Comments

A good article that could well go further to define new approaches to ensure aid administrations can attract clear-eyed technical and professional advice without having to employ people with that advice in-house in an all encompassing aid agency.

I've seen a few people complain about the binary nature of the debate and how this is bad for aid discourse (mostly people from CGD). However I disagree completely. While it may be boring for many aid practitioners and researchers, it is a new exciting field for many, many more. Reading about RCTs in Indian education is not exactly a great introduction to aid and development, nor is reading Riddell's book. Reading two polemic academics who write well for the layman is exciting and so different to many other parts of economics (you try and find a vigorous debate like this which is easily understandable in macro or labour economics). The only reason I took a course of development and aid was after reading Sachs' end of poverty and wanting to know more. The aid sector should be thankful this debate occurs, as it draws people in, something other fields would beg for. There is nothing to say these two can't have their books and foreign policy articles while others explore frontier research agendas. I say give them more platforms and the future of aid and development will be the winner.

An interesting blog which raises the important questions of transparency, credibility and who we choose to donate to. But why look overseas when Australia has the Australian Council for International Development’s (ACFID) Code of Conduct? The ACFID Code of Conduct is a voluntary, self-regulatory sector code of good practice that aims to improve international development outcomes and enhance transparency and accountability of signatory organisations. The Code sets out standards for accountability in program principles (including aid effectiveness and human rights), public engagement (transparency and ethical behaviour in marketing, fundraising and reporting) and organisation (including financial controls, governance and management of staff and volunteers). It is regulated through self-assessment, annual compliance checks and a public complaints system. ACFID does not present Code signatories in a league table. It is difficult and often unhelpful to compare a small NGO working to provide education or healthcare to a group of villages in Kenya, for example, to the multi-national, multi-cause NGOs that are familiar to us all, such as UNICEF, CARE or Oxfam. The diversity of ACFID Code signatories reflects the broad range of sizes, causes and unique approaches to development that exists in the Australian international NGO sector. People donating to NGOs working overseas may have a particular attachment to a country or continent or to a cause (eg. education or women’s rights). ACFID encourages the public to find an organisation that reflects their values and passions. Australians can be confident that Code signatories are commited to and tested against high ethical standards. We also suggest each person do their homework by reading their chosen organisation’s annual report, websites and other information and making their own choices. There is no need to look to overseas to find a group of international development NGOs committed to transparency and effectiveness when there are over 130 Australian NGOs who are signatories to the ACFID Code of Conduct. Sarah Burrows ACFID Code Quality and Effectiveness Co-ordinator www.acfid.asn.au

A good point to raise, Chris, but you are assuming that the poor consume different goods to the less poor, and that they are large enough in number to have an impact on prices. Given that basic food staples are relatively universally consumed, this is less likely to be a major concern (it will be hard to affect the value of rice, for example, in anything other than a very marginal and localised way) and it is also highly unlikely that the poor will have any impact on major inflationary pressures like energy prices. It is more likely that there will be some localised impact on the price of market garden produce but evidence tends to suggest there is a supply stimulus effect that offsets the inflationary impact. Broad social protection programs in places like Mexico have been underway for decades now and there has been little concern regarding inflationary effects, versus other sources of inflation - global energy prices are a far greater risk and outweigh any concern we should have about cash transfers. The actual cost of addressing the poverty gap is also likely to be as rubbery as our figures about the actual size of the poverty gap - so I think we're theorising around the margins here.

This blog raises some interesting issues at the beginning, but it is a pity the argument tails off into complaint about jargon, however well deserved that may be. Aid is not alone in having its complex jargon, look at the G20, or the IT sector, for example. Let's all try to get our ideas across in clear and simple terms. However, over the past decades, the aid and development community have come a lot closer to understanding what is likely to work to reduce poverty and why. It is important to build on this knowledge and not simply revert to prejudice and anecdote, declaring that it is 'common sense'. What is common sense in Canberra or London may not be in a village in Timor-Leste or Laos.

Overall, pretty sensible comment. Many of us hold justifiable reservations over the semantic and organisational traps inherent in the over-specialisation of aid. But, to be fair, there are also legitimate concerns the other way - i.e. about over-generalisation. Establishing a policy generalist skill base primarily because the department requires people who can be deployed in as many capacities as possible and in any location is a good strategy to ensure superficiality. Many of the problems in long term aid delivery arise because of superficial analysis of outcomes, and the tendency for over-reliance on glib generalist language around "capacity building" and "performance benchmarking". As is often the case, there needs to be consideration of a middle path.

Thank you Professor ,as person from the Western Province I wish to express gratitude in the very clear manner in which you presented the issues surrounding the take over of Ok Tedi and PNGSDP by the PNG Government. Sir, I come from the Non Community Mine Continuation Agreement ( Non-CMCA) area in the Arama River just few kilometers from Fly River the Environmentally endangered river system by the Oktedi Mine waste dumping upstream. It is very clear from your presentation that some people are or have being representing us or trying to represent us the under priviledged, insufficiently educated people in this very lucrative business deal between Oktedi, the people (Us),the Government. The Government should represent us very fairly with win win situation for whole inhabitants of Western Province. Thank you Professor for waking us up from a very deep sleep that we have been enjoying.

Thank you for your fantastic blog about Social Protection. One other complexity of using the $81.5 billion figure mentioned in your blog as the hypothetical cost of addressing the $1.25 poverty gap is the inflationary effect. If every poor person received a cash payment to cover the $1.25 poverty gap there would be a significant inflationary effect. The cost of basic food that poor people consume would increase because of increased demand. As such while the $81.5 billion is the total size of the $1.25 poverty gap, addressing the poverty gap will cost more than that due to the inflationary effect as well as the administrative complexities already mentioned.

Indeed these letters ar interesting and do prompt discussion ABC Local Radio on Sunday Night (8.20) is picking up on the themes form the reports. On what works small scale infrastructure often gets overlooked. Local roads do wonders in terms of not only marketing but getting kids to school, people to clnics etc; and there are often a huge knock on effects. The then ADAB in the 1980s built lots of Bailey bridges across Eastern Indonesia. I suspect they are still there and made big differences to local communities.

Hi Joel, Thanks for the comment. I completely agree with you on your point of health aid, and it's worrying to see both Sachs and Gates running in this direction. I suppose it's because health provides the most easily quantifiable results, and as you say the impact has been huge. Let's hope they both can diversify their examples of successful aid in the coming years. Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan. I thought the letter was great. Helped confirm that I am and want to remain an optimist! Between this and Sachs's recent "The Case for Aid" in Foreign Policy, it's nice to see a bit of a vigorous response to the naysayers who now flippantly dismiss aid as a contributor to the development we have seen to date. I do notice however that both Gates and Sachs put a lot of emphasis on the effectiveness of health aid and there is less vocal support and argumentation for the effectiveness of aid to other sectors. I agree that health aid has achieved invaluable impacts but I wouldn't want the aid story to become one of "health aid works, the rest not so much." Joel

Hi Cait I certainly hope the Australian media can use this and other resources to stimulate debate about the impact of government policies and (in)actions on fragile economies and societies in the region.