Comments

I agree the IDA17 and Global Fund pledges don't seem to rest on any objective basis, whether it's the findings of the Australian Multilateral Assessment (possibly skewed in the case of the Global Fund by a passing storm about the misappropriation of funds in Africa), or something else. However, I don't see any real cutting going on, or any singling out of the World Bank, and am surprised by this in light of the Treasurer’s pre-election comments about funding to multilateral organisations. While friends of the Global Fund might have hoped for a large increase in Australia's contribution to the fourth replenishment, a same-nominal contribution of $200 million over three years was not to be sneezed at in the context of a flatlined Australian aid budget. As for IDA17, a government truly intent on reaping savings from the multilateral part of the aid budget could well have chosen to revert to the pre-2007 burden share of 1.46 per cent. This would have yielded further savings of perhaps $130 million. Instead, the government maintained the higher burden share adopted by Labor for IDA15 and IDA16. Failing to repeat Labor's IDA16 supplementary contribution of $100 million didn't in any real sense constitute a cut, given that the whole point of describing a contribution as 'supplementary' is to convey that it will not necessarily be repeated. In fact I doubt Labor would have repeated it if re-elected, given their own large cuts, in 2012 and 2013, to the forward estimates for the aid budget, as well as reallocations within the aid budget for asylum-seeker costs. World Bank management should be well pleased that Australia maintained its 1.8 per cent share. By the way, I’m not sure we can yet evaluate the significance of the fall in Australia's share of the total replenishment, from 1.4 to 1.26 per cent, as we don't know whether certain other donors' contributions, provided for the first time as 'concessional partner loans', have been included in the headline total on a gross or net basis (see <a href="http://international.cgdev.org/blog/world-bank%E2%80%99s-got-talent-or-why-read-fine-print-ida%E2%80%99s-52-billion-record" rel="nofollow">this </a>piece from CGD's Todd Moss). I think that what we are really seeing here is decision-making on a default basis, not particularly constrained at this stage by the new aid budget environment and certainly not informed by any strategic framework for the allocation of resources to multilateral organisations—or to anything much. That’s good for the organisations or causes that pass through the door early. It’s not so good for those whose turn comes around when the cupboard is empty.

I love the philosophy of Give What You Can, and think everyone can benefit from taking a good, objective look at how they live, and how that affects others. Simple changes in what we eat, drink and wear, as well as how we get around, heat/cool our homes and making conscious choices about where our money goes can make a big difference. I strongly believe our dollar is our vote - how we use it influences the kind of world we end up with.

Yes, there are a few amber fluid sub-cultures in Australia. The well-off urbane conservatives tend to drink imported lagers from the big global breweries, while the lefty intellectuals drink local craft beers and exotic pale ales. The VB drinkers probably don't self-affiliate with either the left or right, but in previous eras would have been in favour of workers' rights and protectionism (left-leaning), but today they are more associated with the 'mortgage belt' in the outer suburbs of our big cities and tend to vote conservative.

I suspected as much, just didn't want to be accused of other-side-of-the-pond discrimination! Next time you probably want to go for a nice South Australian shiraz.

Thanks Garth and Stephen Sometimes I ponder on how much Australians have become self-focussed - as in, someone with an annual family income of over $150,000 can still (recently) claim "entitlement" to government support. By contrast, the arguments for giving foreign aid are focussed on the "other" - those around our world who do not have our riches and life opportunities. These arguments no longer seem to resonate with those who can give. And especially how sharing what we have in (relative) abundance can give these people - men women and children - some of those necessities of life that we in Australia now take for granted. There seems to be a fundamental dichotomy between "Australia" and the billions trying to live on US$1.25 each day, as Australians attempt to pass on by, on the other side of the road. To make a concrete example, relating to the people of Afghanistan after 2015 and the current public priority of our troops returning "home". That country remains one of the worst places in the world to be a woman. Girls' schools are frequently attacked, high-profile women’s rights activists have been killed, and violence against girls and women continues to be a major problem. 87 per cent of women in Afghanistan have experienced at least one form of domestic violence; including physical, sexual, or psychological violence or forced marriage. After the withdrawal of most western military forces in 2014, Afghanistan’s men, women and children will remain at risk. I have put money into several projects providing long-term support of Afghan civilians. Their future safety should also be our governments’ present priority.

Thanks Mel good point - to be clear, I definitely mean aid worker to mean all those working in aid (including contractors, NGO staff, and the like). cheers Terence

Ashlee Marc's points are well made and there still seems to be more to complete this picture. I do not want to enter the "promises broken" debate as I am not sure that is [now] the jugular issue. As the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness and other commentary flags, predictability and consistency of aid investment is crucial - regardless if the mechanism or partner through which the investment is made. Pragmatically we probably all recognise that things change and aid budgets are increasingly one of those "things". So it seems the issue is now more about timing, or timeliness if enacting those changes - in this case the changes to the aid budget. Mel Dunn

Terrence This is really an enjoyable read, both in style and content. I read it as soon as it was posted, and have returned a number of times to read again as it has created some reflection for me, though not in terms of amber fluid. There is one particular element you comment on that creates contemplation. Towards the end of your piece you comment that a [better] practice could “involve affording aid workers time to actually engage with their work, and to learn the lessons to be learnt, rather than hurriedly shovelling money out the door”. It is preceded by a statement referring to an aid agency. While I doubt it is your intent in the writing, for each word seems purposeful, it would be a shame if ‘aid worker’ is interpreted as only ‘an officer of an aid agency’. All who are engaged in supporting the delivery of an aid program (be they agency officers, the private sector, NGOs, individuals), given more time to engage, learn etc as you write must create the possibility of better outcomes. And it would seem particularly useful in that context if ‘aid worker’ was also interpreted as a collective and hence “small ideas and accumulated learning” is not lost to fragmentation. Mel Dunn

Huh. Well maybe that's why it didn't work? I have to confess that, as a New Zealander, I don't really understand Australian beer political affiliations...

The only people I know who drink VB are radical lefties who still think the "Socialist Worker" is an informative source of information.

Great article Colin! I'm amazed on how little information there seems to be on DSIP spending. PM O'Neil in his speech said "Joint District Priority Budget Committee (JDBPC) around the country are rehabilitating roads, building foot bridges and purchasing much needed vehicles and equipment for police and other public servants." I would like to know where this information was obtained and if it's available publicly. I checked out the Auditor-General's report on the DSIP (most recent is 2009 - see <a href="http://www.ago.gov.pg/docs/reports/PartIII2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">Part 3</a>[pdf]) which documents massive amount of mismanagement or worse, for example in one district it says "This Office noted instances of payments totaling over K5.6 million which were made without any evidence or proof that they had been made with the approval and endorsement of JDP & BPC" (p. 202). Not exactly ringing endorsement of JDPBPC's success.

Dear Marcus, I agree strongly with your arguments in this blog, particularly with regard to the conundrum for external actors of knowing whether/how to work with the state for the benefit of citizens in Melanesia. However, I think your point about ‘the ability of the state to resist pressure to channel public resources towards particularist interests, and instead towards a universalist national interest’, posits the Melanesian state in an ahistorical light not dissimilar from the interpretations inherent in donor programming. Instead of viewing Melanesian states as weak and in need of strengthening to resist particularist pressure, external actors may be better served by seeing them as functioning according to the needs of the existing political order. That is, distributing rents among the elite to maintain the governing coalition. The resulting policy prescriptions might, hopefully, focus less on convincing bureaucrats/politicians to act against their own self-interest and consider more deeply how the common interests of the state and citizens can be mobilised. Which I think is what you argue closer to the end in ‘viewing state capacity as a whole-of-society issue’. I really wonder, though, whether we can hope to see Australian aid taking a more nuanced, less state-centric approach in the next few years.