Comments

The question this blog (nor the policy) does not address is the buzz phrase of 'women's economic empowerment' (vague code I think for microfinance), included under private sector development. I am sure Mahommed Yunus (of Grameen Bank fame) would think it should be, but do the policy wonks in DFAT think the same, and did Robin and Margaret include it in their calculations? Personally I am not a great fan of MF as it does not live up to a lot of its hype, and can disempower women as much as it can empower them, but it is worth a mention at least under private sector development (SMEs and all that).

Thanks Grant. I think your previous post made a good and succinct observation on the changing dynamic within the country's anti-corruption agencies. My <a href="http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/04/04/A-victory-over-corruption-in-PNG-paul-tiensten.aspx" rel="nofollow">earlier article</a> with the Lowy Institute in light of Tienten's case described this as an "awakening". Lowy's article agrees with your observations that despite the potential hassles OC may face, "it’s good to see the Commission on the prowl"… or "baring their teeth." However, I don't think this post suggest that yours 'unduly' praised the OC, rather it caution against the degree of confidence in the OC appeared to be implied from yours. Similar confidence can be implied from my Lowy article in terms of the Task Force Sweep. While such implication may be correct, this post sees it is necessary to caution, especially in light of the recent events in the last two weeks concerning the Ombudsman. Also, its past record. It is important to identify this in making the point that the OC have always tried to be on the 'prowl' but rarely 'bite.'

Thanks for the interesting post, Bal. Here you suggest I unduly praise the OC in my <a href="https://devpolicy.org/png-anti-corruption-agencies-show-their-teeth-20140404/" rel="nofollow">previous post</a>, however, I don't think that is the case. I certainly am hopeful about the OC finally starting to investigate cases after a long silence, but I write that: "There’s still a long way to go before these investigations are concluded, and it is far from clear as to whether the Commission will secure any convictions or, in the case of Central Lands Limited, cause workers to down tools". My contention is that it is better to have the OC investigating these issues than continued silence. We all hope that the OC will bite; but first it must investigate (go ‘on the prowl’, so to speak), no?

Great thoughts. Your motivations to write this piece are noble and your arguments touch only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you were being careful in your writing, understandably. I have been working in Pakistan for the betterment of the communities for the 11 years of my career and i have seen some very disturbing aspects of how efficiency of Overseas Development Assistance is compromised. Just a recent example. I recently closed a project that focused on child marriages. Of the total cost of the project (that was 5.2 million Euros) more than 45% went on admin costs; 10 times more money was spent on the cost of traveling and staying in Lavish 5 star hotels as compared to the meager cost of the project activity. Although this information could be digested / defended by the school of thought that opposes the jist of your arguments if it were not for the final painful observation which is : Of the 5.2 million Euros for the project LESSER than 1% of the money went to the targeted beneficiaries. I always feel crushed at this knowledge. I have seen people making enough DSA's (from traveling nationally and internationally) that amount to 2-3 months of their salaries. Hence the term "Development Tourism". I can go on and on about my experiences, and yes I totally agree with what you say, and i support your observations passionately. And above all, thank you for choosing such thought provoking title for your piece.

Thanks Ben, a good post worthy of reading and contemplation, as are the comments. I am particularly interested in the closing remarks in Jo's comment. I find it interesting, possibly instructive, that Jo's comment suggests that persistent misconceptions require more to be done by NGOs and government to help 'educate'...it is the comment's silence on the role of the private sector to potentially contribute to better messaging that interests me. I agree that we probably don't know enough about what publics think (or why) about aid. Yet, what we possibly do know, from Devpolicy's own recent stakeholder survey, is that NGOs and the private sector (narrowly defined here as traditional private sector aid implementing partners) view aid/development similarly. So, maybe there needs to be a more complete picture about which actors could contribute to messaging about the aid program?

I wonder if the power price paid to Bhutan is at a concessional rather than market rate (and who owns the power generators); do local communities benefit (a seminar on this the other day suggested not); and if this ownership/beneficiary issue was factored in, would it be germain. Could be a complicated form of tied aid, so the details of the aid to Bhutan is important for comparative purposes. I suspect there is also a lot of aid to the Maldives but it is tiny the abrorptive capacity might not be that great.

This <a href="http://essentialvision.com.au/decisions-made-in-the-budget-2-by-voting-intention" rel="nofollow">opinion survey</a> also found 51% of Green voters supported the aid cut?! I would be cautious about the results of this internet panel survey.

Hi Benjamin, Thanks for this post, it is important for us in the aid sector to understand the response of the public to foreign aid cuts. I have two quibbles on your conclusion - firstly, while it is true that foreign aid can be increased without public support (e.g the U.K), the lack of public support surely means foreign aid is a vulnerable budget line, easily open to cuts prior to an election or just after? Don't we want our advocacy efforts to not just get a commitment, but have that commitment maintained? Public support is important not just for getting the political commitment, but for ensuring it remains. Secondly, while I agree that the biggest bang for our buck (particularly in the short term) is to directly target our politicians, surely the fluctuation of Australia's foreign aid depending on the party that is in Government, is an indication that we need to spend more time addressing the public's misconceptions of aid so that any fluctuations are minimal.

Great post, Ben. Thanks. I think the link between public opinion on aid and aid levels is one that needs greater examination (as you point out). Linking the two without studying the relationship between them (as some studies do) only shows a correlation, not a causal pathway. On balance, by my reading, the studies on the public-politician-foreign policy linkages (sometimes with the media added into the mix) show that politicians are wary of latent public opinion and tend to respond to activated public opinion. So while I agree the relationship may not be strong, I don't think we have a good enough understanding about what publics really think about aid and within what contexts (as you point out), and exactly how this might impact upon politicians' actions. One study (Noel and Therein 2002) argued that when there are economic problems at home, publics support action to reduce domestic poverty and income inequality first, but when things were better at home they were more supportive of addressing poverty and inequality overseas. Perhaps this is what is going on in Australia and the UK. I agree that more work needs to be done to work to build politicians' understanding. I would also argue what we do know about public opinion and aid highlights the need for greater public engagement and education activities by both NGOs and government, if only to reduce the two most prominent misunderstandings that you describe.

I sincerely want to comment on the session today on all the keynoted speakers which was inspiring and educational.Thank you and my appreciation to who ever was behind the successful program today. I will take it as challenge and look positively into a better economic outlook for the PNG boom regardless of the constraints or limitations that are stopping us from progressing. Positively, good economic growth would be our way to combat poverty in Papua New Guinea in both urban or rural population settings. The notable topic is the agricultural Dutch Disease and the question must be answered in a detailed technical approach. --Session One Participant

If we need another reason not to transition to in kind aid, below is CGD's summary of a <a href="http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/resources/papers/FAidConf_20130806_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper </a> [pdf] concluding good aid makes conflict worse. "Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian, in their paper US Food Aid and Civil Conflict, exploit a powerful determinant of food aid that has nothing to do with the place getting the aid. It turns out that an excellent predictor of how much food aid the US sends is how big the wheat surplus is in the US. The paper shows that when there's more rain in the US, there's more wheat production, and the US sends more food aid abroad. So the authors compare places that happened to have a famine during a year of good rains in the US (therefore, more likely to get food aid) with places that happened to have a famine during a year of bad rains in the US (less likely to get food aid). They find that this aid increases both the likelihood and the duration of civil conflict."

Thanks for the post Robin. A backflip indeed, but at least one in the 'right' direction. It's a shame, on some levels, that it had to be the GEF, which, as you rightly point out, is widely perceived as less than effective, particularly by institutions in the global south. I agree with Jonathan that the green fund (assuming it ever manages to get its structures sorted out to ensure the majority of financing gets to the places it is most needed) would be a better investment and I hope this GEF allocation is the start of a climb back towards climate finance rather than a one off. It's interesting to note that adaptation doesn't seem to be as out of favour under the current government's approach to aid as mitigation (though I guess we will know more when the aid framework sees the light of day). Given this, I wonder if we may see a tied contribution to the GFC for a climate resilience window. That would be more inline with the government's rhetoric and would still be a useful contribution to the global effort. Under the previous government, Australia was a (if not 'the') leader on finance for adaptation. Given the current emissions trajectory and low chance of a global climate agreement making a significant dent in a timely fashion, adaptation finance flows will need to substantially scale up and a significant Australian contribution to this effort might offset international disquiet around the absence if mitigation funding (and effective domestic climate policies).