Comments

The allocations to UN agencies demonstrate just how little the Government took into account their own rhetoric when it came to making the cuts. As you rightly point out, Robin, the distinction made between 'humanitarian' agencies and 'non-humanitarian' agencies was entirely arbitrary - based not on their demonstrated results, actual mandates or the size of their programs, but simply where they happen to sit in the budget structure. The result is that Australia now provides $19 million in core funding to UNRWA, despite the limited geographic scope, relatively small budget, and complete lack of programs in Indo-Pacific - while at the same time providing only $12 million to UNDP and $21 million to UNICEF, organisations with extensive and important programs in Australia's own region, much larger budgetary needs, and mandates at least as relevant to the Abbott government's stated priorities. It's not clear to me why the budget - which is notably thin on details and basically leaves it up to individual program managers to make and determine how to absorb the cuts within a specific program - needed to dictate exactly the amount each UN agency would receive. It didn't do this to other multilateral organisations (other than the ICRC), nor to the NGO program or any of the country programs. Why wasn't it left to those who actually understand and have ongoing relationships with the UN organisations to make the difficult decisions about how to divide up the resources once the cuts had been made?

Thanks for including our TED paper, Camilla, much appreciated! I also feature core findings and more info in a recent blog post (http://aidnography.blogspot.com/2015/05/TED-talks-international-development-research-denskus-esser-communication-theory.html) and if anybody has difficulty accessing the paper-just get in contact through Twitter (@aidnography) or email! Tobias

Irene, What I was trying to say is that it could be worse than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s when aid grew at 1% a year after inflation. Something like this is what I identify as the most likely, though by no means highly likely, scenario from 2107-18 onwards.

Can I suggest that the impact of reducing our aid to Afghanistan needs to be identified in that catch-all "South and South West Asia". Withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan did not mean “mission accomplished”. Women face forced marriage, rape and domestic violence, with average life expectancy of 62. It’s 84 in Australia. 97 of every 1,000 Afghan children will die before their fifth birthday. It’s 4 in Australia. An average Afghan income in 2013 was US$685, or about $13 per week. That aid reduction of millions of dollars makes a difference to the average Afghan. Both Save the Children (The AUSTRALIAN 21 April) and CARE Australia (Canberra Times, 15 April) specifically identified the impacts on their respective programs. Reducing aid to Afghanistan demonstrates the lack of Australia’s long term commitment to the country’s future. Can a more finely-honed analysis be undertaken - please ?

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!