Comments

Hi Jen, Great response. I am in the midst of a DFAT funded (but independent) study on the impact of scholarships in Africa. And I just got back from some fieldwork in Mozambique. I have been quite skeptical of scholarships in the past (generally agreeing with Anna's contention that they are of great benefit to Australian institutions and are limited in terms of aid effectiveness) and indeed have written pieces to that effect. But having conducted this fieldwork, I was very impressed by the impact of so-called "soft skills" as you note. All the alumni I interviewed focused on this - seeing how Australia and Australians worked, expectations, cross-cultural communication, directness, etc. While most of the technical skills could be taught just as well (or close to it) in their own universities, the cultural experience can only really be gained in Australia (at home most would study part-time which would further limit their ability to invest fully in study). I still think there are things the Australia Awards program can do to get the balance right but I support what you have emphasised in your post. Joel

I'd like to respond to Aileen's comments about Australia Awards, indicating it's an example of boomerang aid. Although funds are going to Australian universities, I've observed that the scholarships provide real and measurable, good development outcomes in most cases. I know women who studied agriculture at UQ, who are now applying what they learnt in the ministry in Baghdad. I know a Samoan woman who studied at Bond Uni, Indonesians that studied in Sydney, a Kenyan lady who studied in Canberra - all of whom have returned to their home countries and are actively contributing to strengthened public sectors. These individual's stories represent a good investment when compared to the alternatives. As an example, an education at University of Baghdad is unlikely to have produced the same outcome as study within Australia. Part of the scholarship value is also providing an opportunity for future leaders to experience what functioning service delivery looks like - buses that turn up on a schedule, police that turn up to work without taking bribes, road rules that are commonly followed, public amenities, weekly rubbish collection, access to qualified doctors, reliable electricity supplies, hospitals where doctors can only work if qualified, etc. (Things we take for granted.) Then the other longer term benefit of the program is the transnational linkages created and now sustained through the alumni network. The short term and long term development value received from studying at Australian institutions is the reason for continued commitment to the program, rather than some kind of influence you may perceive Australian institutions have over government. (On another note, with regard to the length of time for studies, you may find the additional time relates to pre-requisites for bridging programs and academic preparatory studies.)

Jesse, fascinating article. One element that would be interesting to look at is whilst the investment is large, it seems much of the funding is being spent in Australia. This is one of the huge issues with the Australia Awards (Australian Development Scholarships). If the government were to decide not to continue funding the AAs (unlikely), there would be a massive backlash to the decision from universities who appreciate the healthy addition to their funding pool from the fees paid on behalf of awardees. So whilst it is an aid program, it has a very happy domestic constituency. I would guess this program is similar.

Just further, I checked and the Bachelor of Nursing at Griffith is normally 3 years full-time, not five years. Even with a year off for children, there appears to be more happening to successfully graduate participants than is usual for a scholarship recipient.

Clearly one of the challenges here is also the amount of assistance the I-Kiribati participants need to perform to acceptable standards. To take 3.5 years to achieve a Certificate III - something I understood normally takes six months - means that there is a LOT of work happening prior to the commencement of their studies to ensure they are able to pass - and this is to be expected, the education system in Kiribati not being of a high standard. Your costing may therefore be out if you are comparing it to ADS, where the vast majority of participants are coming in able to study at an expected standard (and where most are quickly sent home when they fail courses). If you factor this additional assistance in, you may find the program more cost-effective than it appears at first.

Thank you for your comment Alistair. You are certainly correct that GIZ has the power and responsibility to improve the situation in the park. And I would add that DFAT does as well. You mentioned that a statement by Dr Henckes is unsupported by any evidence. Unfortunately, there is no evidence available to substantiate how and/or why the situation has occurred at all. One hopes that GIZ and DFAT are currently in the process of collecting that information, they will share it in a transparent manner, and will use it as the basis of substantive action. Cheers, Paul

You might be right about people forgetting their generosity Stephen. As far as I can tell the Household Expenditure Survey asks people to record expenditure in a diary during a two week period based on the date they were first contacted by ABS. If the period covered did not cover a peak giving time eg just before the end of the financial year, then it is likely that donations would be undercounted. ABS does also ask respondents about big infrequent expenditure over the previous 12 months eg household appliances, car insurance but I don't think they prompt for charitable giving. In addition people may also be forgetting to diarise regular automatic bank or credit card payments.

Hi Julia, Thanks for the comment. I actually wrote about GiveDirectly recently after reading that same blog post. You can find the 'in brief' here: https://devpolicy.org/in-brief/cooling-the-hype-on-cash-transfers-20140325/ I think the post is excellent, and also liked Chris Blattman's response (which i discuss in more detail in the link above). But I do still like the idea of Cash Transfers of this nature setting a baseline of effectiveness that NGOs and donors must meet in order to justify their work.. Though I will concede on your point that 'best buys' are difficult to assess, GiveDirectly certainly doesn't make analysis of effectiveness any easier. Cheers, Jonathan

Hi Jonathan I wondered what you thought of this critique of GiveDirectly, one of GiveWell's top charities: http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/givedirectly_not_so_fast Assessing 'best buys' in aid is a complex business. Julia

Hi Paul - you're absolutely correct to publicise this problem. Congratulations on your clearly exacting and comprehensive piece of work. The photographs tell the story of the animals' welfare conditions eloquently. I'm disturbed by the reply from Dr Henckes, which in my opinion is quite unsatisfactory. It is abundantly clear that GIZ has power to effect improvement in the animals' conditions. Dr Henckes acknowledges that "GIZ has been aware of wildlife being held in captivity in U Minh Thuong National Park ... not in keeping with western standards ... ". Dr Henckes goes on "U Minh Thuong park considers it important for the many tourists that visit the park to see these rare animals". In other words, GIZ recognises the cruelty being inflicted on these unfortunate animals. But GIZ goes on to say that it is important for humans to be able to see them - in other words, Dr Henckes provides support for the animals' current conditions. If GIZ were serious about the animals' condition they would not put forward the claim that "it also argued that if released into the wild, they would not survive or would be captured and killed". This statement, unsupported by evidence, goes no way to justify animal cruelty. If this were true (an unlikely case, as veterinarians could readily advise as to which animals would be unaffected by habituation and therefore able to survive in the wild - probably a sizeable number) why doesn't GIZ seek an undertaking that no further animals will be taken from the wild? Dr Henckes is silent on this point in his reply - why? If GIZ is concerned about the animals' welfare (it acknowledges they are kept in unsatisfactory conditions) surely they would be adamant that no further animals would be captured? Providing an opportunity for animals to be viewed by humans can never be an ethical basis for animal cruelty. It is up to western nations, especially when they have funding leverage, to do what they can to improve the lives of both humans and animals - especially when the funding leverage is part of an environmental programme. Paul, I again congratulate you for bringing this to the world's attention, and for publishing the responses from those who have an ability to influence a better outcome for these unfortunate animals. Alastair Lucas AM

It is great to see that a greater focus will be on mutli- and inter-disciplinary work. I hope that this extends to issues related to growing youth populations, their needs and their capacities. With the significant populations of under-25s across the Pacific states and territories 'youth' should be a cross-cutting issue factored into the development programs and agendas of SPC, looking not only at potential impact, but also involvement.

Thomas and Peter, Iam working on a project to convert waste to energy in Port Moresby.Should you have any info/data related to rate of waste dump at Baruni dump, please let me know. Dennis