Comments

Hi Phil, Thanks for your comment. Red Cross is included in the analysis, but we had to make some special calculations with their funding to isolate funding used for development expenditure. While they are a huge NGO, the lion's share of their expenditure is actually on domestic causes, not international development. WWF sits in the same camp, and we also excluded it for the same reason: once you isolate its development expenditure it falls outside the top 15. Cheers, Jonathan

I am curious why Red Cross was not included in this assessment? I realise that they are not really an NGO but an ancilliary to goverment, but would have thought that they fitted into analysis of this nature, and would sit in the top 15, even top 5?

It is also worth noting that a collapse in the value of the Kina is also not a great outcome. Inevitable, perhaps, but it will result in high inflation and increased poverty and directly impact the poorest in society. Those with a long memory will recall the harsh effects of the devaluations in the 90's at the time of the former structural adjustment programs. Back then there was a bit of a cushion in terms of the aid program but this time around even that will be cut back. Tough decisions indeed, and not just for the Government.

This is very interesting article - thanks! Is there any similar article/data set about the distribution of private donations in USA and/or Europe?

Hi, ive been in tertiary level teaching for more than 2 decades now, in fact I've been the dean of the College of Education in one of the universities here in the Philippines, particularly in Central Luzon (Region III). Now I am one of the campus directors in the university responsible to the operations of the campus at all aspects. I just would like to share my experiences and talents to your school just in case you are interested. I am a graduate school professor who has presented researches international. I am willing to help you rebuild your university if you would trust me to help you. Thank you

Good topic Ashlee, thanks. I liked the big-picture explanation of the role of aid in relations between Indonesia and Australia, in the radio interview with Robin Davies a couple of days ago on 2UE. Here’s <a href="http://www.2ue.com.au/news/budget-cuts-calls-to-end-our-aid-to-indonesia-20150225-13obor.html" rel="nofollow">the linkage</a> if others missed it.

Hi Transform & thanks for your comment, which is pertinent as always. For what it's worth we can be sure that at least a couple of relevant people said 'No' outright and I agree there were probably others who were thinking it while saying 'yes'.

Thanks for the great post! I've also been exploring the website these past days. What I haven't found yet is the section on "Business Opportunities" where AusAID / DFAT used to post preliminary project designs (incl. for comments), announced upcoming important industry briefings, etc. Much more than just serving aid businesses, I also always found the section quite informative on emerging developments in focus and strategy.

I am not surprised. Julie Bishop concocted the idea at a cocktail party in Suva. It was conceived in haste and put to PM Bainimara who said "yes". That was a Pacific Islands "yes" which is usually made up of a many "no's". In other words Pacific Islanders generally would never say "no" outright to you!

The Indonesian government could certainly play that card, as the Suharto government did with the Netherlands decades ago, but I suspect would not do so unless there were a disproportionate cut to the bilateral aid program, along the lines of scenario 1 above, which they perceived as retaliatory in intent. No matter how much offence they might have taken at the ex post conditionality implied in the Prime Minister's recent remarks, they, like successive Australian governments, tend to take a long view of the aid relationship because they see aid as a stabiliser in what is regularly a tempestuous bilateral relationship.

Thanks Robin. Interesting scenarios. Do you think that Indonesia might just stamp its sovereign foot sometime very soon and say 'you know what, keep your aid'? And perhaps in light of the 'koinuntukAustralia' push it might not be that far away.

Margaret's thesis that there are already enough players in the eye health field and we don't need the Commonwealth to duplicate has some validity. The difference between us arises because I did not explain the role of QEDJT adequately in my initial contribution. They have been very aware of the need not to duplicate. They have in fact been a much appreciated source of new funding for existing players such as Sightsavers and Fred Hollows Foundation and very powerful advocates for eye health actions by the member governments of the Commonwealth. I appreciate their efforts both as a citizen of the Commonwealth and as President of the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, through whom QEDJT has coordinated with existing providers. The Trust is proving an asset without duplicating efforts and have acted in accordance with the spirit of the aid effectiveness principles.