Comments

Thanks Ashlee, I don't want to be seen as encouraging Jonathan's raving, but I've downloaded all the Serial podcasts to listen to over summer too.

Thanks for this Terence! If others have suggestions I reckon they should jump in here in the comments. For those who want to dive into some fiction that cuts close to the truth, this year I read 'A Fine Balance' by Rohinton Mistry, recommended to me by Stephen Howes after I <a href="https://devpolicy.org/in-brief/behind-the-beautiful-forevers-insights-into-poverty-20131023-1/" rel="nofollow">reviewed 'Behind the Beautiful Forevers'</a> last year. It was a great (but depressing) read that starkly highlighted the problems with any kind of 'development' that doesn't consider the rights and experiences of the poor. My favourite book this year has been 'Americanah' by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. While partly set in Nigeria, it's not really development-related, but for those interested in the non-economic side of migration and development, or interested in issues of race and class in developed countries and developing countries with an emerging and growing middle class, then it provides some real food for thought. My plans for the holidays include reading 'Indonesia, etc.' by Elizabeth Pisani (which gets rave reviews from my fellow Indonesianist friends, though I can't speak to it personally yet), properly reading <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/series/violence-against-women-and-girls" rel="nofollow">the series of articles</a> published in <em>The Lancet</em> in November on gender-based violence (depressing perhaps, but more worthy than binge-watching episodes of trashy reality shows, which will probably also happen during the holidays). And I'm also planning on reading 'The Mountain' by Drusilla Modjeska, which Tess Newton Cain <a href="https://devpolicy.org/the-mountain-by-drusilla-modjeska-essential-reading-for-png-enthusiasts-20140701/" rel="nofollow">reviewed</a> earlier this year. I also need to listen to the NPR podcast 'Serial' (non-development related!), which Jonathan Pryke keeps raving about!

Thanks Ben and Joel. I agree with you both about the over-crowded global health architecture, but tend to disagree with the idea of scrapping the WHO - i think with proper funding, staffing and mandate, the WHO has the potential to add order to the chaos of global health. And I'm a supporter of its normative role, like leading development of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I'd agree that, with a few exceptions, it hasn't lived up to its potential, but i think at least some of the reasons for that are outside of its power.

Thanks for a thought-provoking article. Agree the global architecture is extremely crowded; the central problem is that it is crowded by actors with limited political influence. Forums like the G20 are critical mechanisms to build on a tecnical agenda set by the actors Joel mentions, with financing and leadership. The way in which the Ebola debate is coalescing around neglected health systems is, despite the horrific crisis, encouraging for the long term. Link that to an increasing interest in global health security, and we have the potental for a powerful combination of leadership, financing and the political clout of large nation states. At this stage unfortunately, potential only.

Hi Sam, Interesting post. For me, raises broader issues of the global architecture for health - which is exceedingly complex and already has a huge number of actors. This is not necessarily bad - in some cases it can be good - but it is certainly complex and does have some down sides. From WHO to Gates to various parts of US government (USAID, PEPFAR, CDC) to Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation to GAVI to Global Fund to World Bank to ADB to other bilaterals to UNICEF to UNFPA to the various smaller actors. Global health is messy. As is, at the country level, they are bombarded with requests, declarations, invitations, initiatives. The problem - especially from a long-term systems building perspective that you very rightly promote - is that ministries and implementers get pulled in a hundred different ways. While I agree that the G20 has something to possibly offer, the thought of additional mechanisms, meetings, committees (such as G20 health ministers forum or G8 equivalent) fills me with dread. The only way I could see that being useful would be if some other mechanisms were eliminated (which virtually never happens in our global architecture). If you want a G20 health body, then abolish the Global Fund or equivalent (or better yet abolish the WHO). Otherwise, I would argue that we should ensure that the already-too-many mechanisms are running effectively and are actually improving systems on the ground. Joel

I agree Sam. How Australia uses its aid budget (comprising how much is allocated and what it is spent on) will be one of the criteria against which her performance as a global citizen will be judged. This latest attack will exacerbate the current situation in which 'investment' decisions are increasingly less and less to do with development given the pressure to agree to things that can be delivered quickly and require little by way of establishing context or developing meaningful engagement.

These cuts also don't make strategic sense. In the regional influence stakes Australia has just ceded the ground to China, which will happily fill the gap. Now this may not be a bad thing (we just don't know) but it does weaken Australia's voice in the region (in terms of 'money where mouth is' type arguments); and also weakens the War Against Terror argument whereby our assistance was to lead to safer and stabler neigbours.

Exceedingly disappointing step. The staff exodus from DFAT will continue, with more loss of skills, experience and capacity. Surely recent events (particularly Syria, ebola) have shown us that more aid, not less, is crucial not only as a moral effort to reduce poverty but as a practical measure to pursue Australia's national interests. It seems to be that part of the reason aid is being so strongly singled out for cuts is (at least the perception) that there are no votes in aid and that Joe Public would rather see the funding stay at home; hence the public emphasis that the budget cuts are mostly coming from the aid portfolio, both this time and previously. To my mind, this not only reduces the Government's credibility in aid, but far more broadly its foreign policy credibility. Aid is a key part of foreign policy. These cuts are a step backwards from Australia's responsibility as a wealthy, active middle power. They will hurt those who can least afford to be hurt, and they will undermine Australia's global image and relationships.

Thanks Stephen and Jonathan for this clear analysis of the data and for calling these cuts as they are, i.e. savage. Minister Bishop's 'new aid paradigm' is now trashed and her credibility on overseas aid completely destroyed. I wonder if you're right to anticipate reduced allocations to multilateral and humanitarian aid in future? These budget cuts will lead inevitably to many more aid staff leaving DFAT, as there will be a great deal less for them to do once they've gone through the process of closing down activities. In future years, wouldn't it be likely that the government will resort to writing checks to multilaterals and NGOs as an 'efficiency' measure? Margaret Callan

What a shame that the typo was not actually in the MYEFO and the government meant to place a plus sign ahead of the numbers, not the negative as it is! Australians should be loud in objection to this and not silent in acceptance - for it is hard to see how this retreat in commitment to the world's poor is anything but unacceptable.

Samuel, You're quite right. That was a typo, which we have fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Stephen.

Hi Stephen and Jonathan, Thank you for the analysis. Just one query: "We’ve focused so far on the cumulative cuts out to 2016-17, but most of the cuts will be implemented next year (2014-15), when the aid program will fall by a round $1 billion or 20%" If I'm not mistaken, was this not the cut due for 2015/16? This agrees with your spreadsheet. Thanks again, Sam #maintainaid campaign