Comments

This is a very timely article on this increasing trend to fast-track the participation of the private sector in "aid" delivery or development. First of all, let me make it clear that I have nothing against the role of the private sector in development. I find this interesting for many reasons. I was just teaching a module on international cooperation for students in Cali Colombia who are doing a specialization on Public-Private Partnerships. We are a few miles away from the reach of Australia's priorities but Colombia's economic growth is also focused on the extractive industries and the increasing role of the private sector in development. There are human rights violations coming from all over the place but little is done to correct the situation.....some court hearings....some financial compensation but the laws are hard to apply when it comes to the legal system's ability to apply outside of their own jurisdiction. I think that the work that is being done in Bangladesh after the accident that killed a group of workers hired by Loblaws (a Canadian company) should also be used during the inquiry...there are good examples of why many companies still refused to sign the accord on Human Rights...not that they don't believe in human rights...but it just exposes them to more legal pursuit. It's also interesting to note that the three countries that are generating the most wealth in Latin America...are home to 60% of the poverty for the whole region -- that should take care of the first assumption in the Terms of Reference. The counter argument would be -- well things would be worse without the private sector. (But maybe there is another way to stimulate growth and respect human rights). There is no mention of John Ruggie's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This would be a good place to start for the inquiry. Developing countries are still having difficulties making sense of what the 26 OECD donors are doing when it comes to impact....how do we expect them to make sense of this hyper-individual approach to development? Growth normally comes from a local approach to development; there are no cookie cutter approaches to development. I also think that the Inquiry should look at the Open Private Sector work of the World Bank. Once these tools are in place...maybe there will be a fair chance to measure impact. Clearly....there are no risks for Australian's private sector to go abroad and definitely no long term commitment outside of their ability to remain profitable....if there are any signs of economic slowdown, it's not hard for a foreign company to close its doors and let the communities deal with their needs. Maybe Australia could help developing countries implement strong disclosure on lobbying activities by foreign companies. I could probably write the final report before the inquiry starts but maybe I am wrong and we will see something exciting, innovative and thought-provoking come out of this! Keeping my fingers crossed here!

The inquiry into the role of the private sector in development is an important step to ensuring accountability and transparency. This will unearth the reality of private sector impact in the Indo-Pacific region, and inform government policy directions. This process could also be an entry point for other countries to learn from. Lessons from this inquiry could be relevant for Africa, where several non-governmental organizations use donor funds in the name of poverty reduction in poor African communities. More often than not, the non-governmental organizations in Africa are left on their own to manage donor resources leaving out national governments. Overhead and administrative costs sometimes far outweigh the actual funds put in development projects among beneficiaries; hence development workers get richer at the expense of poor communities rather than alleviating poverty -- the purpose for which donor countries use their taxpayers' monies. Though it is not a bad concept to allow non-governmental organizations and private sector directly to implement projects in poor communities, it is important to ensure that such interventions are aligned with host governments' key priorities such that private sector interventions are targeted in areas where government has less comparative advantage to invest. Although this inquiry is happening in the Indo-Pacific region, its outcomes could be very important as lessons learned for other regions like Africa, hence the need to share such outcomes at the end of the inquiry.

As an update to the post, over a recent holiday I read (most of) George Scialabba's book of essay reviews, the Modern Predicament (http://www.amazon.com/The-Modern-Predicament-George-Scialabba/dp/0983197563). If anyone is after a truly nuanced and informed critique of modernity this book is it. It isn't development studies -- but it is a very impressive set of literary essays examining what modernity has and has not delivered. Very highly recommended.

Interesting that Colin sees the 'project-based' funding as a key handicap for SPC, undermining as it does longer-term and strategic planning, and the maintenance of staff/expertise. As I have said elsewhere: It seems to me that the work of the SPC ameliorating biosecurity-related market access issues for Pacific island produce is a regional public good that should be supported on an ongoing basis. On the face of it, pooling the highly specialised expertise needed to help island states maintain compliance with quarantine measures in destination markets (in areas such as entomology and plant pathology for example) makes sense. Providing 'core funding' for SPC to provide this service should have widespread and lasting development benefits across the region.

The Voice Inc. is a very important initiative that is been operating in PNG's institutions. As an individual I acknowledge Ms Serena for setting the foundation for young Papua New Guineans who will be able to develop themselves as responsible citizens through this program. Let's start teaching the young elites and our country's future will be safe and secured.

When the external environment that a program is sitting within changes, whether that be political shifts or changes to the needs or another factor, there will of course be the requirement to restructure or divert from the original design. Over time, in engaging more deeply with stakeholders and partners, learning should emerge which can feed into improvements for a program. For 'successful' programs that effectively deliver against an original design and don't evolve over time, I wonder whether there are missed opportunities to achieve even greater impact and stronger outcomes. Restructuring might be more the symptom/visual cue, but not necessarily the cause of improvements in effectiveness- I would question if restructuring per se creates better-than-average performing projects, or whether that's more attributable to teams capturing learning from a program throughout implementation, which in some cases is reflected through a program restructuring or complete program redesign. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the author's found the outcomes were only partly attributable to the variables assessed. There is a need to look at things more holistically and contextually.

Not clear what the "new evidence" is. That a "restructured program would perform better than one not restructured? Many projects undergo restructuring during implementation exactly to manage performance. Projects that are on track fortunately don't need restructuring; so suggesting that restructured projects are likely to perform better is like saying that projects on track are more likely to fail. Then the revolutionary finding about the negative correlation between the cost of project design and supervision and project outcomes, which suggests that the lower this cost the higher the outcomes. Not only is this counter-intuitive, it also contradicts elementary principles of project design and management.

Dear Roger, It's strange when you look at the 50+ years of ODA, that we are back where it started. Aid was crowdsourced / crowdfunded mostly through religious missions and some economic development. Other initial forms of aid were really "tied" to a colonizing countries benefit. When the hat was passed on to the Private DAC club....it became a "us" and "them" - did it have an impact?? sure...through money at anything it will have an impact!! The question is = Was it strategic and effective?? the answer would be NO. As we return to the previous hyper-individual model, there is a sense that it will be more effective but still without any mechanism to measure collective impact. The private sector think they could do better - the new faces of development are "Lifebuoy", Coca Cola, SAB MIller, etc! As if they can't produce soap locally and drink fresh juices! I have nothing against corporate participation but again...it sucks money out of the local economy. It doesn't really create a meaningful impact. The new discussion at the OECD to potentially go from ODA to ODE from "aid" to "efforts" still discounts the value of local efforts -- what are the real Official Development Efforts? International or locals? All this to say that -- ODA or ODE will have a real impact when it will be implemented in a more collective context of private. local, and international efforts. Until then...it's throwing good money at something that needed to be reformed 50 years ago!

A more interesting figure is how stable donations to international NGOs has been over the past 50 years (adjusted to size of economy) being about 0.03% of GNI, based on ACFID reporting figures. On Lukes 'giving' figure the 13% is 13% of what. The Industry Commission report of the mid-1990s had international NGOs as being about 40% of the total, but that was for charity (note domestic charities get very high amounts of government funding, much higher than international charities) . I think the 13% figure includes religious donations, sporting donations, and a lot of non-charity stuff.

You might be right Stephen - certainly the 'real time" household expenditure survey should be the more accurate - although it still seems very unlikely to me that aid NGOs are receiving 40% of the charitable dollar when you think of all those health, sporting, environment, indigenous and domestic antipoverty charities plus unis and private schools. Also I don't want to believe that our nation spends more on stationery than on giving to charities (an average of $4.42 compared with $4.26 per household per week in 2010) . Maybe it is all those letters saying "Don't send me any more requests for money I will give when I can."

Just further on your point, Garth, the 2005 survey you mention has household giving to international development NGOs at $758 million (13.3% of $5.7 billion) for 2004, excluding the Tsunami response. But reported donations by Australian international development NGOs prior to the Tsunami are about $400 million (see our first blog: https://devpolicy.org/the-other-scale-up-australian-public-donations-for-development-over-the-last-decade-20130829/), including donations from business. This does suggest a lot of over-reporting of our generosity in that 2005 survey.

Indeed sanctions do not necessarily work, or if they do, they mostly harm the best interest of the ordinary people. Though sanctions are imposed on elites, those very elites live in luxury in their respective states, like the case of Fiji, while the ordinary citizens are denied the benefits of international cooperation. It is therefore important and more strategic to lift sanctions on Fiji and constructively engage the government on the basis of good governance, accountability, transparency and respect for human rights. These will bring benefits to the people of Fiji as opposed to sanctions that work in the best interest of elites and compromise the interest of the masses.