Comments

It's interesting that there's no drop in multilateral commitments (yet). Could it be the case that, in the chase for austerity, aid through multilaterals is seen as providing a bigger value for money?

Thanks Sarah and Patrick for the comments. To begin with my post was not intended to be an affront to Australian NGOs or the ACFID Code of Conduct. I routinely give to multiple Australian-based NGOs, and of course think that people should give to whatever charity makes them happy. That said I have to disagree with the point that we need not look beyond Australian NGOs for giving. As I stated in my blog post I am interested in effectiveness and robustly proven impact, not where the NGO bases its operations. The ACFID code of conduct is a great minimum standard for Australian NGOs, but it also has over 130 organisations signed up to it. Based on my rationale above, a Code that is self-regulated and applicable to organisations both large, such as World Vision, and very small, such as Openaid 1000 villages, is simply not enough to convince me to give. I want to be able to see an NGO’s impact through publicly disclosed independent evaluations, rigorous monitoring of ongoing projects, and a high level of transparency. And preferably I’d like to not have to look into all of that myself, bringing me back to why Givewell was originally appealing. On Patrick’s point that agencies supported by Givewell don’t do well with OAGDS and DFAT’s criteria, it is likely because they have no Australian presence and thus aren’t eligible for tax deductibility. But it’s impossible to tell. The OAGDS system is horribly opaque and does not give out information on why individual cases for tax deductibility were accepted or rejected. With regards to some of the world’s largest development NGOs not scoring well with Givewell that might be because large doesn’t necessarily equate to good. Or it could be because NGOs of that size have no incentive in cooperating with Givewell’s stringent requirements for a few extra million in funding. Givewell also has other requirements, such as ‘room for more funding’, that may also preclude some of the larger players. Does this mean we should all be flocking away from Australian NGOs to give to the charities Givewell suggests? Of course not. People give money to NGOs for all kinds of reasons and rationales. Mine is simply to give money to the world’s best development NGO, regardless of where they operate from. But given the story outlined above about AMF’s recent history that seems far easier said than done.

In developing countries, Aid is an important element to overcoming poverty and hunger on the one hand, and promoting inclusive develpoment on the other. However, one of the problems I have observed in the case of some African states (Liberia in particular) is that aid is channeled through develpment partners whose adminstrative and overhead cost (salaries, housing, hazards, amenities, overall operational cost, et al.) far outwieght the funds allocated for the the real development targets. Can developing countries redirect aid to national budgetary support to suport the specific development targets for which aid is provided?

At some point the big men of development turn into rock stars - and that's when the polemics start. At this level we're beyond the sensible nuanced approaches to finding what works, and expecting that from Sachs or Easterly is about as sensible as expecting Bono to produce a coherent explaination of a Cobb-Douglas production function. It's a shame the hubris now stops them both from drawing useful and replicable lessons instead of defending their own experiments and hence intellectual legacy (esp. Sachs). I guess it's a spectacle, but it's not really helpful to us in the business.

I enjoyed reading your article on the state of the fruit growing industry and where the current focus on SPC Ardmona fits into the picture. One of the key facts that hit me was the much better export performance of the horticulture sector in New Zealand. This suggests we need a study at the micro level about how major exporters in both countries meet the requirements of export markets. This means qualitative case studies of horticultural enterprises but based on some hard data on productivity as well. The research needs to looks closely at how workforce issues fit into lifting productivity. For example, how important are short-term, once-only seasonal workers compared with workers who return from year to year? The obvious initiator of such a study is the the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Productivity Division which has just published a one enterprise study of the efficiency of horticultural labour case study on the productivity of seasonal workers and working holiday makers. With all the focus on ways to improve the performance of the horticulture sector, learning from New Zealand can only do some good.

Interesting post David. I doubt you'd find many people who would stand up to fiercely defend aid jargon--it is often derided by the sector itself. There was a piece circulating widely last week by Floyd Whaley at the ADB critiquing the jargon of the aid sector and why it is such a problem for communicating with the very people aid is aiming to help (<a href="http://blogs.adb.org/blog/jargon-hurts-poor" rel="nofollow">see here</a>). As you note, there is a real need for those in aid to clearly explain themselves, not only to recipients and other stakeholders but also now to those coming from the diplomacy and trade sides of DFAT. But there's also a need for the diplomats to listen to and respect the knowledge that people in the aid program have and not to dismiss their actual experience as noise or some kind of defense shield for the sector. From the language around the amalgamation (... or the 'DFAT takeover') there are concerns about whether that will actually happen. There has to be a balance, as well as collaboration and communication between both sides. Aid effectiveness needs to remain at the forefront, whether specialists or generalists are calling the shots. Every sector has its own coded languages--as someone who has worked predominantly in communications and as a journalist, a lot of my job has been to translate this jargon for wider audiences. I feel there's as much of a chance of baffling spin and PR coming out of a diplomacy-driven aid program as there is of jargon in a development-driven one...

Uncontrolled waste disposal in our towns and cities poses threat on the nation's health and economy. No national strategic framework to regulate and monitor such calls for immediate action. No wonder mining take advantage of this by crafting colourings on their risk management plans by extracting few statements from Environmental Act and Public Health Act. Thomas, post me if you or others had done researches on this. I promote waste-free environment. Peter Maima

Thank you Michael for the timely reminder of the sad, shameful colonial history of Nauru.

I'd be happy to write for the website on HOW to make aid effective. There are tremendously powerful lessons in the successes of aid for public health in the past decade. Best regards, Jeff Sachs

I'm also in two minds on this. On the one hand, it's good to get any space in the media for aid at all and to engage people on these issues. On the other hand, the debate is oversimplified in its 'either/or' approach. It strips away the how and and why from the discussion of why aid does or doesn't work. Clearly the best way for us to decide whether the debate is a positive or negative for public engagement in aid and development issues would be for Sachs and Easterly to write some convincing posts on the topic for the Devpolicy Blog... 😉

Thanks for a thoughtful blog, David. You raise some really interesting points, such as specialists versus generalists in foreign policy, the idea of 'professionalism' (what is an 'aid professional'?), and the exacerbated principal-agent problems aid agencies experience and their consequences. But these weren't expanded on substantially in the blog. I agree with Julia. I work as a nurse and if a non-medical professional had to make sense of the notes we keep or the conversations medical professionals have, they would be mystified and confused. This jargon, on the whole, actually helps us to be efficient in our communications with each other. (Of course, we use different language when talking to people experiencing health problems.) So I don't see jargon as the main issue in aid's integration into DFAT, and I don't see why DFAT would be a bastion of 'common sense' or professionalism over any other government agency. I think aid effectiveness is key to the debate about how a government choses to organise its aid delivery. In the post you refer to, I outline how aid's organisation has an impact on aid's development purpose. I believe there is sufficient evidence to argue the most effective aid is that which is focused on development, not other foreign policy goals. So contrary to your conclusion in paragraph two, aid's effectiveness does rely on institutional arrangements, (although most likely in combination with other factors).

Thanks for the comment Henry. It actually took me a while to write that last paragraph because I myself am in two minds about the debate. On the one hand I think the preeminence of these two voices leaves little room for more nuanced debate and opinions. On the other, you do have a point that the debate is a great introduction for people interested in the field of development. But I'm still not sure if that means the debate needs to go on for 8 years. Their original works are still pretty relevant today and great introductory texts to the field, but maybe it's time for them to step out of the limelight and make room for some other views.