Comments

Tracey, A well written critique and full marks for identifying the elephant in the room in your opening remarks under "how convincing is the evidence?". A couple of years ago I was developing a Phd topic in the area of causal impact evaluation of social programs and in particular that of the PNG law and justice sector. The ODE study was then in the making (and had been all ready a long time in the making) and was eagerly awaited by the industry. On publication I was gobsmacked to find that not only was PNG not the star case study but was omitted altogether. In my view the report was accordingly significantly diminished, hardly worth reading as a serious contribution to our understanding of the sector and a true discredit to ODE. In south west Pacific area law and justice terms, that is, our back yard, PNG is the only show in town and a show that disturbingly the Australian government now seems keen to distance itself from. Philip Jan van der Eyk

The recommendation that the "AVID program on developing the long-term capacity of host organisations", seems a very big ask for a 20-something person; when (in some cases) decades of technical assistance from much more experienced folk has not been able to do it. A comparison between the commercial and NGO volunteer progams would be interesting as well

Tom your comments about developing country NGOs are a bit of a generalisation as it dopends on which countries you are talking about. In India for example most development NGOs get the bulk of their funding from government on purchaser-provider type contracts much the same as domestic NGOs in Australia. Also many if not most developing countries are putting much stricter regulatory frameworks in place which are squeeing NGOs particularly advocacy ones.

Thanks Stephen for this probing analysis - much needed. There are a number of points I would like to pick up, based on my AusAID and UN experience in the Pacific, PNG and Africa over the past 20 years, but I will just concentrate on the point about 'grooming'/producing young Aussies for development careers. This is a long standing problem, and I can remember trying to promote within the aid programme back in the 1980s the concept of ensuring that every consultancy team be required to include a 'novice', to enable them to gain some os experience, as part of their education, and to help produce future 'AusAID', NGO and UN/INGO applicants with some background know-how. But that was too novel for them. I am surprised, but delighted to hear that 30% continue on in the field so volunteering is obviously contributing. But it would be worth examining further how the aid programme can purposefully, in a more structured way, assist developing a suitably experienced cadre of 'developers'.

Really interesting post, thanks Jesse. Your suggestion of training nurses in the Philippines got me thinking. It certainly deserves further inquiry. You say that many nurses could be trained in the Philippines for the same cost of training one in Australia. Do you know the costs of training in the Philippines? And do they train in English or in Tagalog? As if not in English this would raise the costs? Also, in NZ at least, most Filipino nurses still have to go through a basic competency assessment to ensure they reach NZ nursing standards before they can practise. This takes time and money. I'm not sure of the situation in Australia but if i-Kiribati nurses were aiming for the New Zealand and Australian markets, then this would also have to be factored into the overall cost. I'd love to see a follow-up blog post investigating this idea further. I also think the idea of raising nursing training standards in Kiribati (and other Pacific Island Countries) is another idea worth pursuing further, and I've heard others mention it too. But for now, thanks for the great analysis of KANI and for some thought-provoking ideas.

Thanks Benjamin for a very helpful summary of a complex process and a sound assessment of where we are now. Some useful additional reading would be Richard Horton's <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61533-0/fulltext?rss=yes " rel="nofollow">disappointed perspective</a> in the Lancet last year: "Busan lacked the clarity of Paris. It fudged the responsibility of donors. It was a step backwards, not forwards, for development cooperation." And the 2013 Country Ownership paper from <a href="http://www.bond.org.uk/resources.php/56/country-ownership" rel="nofollow">UKAN</a>; BOND on post Busan sluggishness: "So what progress has been made since Busan? The answer appears to be, not much. In fact, in some ways the international community may even have gone backwards." From country perspective, it is hard to see much added value from the joining of the UN to the GPEDC secretariat. Has anyone seen the UN drive new or re-energised engagement to the Paris or Busan principles in-country? Are there clearer tools for ensuring transparency holding partners to account? In most countries, I suspect not. Contrasted to that reality, it is hard not to cast a jaundiced eye at yet another high-profile summit, making new if vague promises, which serve to distract from how many old promises have not been kept.

It is quite fascinating to read about government’s support to NGOs. Fascinating because in developing countries, NGOs raise their own finances to fund development programmes, which in my view support government’s development priorities. Without doubt, a troika approach to development involving the government, donors/NGOs, and the local communities (Haynes 2008) is fundamental if development must succeed in developing countries. And government’s support to NGOs in developing countries could further advance development interventions in a multifaceted way. However, without questioning the systems in place to facilitate transparent and accountable utilization of government’s financial support to NGOs in Australia and other countries, there seems to be genuine reasons why NGOs in developing countries are not supported by government’s funding. First, the governments “do not have adequate resources for their own priorities”, and are therefore complaining about budgetary shortfalls, thus looking up to donors to support development process, sometimes through direct budget support. Second, the rules governing the establishment and operation of NGOs are weak, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, to hold NGOs accountable. Third, NGOs in developing countries view themselves as pressure groups that should hold government accountable, advocate against societal ills and promote democracy and human rights. By so doing, governments perceive NGOs as spies and agents of the West, which uses democracy, accountability, transparency, human rights, et al. as preconditions for aid. As a result of mistrust in governments, donors and aid agencies tend to trust NGOs than governments with funding to directly implement development programmes in developing countries. I think the scenario above undermines development efforts in developing countries as suggested by Haynes (2008). It would be preferable where NGOs to be accountable to governments, and that donor funding provided to NGOs in developing countries should be based on national priorities for which national governments have got no funding. Combined and well coordinated effort can increase development outcomes and national levels. One may ask, who sets the national priorities? The simple answer is government. However, it is my view that NGOs must partner with government to identify national priorities and determine gaps for which aid can be sought for development interventions. Government is obliged to ensure the useful participation of NGOs, local communities and partners in development planning and implementation processes. I am making this point because some of the funds provided to NGOs in developing countries tend to target sectors which other donors are simultaneously funding, hence the issue of multiple support to single development priorities. This sometimes leads to corruption of donor funds, and leaves some urgent development priorities unfunded. Equally, NGOs tend to behave like opposition politicians and more often than not produce politicians in developing countries. How these new elites enhance governance and promote development is another question begging answers. Nevertheless, the role and interventions of NGOs have made significant impact in developing countries. Without the intervention of NGOs, it is unclear what developing countries would be like up to present. Is it good at all for government to support NGOs? Indeed yes, this is a lesson to be learned and a best practice for developing countries. Good if such lesson were shared, especially guidelines by which funding to NGOs are determined, et al. Case studies on such practices could even proof more strategic for replication in developing countries. In view of the above, lessons on how governments support NGOs would be good to share. The rules and regulations governing NGOs and their modus operandi are also desirous.

Oops, sorry Aileen. You're correct, I was referring to Anna's comment. I am with you - the concept of boomerang aid doesn't take into account any of the complexities. Agree with you too Joel, there is a lot of opportunity for strengthening the outcomes for scholarships. But overall, and especially after speaking with alumni, it does seem like a successful development program.

Note to Jen - I said nothing about boomerang aid (that was Anna). I was observing that we probably aren't comparing apples and apples when comparing the Kiribati Nursing program with ADS, and that if we factored in the additional bridging work, the degrees themselves probably have similar costs. Personally, I don't believe in the concept of boomerang aid - it's overly simplistic.

Thank you for bearing witness so eloquently and for the splendid work you do. Are any donors keen to support your work?

Dear Neil, thanks for this nice overview! I agree that Lin does not really provide solutions, but rather a description. However, even the description is contended by authors such as Ha-Joon Chang, who argue that there is too much neoclassical focus in Lin's ideas. Best wishes, Nicolai

Thanks Stephen, even though the introduction makes me sound like a person who is very hard to please, I very much agree with your post! I found it baffling that the evaluation defined capacity building in such narrow terms. Even skill transfer in the most basic sense is a positive and arguably builds capacity in some way. Even if staff or counterparts move on to other jobs or other organisations, as often happens, you are still boosting the range of skills and competencies in the country's human resource pool. I don't really understand why the volunteer program would be the tool you would choose to use for institutional capacity building if it is deemed to be so important, especially since the program by nature focuses more on building 'people to people' links rather than institution or organisational strengthening. Do Australia Awards and other scholarships, for example, aim to build institutional capacity or just the country's human resource capacity more generally?