Comments

Hello Garth. I think you're exactly right about the likely next steps and that civil society groups will help determine the 'local shape' of the Goals. In fact, <a href="http://www.simonmaxwell.eu/blog/a-challenge-on-the-sdgs.html" rel="nofollow">Simon Maxwell has used this kind of language</a> to describe Paragraph 19 of the current draft of the SDGs. He calls this paragraph an 'escape hatch' which allows that the "SDGs will be global in scope, but that individual countries will shape their own programmes." But if this is the likely outcome, then for me it limits how powerful the SDGs can become. The MDGs were like a set menu; to sign up meant you ate everything. On the other hand, if countries are just going to be choosing digestible portions from the SDG smorgasbord, it's going to be difficult to change our collective eating habits.

Hi Phil. Yes.. I too have found myself on the PhD journey... Thanks for the best wishes. I tend to agree with you that there's a sense that MDGs are being / have been 'imposed' at times, especially by DAC donors. But on the other hand, all UN member states did explicitly sign up to the MDGs. What's obvious this time round is that there's more push back from the developing world. They certainly don't want to be imposed upon this time around.This was apparent in the recently convened Financing for Development Conference and follows on from similar examples at Busan and Mexico (First High Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation). These dynamics, even though desirable in many ways, are a big part of the reason this round of negotiations are tougher and the list of goals longer.

Ben, as you highlight there are arguments in both directions for the current 17 goal SDG framework. I suspect that whether these new goals are impactful or not will have more to do with the actions and efforts of civil society groups and other interested parties in each country and across the globe than the specific form of the framework. They offer us a tool - how we use that tool is up to us. I expect that civil society groups in different countries will simplify the goals and set their own priorities to meet their interests and country context.

I don't disagree with much of what has been said so far – but most of it has been said before – and I agree strongly with comments on the neglect of social, cultural and anthropological aspects, but I think Elie raises the critical point. Does it work? The fact that we’re still having the debate is testimony to the fact that it doesn’t, bearing in mind that capacity building in various guises has been around for at least 30 years. 'Capacity analyses, diagnoses and responses’ have dominated development thinking, ‘capacity building’ has been seen as a panacea, and in the process it has smothered alternative perspectives. I'm not sure why. As a broad generalization, if we asked whether country X or sector Y requires more capacity we’d probably acknowledge that it has some but ‘yes’ it needs more. If we asked the same with respect to ‘better governance’, in most cases we’d say ‘definitely’. This not only raises questions about whether X or Y need ‘more capacity’, ‘better governance’ or both, but whether it is possible to ‘build capacity’ in the absence of ‘good governance’ – and whether successful capacity building will produce better health outcomes etc. without better governance. It is nonsensical to argue that the provision of more capacity will improve service delivery etc. when through poor governance neither donors nor recipients make the best use of, misdirect and/or waste, the capacity that is already available. There are many situations where ‘capacity gaps’ need to be addressed, but equally, many where better governance would lead to a better use of existing capacity and better outcomes. I am also concerned about counterproductive aspects of the capacity narrative i.e., its starting premise of a ‘glass half-empty, not half full’, and emphasis on the ‘can’t do’ rather than ‘can do’ and the dismissal of ‘will do’ and ‘won’t do’. As a consequence, capacity building is often undertaken for its own sake and as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end. At the end of the day, I would like to see more focus on ‘people’ and ‘beneficiaries’ – in health, for example, what communities and patients want and need – and approaches that are grounded in the ‘actualities’ of development rather than the ‘institutional realities’ of institutions, structures and systems.

Hi Ben Glad you're doing your PhD. Good luck I don't regard myself as either an 'optimist' or 'pessimist' - perhaps 'realist'. I have fundamental problems with the imposition of MDGs and other global agendas on developing countries. I don't believe it should happen and I don't believe it works. I also have issues with aid being used principally as an instrument of donor foreign policy. I'd rather see it based on and driven by domestic development agendas i.e. owned locally

Hi Michael It is fantastic to read about the important job you are doing in PNG. I can see you are still the same caring, change driver and well informed individual I once met in my Uni days in Adelaide. I am sure you are inspiring many lives through your passion and deep knowledge whilst contributing to their capacity development. Perhaps you would like to circulate amongst your students this information about Awards Scholarships available for PNG citizens to study in Australia, in case this may assist those top economists in their academic formation: <a href="https://internationaleducation.gov.au/Endeavour%20program/Scholarships-and-Fellowships/Pages/default.aspx" rel="nofollow">Endeavour Scholarship and Fellowships</a> <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/australia-awards/Pages/australia-awards-scholarships.aspx" rel="nofollow">Australia Awards Pacific Scholarships (AAPS)</a> <a href="http://www.australiaawards.gov.au/Pages/awards.aspx" rel="nofollow">Other Australia Awards categories</a> These programs are funded by the Australian government with the aim of promoting cultural, educational and research linkages with those eligible countries. Keep on the great work Michael. Andreina

Hi Michael, I taught the 3rd-year macro course at UPNG between 2009 and 2011 and also assisted with 3rd-year micro. I could see the Economics Division deteriorating as successive heads of division were recruited to other positions and other lecturers also got jobs elsewhere. It was troubling to observe so it's great to hear that you and the other staff are reviving an important part of the university. If my experiences (or lecture notes) might be of any use, please get in touch. (The DevPolicy folks should be able to dig out my email address for you.) cheers, Harry

Very interesting blog and responses from Deborah and Elizabeth. As someone who works in the capacity development field in Rwanda, I would be interested to read from Jim if there is any country, somewhere on the entire African continent, that could be described as, somehow, a good example when it comes to Institutional Capacity Development.

Joel, Australia's health aid to PNG has definitely not been focused on vertical programming, but front and centre on health system strengthening. Here's a quote we draw in the <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/review-of-the-png-australia-development-cooperation-treaty.aspx" rel="nofollow">2010 PNG aid review</a> I worked on (see p. 24) from an ODE review: “TA has been extensive and wide-ranging, accounting for nearly half of AusAID expenditure [in the health sector]. Although it made positive contributions, some of which have had lasting impact, the team’s judgement is that the results are not commensurate with the level of spending. Expenditure of $150 to $200 million on TA has not produced a step improvement in performance or capacity. A better balance between TA and operating costs would arguably have achieved more.” (ODE, 2009, p.40)

Dear Stephen and Jane, A very good and useful discussion. One can argue whether what aid agencies have done in PNG represents good health systems engagement or not. Some would argue that it was vertical programming with a health systems fig leaf. But either way, the lack of reflection on what has worked and not worked in PNG (and elsewhere in the region) in terms of health systems is concerning. The strategy notes examples from SE Asia but scant evidence from the Pacific. That is sorely needed. Engagement with private sector and churches is not separate from health systems. A country such as Cambodia has seen strong and regulated contracting by the public sector of the private sector. PNG could learn from that kind of model (with local adaptation of course).

Thanks Kate, That is an excellent comment. I've got a busy morning, but want to reply, so please forgive my hasty shorthand response. First up, please remember that I'm opposed to unnecessary economic inequality (paragraph 2 of the blog post). With regards to specifics: You write, "no development agenda can be transformative and effecive unless it addresses inequalities of wealth." I don't completely disagree with you here. However, I think that no development agenda can be transformative unless it grows aggregate wealth, while preventing (or subsequently mitigating) high levels of inequality; and while also tackling other forms of inequality (those of political power, gender inequalities, etc). An omnipotent aid worker would worry about all of this. But no aid worker is omnipotent -- indeed the fates of nations as a whole is largely determined by factors other than aid -- and as a result aid work should focus on issues, and inequalities, most relevant raising human well-being, <em>where aid can have an influence</em>. In the economic sphere, in countries where aid has significant leverage, this will primarily be about raising aggregate wealth (primarily but not exclusively) simply because, as I note in my post, countries where aid has considerable potential leverage are mostly countries that do not have enough aggregate wealth to significantly reduce poverty on the basis of redistribution alone. And, on the other hand, when it comes to inequalities that impact on aid work, the inequalities that interact with the outcomes of aid work on a day-to-day basis are, I think, for the most part (although not always), non-economic. On the relationship between inequality and economic growth. I agree with you there are some new studies revealing some interesting new findings (see: <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.oecd.org/social/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all-9789264235120-en.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>). However, with any econometric work where growth is the dependent variable care has to be taken into reading too much into individual studies. See Paul Krugman's cautions <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/musings-on-inequality-and-growth/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. See a good critique of one of the papers linked to above <a href="http://aidthoughts.org/?p=4150" rel="nofollow">here</a>. (Also, worth noting is that some of this research is based on wealthier countries -- i.e. not the sort of contexts where aid work occurs.) Similarly, the Oxfam factoids, while highlighting important issues, are not beyond critique. See debate <a href="http://fusion.net/story/39185/oxfams-misleading-wealth-statistics/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7871947/oxfam-wealth-statistic" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/critics-oxfams-poverty-statistics-missing-point" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2015/01/guess-what-critics-oxfam-is-right-about-the-top-1/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Also, <a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16935" rel="nofollow">more systematic research</a> suggests that the world as a whole is -- if anything -- becoming more equal (inequalities are rising within countries, but falling between on a country weighted basis as two giant economies (China and India) grow rapidly, with rising inequality, but reduce poverty while they're at it.) Indeed, the cases of India and China speak to your point about growth not being able to reduce poverty unless it tackles inequality. Actually, it can, so long as inequality is not rising so rapidly as to offset the gains from growth. Better still -- as I mentioned in the blog post -- if growth does not come with rising inequality, but nevertheless growth can be good for poverty reduction regardless. And much better still if we lived in a world where the majority were doing a lot better, while the 1% were considerably less well off. However, for most aid work (even if there are important exceptions, as I granted above, like campaigning), I still don't think wealth inequality is the form of inequality that matters most. Thanks again for your comment. Terence

Thanks, Jim, for two interesting posts. I think there is much more to say on capacity building, some of which is reflected in the comments to both posts. One thing that puzzles me is the gap between studies and reflection on capacity building, and practice. It seems to me that thinking about capacity development has moved but practice is sluggish. As Steve and Deborah highlight, there are very useful studies available to inform practitioners and policy-makers, but it seems to me these are not well used. When I was managing a multi-country capacity building project, the ADB's work, and the Morgan and Baser studies were very helpful. And Deborah's contribution about cross-cultural relationships and related skills and knowledge is an important, recent contribution. One thing is for sure, we have to stop thinking about capacity building as only training and technical assistance. As your post alludes to, it is about long-term relationships. It is about collective capabilities, not merely individual competencies (which is where most training and TA is focused). I think there is more that donors can do to improve: they need to engage with the studies on effective capacity development; they need to define what they mean when they 'do' capacity development; their capacity-builders need to be engaged over longer time periods, as you suggest for local government staff; contracts need to have KPIs that are about professional development goals that the people they work with articulated, not outputs, like strategic plans; and people employed to engage in capacity building need to have appropriate knowledge and skills, such as listening, coaching, mentoring, cross-cultural communication, teaching and self-reflection, not merely technical specialist skills. There are people out there who know a great deal about this and have lots to share. I would love to hear more from them. Maybe some more blogs?