Comments

An excellent analysis, thank you. Would seem an opportunity to conduct a hard-hitting, independent aid review focused on performance and effectiveness, which involves intended beneficiaries. I've returned from 14 years in PNG health, a major recipient. Does anyone seriously believe Australian aid to PNG health is a success story?

One thing that wasn't discussed at the event on Wednesday is the impact that cuts such as these has on the quality of total engagement between Australia and recipient countries. DFAT people will likely find it harder to get access to political and bureaucratic leaders and decision-makers if they are unable to answer questions about aid allocations with any degree of certainty or (even worse) if they are having to tell people that promised programs have been cancelled or (worse still) current activities are being axed before completion. Not only does this mean that other donors will start to look more preferable but there will be knock-on effects in terms of the overall political and diplomatic dynamic.

Great Story!!! Thank you!

Deep and intriguing writing Joel. Thanks for this. The sly moves for the Security Council seat are so clearly visible from your graph - fabulously stark. I felt enthused by your final paragraph ....

Joel, this is a great piece - if all else fails you can always get a job as an obit writer. My concern, and I imagine yours, is that there will be a need for many more human obituaries as a result of these cuts and the move away from assisting the poorest.

Here, here re the mockery of the performance framework. Well put, Matthew.

Really, it could be worse?? How? Duh, of course, until the aid budget is 0%. Is that what we'll be saying until 'worst' happens? Aspirations can be higher, I would hope. I'm with Chris on the merits of looking at the ecosystem. My perspective, having moved here 2.5 years ago from Europe, is that the ecosystem for interest in and work on development here is very much poorer than in many European countries, including the UK. Debates are few, research is limited, players are few, public interest is extremely low, policy is pretty dreadful.

Great piece Joel. That graph clearly demonstrates the Security Council motivation for Australia's increased aid to Africa in the period 2009 to 2012. It is a classic demonstration of the use of aid for diplomatic purposes and should be used in international development courses. I had hoped that at least some of the aid increase was because sub-Saharan Africa contains most of the world's poorest countries - looks like I was wrong. I was teaching at Makerere University in Uganda when aid started to increase. It was an exciting time to be an Australian in Africa. Now it's embarrassing!

The question about 'why we were as a nation unable to sustain our increased generosity' is an important one. Duncan Green suggests in this <a href="http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/why-is-britain-such-an-outlier-on-aid/" rel="nofollow">blog post</a> that one reason the UK has been an outlier is because it is has a rich ecosystem and 'busy Aid and Development cluster'. This he argues has led to not just sustained campaign pressure, but also an 'underlying critical mass of knowledge, interest, concern and consensus'. Is this what Australia currently lacks, and if so could we all be doing more to help create it?

Thanks Stephen You're right. It isn't fair and it's pretty bad, but it could be worse. Given the general policy direction of the coalition government, however, I think we probably need to assume that things will get worse before they get better.

It looks like my call that 'it looks likely that the UK will have a weak, coalition government' was wrong: such are the pitfalls of punditry and listening to pollsters! The results: Conservatives won 331 seats and a slim majority; SNP had a virtual clean sweep in Scotland; Labour and the Lib Dems were devastated; and right-wing UKIP won just one seat. After the elections, Radio Australia <a href="http://m.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/reelected-conservatives-unlikely-to-change-aid-policy-despite-slim-majority/1445844" rel="nofollow">asked me</a> whether the new UK government will target foreign aid in the same way the Abbott government has done in Australia. As explained in my blog, I don't think this is likely: - the UK's 0.7% of GNI aid target is enshrined in law; - the Conservatives have made a strong case for aid and have ownership of DFID's success; and - politically, they only have a narrow majority and other challenges to deal with (EU, Scotland). Yesterday, David Cameron announced his new Cabinet: retaining Justine Greening as Secretary of State for International Development. I think this is a good move and one that will provide continuity for the delivery of the UK’s (GBP12.6bn, approx. AUD25bn) aid program. The transition was less smooth for DFID's junior minister. If you had a bad day yesterday, spare a thought for <a href="https://twitter.com/DesmondSwayne/status/597697961737453568" rel="nofollow">this guy</a>...

Update on damage estimates: The Vanuatu Council of Ministers on Friday issued a statement that referred to the establishment of a ‘fund mobilisation strategic framework’ to raise revenue of approximately 50 billion Vatu. No further detail was provided, and it is unclear whether this revenue would be spent by government. It is nonetheless probably safe to say that this figure is based on the (not yet released) economic damage assessment that has been underway for several weeks. Damage in the order to 50 billion Vatu equates to around $590 million AUD, or 56 percent of Vanuatu’s GDP, making the damage caused by this cyclone considerably greater than Cyclone Evan in 2012.