, I think that's a good point: agreements on their own will achieve little; and whether we see achievements (at least in certain areas) will depend on whether there is successful collective action from civil society in holding governments to account. Terence

Am greatful, am doing an assignment on importance of data in planning, your article is very suportive, will be one of my references. Its encouraging to have people with common interest in data collection. I suggest face to face interview for data sensitive issues and sms non sensitive issues, also perhaps 1-2 permanent local recorder/interviewer per village would help us on regular and updated data. moreover, its true collecting data in rural areas is a huge task. "A nation without records, history, data is a lost nation,"..by late Dr. Sam Kaima, PNG Achives, .....thanks B bange

I understand that formal rules of behaviour are neither feasible nor possible in the world which is structured in 'States' . As regards the Civil Society model, it can be effective when citizens are educated and aware. Though I have not undertaken any structured investigation, my impression is that role and contribution of civil society organisations in implementing MDGs is not so significant. Let us see how they will be effective in case of SDGs and contribute to the movement 'no one should be left behind' by 2030.

Hi Jo, These are excellent comments. To be honest, I also feel a bit ambivalent about the soft diplomacy rationale. But it is clearly part of the equation for the current aid program and - to be truthful - for all aid programs (to varying degrees). So one does need to provide some suggestion that there will be positive engagement by Australia and positive reputational impacts for Australia. That being said, we would hope that the values that are shared are ones of collaboration and listening and support rather than some of the ones that would make for bad partnership. And I do feel strongly that standards need to be determined by the local partner. It does not make sense to train Solomon Island nurses as if they are about to work in the emergency department of Royal North Shore Hospital. Joel

Hi Terence, and thanks for your provocative post... I like your challenge to the lexicon of development, which can become incredibly entangled within its own world of jargon. I was going to comment on 'innovation' and compare it with 'sustainability' as a word with many meanings. And suggest despite that - or perhaps because of it - it had a role to play as a conversation starter, which could lead into many areas of development, including problem identification, focus in designs, drawing out the things that are working well in implementation, and engaging new entities to help scale-up the successes. But then I realised another aspect of your post is perhaps more interesting to explore. Your "world of aid" seems distinct from the private sector? Don't these 'far flung places' have people working in the private sector, be it farmers selling into markets or local companies working for the donors? Are they not looking at ways to innovate to get an edge in the market place, or even access to donors? Also under learning - there is much aid-related learning activity within the local and international private sector that falls under this banner, including a range of interesting engagements between sectors on aid-related issues. Perhaps I'm suggesting a way to bridge your distrust of innovation and your words of choice. The concept of starting with a blank sheet of paper for an "ideation" (!) session may be a useful tool for creative thinking, but any innovation before it 'goes to market' (development speak - gets piloted / implemented), definitely needs rigorous testing against knowledge drawn from existing and historic programs, as well as ensuring its relevance to the development context. How then to extract and package the relevant learnings and knowledge about context around emerging innovations to improve their traction, and reduce risks associated with failure? Not an easy task, but neither's expungement... goodluck!

Thanks Joel. As anticipated, I like the idea. I do have one concern, however, which is in the attempt to 'sell' it in soft diplomacy terms. You state: "But the partnerships could certainly be clearly branded, and the presence of Australian teachers would mean that a much larger number of young Indonesians or Fijians or Burmese would absorb Australian ideas and values." This raises a tension, and links with the conversation on Jim Adams' <a href="https://devpolicy.org/capacity-building-important-but-unsuccessful-20150716/" rel="nofollow">two</a> <a href="https://devpolicy.org/capacity-building-how-to-do-better-20150717/" rel="nofollow">blogs</a> on capacity development. Learning is values-based, as is capacity development. And values are linked with culture and context. As we know, successful learning and capacity development has to be grounded in culture and context, and therefore values. Too often, the values of the people on the receiving end of donors' efforts are ignored. So if the health workforce training integrates a goal to install Australia values and ideas, how will this then lead to successful learning? (And there is the more tricky question of how these Australian values and ideas are to be weighted - there are a lot of Australian values and ideas that I, and many Australians, would never wish to see promulgated elsewhere.) You do actually highlight this issue, when you state: "Importantly, the expectations would have to be driven by local realities and local best practice, rather than artificially imposing Australian standards where not relevant." So perhaps it is best to avoid arguing for health workforce training on soft diplomacy grounds, and simply argue for it on its merits alone in terms of improving everybody's health, and if it is necessary to use enlightened self-interest arguments, use those about the spread of disease. What do you think?

Hi Ben, Thanks for continuing to shine light on the SDGs. While it looks like the 17 goals and 169 targets are a product of simply accepting everyone's pet issue you just have to spend a bit of time in a room with a children's rights campaigner, gender specialist or environmentalist to know that this final framework really is pretty selective and does not include all wish lists. In terms of 'implementability' it seems to me that if I were prime minister of a country I would find them a bit overwhelming. But if I were minister for education, or minister for agriculture or minister for health etc (or a campaigner in any of these areas) I think I would find my section of these goals to be a useful and manageable tool for my work. In terms of communicating the SDGs to the public 17 goals obviously will not work. However something like the following is understandable: "The SDGs are a set of goals which countries have agreed to achieve by 2030. They focus on three areas: 1. to reduce poverty and inequality, 2. to support equal rights, peace and opportunity for all, 3. to grow our economies in an environmentally sustainable way."

Thank you Carmen for such a relevant article! PNG as a nation has so much more to offer than what is perceived by the world!

I tip my hat to you sir. Both out of respect for your prowess when it comes to writing development country and western. And with respect to your very sensible comment about our ongoing need for more evidence in development work. Indeed, maybe there's a song to be written about evidence too? Perhaps, "My baby left me for someone with a better RCT"?

Thank you Karori, I completely agree that the real challenge will most likely be in execution, and whether (both developed and developing) countries' governments take the Goals as a serious matter or whether they just pay lip service to them. I'm not sure, however, whether formal rules monitoring the Goals (presumably associated with sanction), or the behaviour of political elites, would be feasible (in the specific case of the SDGs). Rather, I think the best approach lies in local and international civil society actors leveraging the normative weight of the Goals (and other development and human rights norms) to hold states to account. This will, by necessity be imperfect, but I think it is where the Goals may best help with the issues that you describe. Thanks again for your comment. Terence