Comments

True in general but more comparison needed for US long term strategic partners.

Thank you Parima and Jonathan for this graphical summary of the changes in the mode of Australian aid delivery in recent years. Is it possible that this picture overstates the degree of change? For example while Australia's direct employment of private contractors has decreased as a share of the program it would be interesting to know whether the same contractors are now employed by multilaterals or partner governments funded by Australia. Secondly this data on multilateral funding does not distinguish between core funding of multilaterals and funding of a multilateral as a partner for a specific country-focused activity. This latter type of funding, which makes up a large part of Australia's 'multilateral funding', is much more like traditional bilateral activities. Thirdly it would be interesting to look at the share of funding to multilaterals over a longer time period. The data you provide in the attached spreadsheet seem to indicate that multilateral funding in the first few years of the naughties occupied a similar share to now.

Hi Dylan, We have made the report available on our website. You can download it <a href="https://devpolicy.org/pdf/Endline-Study-PPP-Lesotho-Final-Report-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pdf]. Regards, Jonathan

This is an interesting concept...it would be good to know which countries Paul Collier has identified as having adopted this approach and what his (or others') assessment is of the ensuing development impacts.

An Interesting principle in its wording: "The Department will work closely with NGOs with a strong track record for effective aid delivery". Does it (the use of the term 'strong track record') reflect the former Minister Downer's view that there were too many NGOs in the aid program, and set about reducing the acrredited ones by about half. Then the Labor government had an aim to redress that balance and increase the numbr of accredited NGO from aorund 40 up to 50. So the question is will this mean the carve up of the NGO/ANCP pie be skewed to to the larger NGOs at expense of the smaller ones. Interesting times ahead!!!

Actually, the data shows the majority of the very poor continue to live in Asia, and increasingly in Asia's middle-income countries - Asia Pacific is home to 1.7 billion people, or around 70% of those living under $2 per day, and receives a lower share of aid per poor person than Africa - particularly South Asia, which is incredibly underfunded with respect to actual poverty incidence. A focus on Asia is sensible, not least because Australia has strong capacity there and good links with governments. Australia is a minnow in Africa, and has little to productively contribute to the European efforts there.

Aid can never be independent of foreign affairs. Even the UK's DFID is placed in conjunction with the UK's MOD and FCO in enacting policy, especially towards conflict/failed states.

Why must the focus just be on the Asia Pacific region, even as much as it is geographically near to Australia? Data shows that LDCs and poor people will be concentrated in Africa--the World Bank's IDA will be providing to mainly African clients in the future.

Ariel and Mel, The points you have raised are exemplary in how we might look to use the power of people to move not only individuals but also communities. By drilling down to the attribute level we are able to show a farmer not only what other farmers are doing but farmers most like them based on geography, stock or crop focus, water allocation, etc. It is at this level that we are most influenced because we can see what others just like me are doing in this circumstance or have done before as the evidence does not need to be firsthand. Mel's reference to Dr Robert Cialdini is absolutely on the mark. If readers are looking to see how they can harness the power of scientifically proven, ethical influence you cannot go past the work of Cialdini. With his book Influence selling near on 3 million copies worldwide the practical approach to the science is able to be applied from all aspects of aid, diplomacy and daily community interactions, intervention and development. While most people know what works, they often struggle to know why it works. This is okay if what works always does, but when it doesn't, Cialdini's principles and frameworks (accessible to everyone through his book and Principles of Persuasion Workshop - taught all over the world) provide a very strong basis for us to better plan, execute and review our influence endeavours. Great piece. Thanks for sharing. Anthony

Hi Mel Thanks for this response and for giving me the opportunity to clarify my response - I am completely in agreement with you on the range of contributions that managing contractors can make and have been encouraged to see and hear of more and more activities of the type that you envisage. I think there are more opportunities to connect development professionals from numerous sectors and promote as much sharing of ideas and knowledge as possible to support development and I would like to see managing contractors doing more of stepping up, being made welcome and even facilitating activities of this type of their own. Tess

Dear Stephen, your have come up with a critical and facinating views which I am highly impresssed with. I see you views as evident based, reflecting on your level of expertise and involvement in various capacities in relation to PNGSDP's task.Educated PNGean's should be wary of the critical facts and unforeseable effects surrouning the governenment's decisions in taking full ownership of OK Tedi Mining Limited. Drawing up amendment on legislation by Lawyers for hefty payment is becoming a norm these days and on other hand MPs are so foolish without make a critical assesments before passing it on the floor of parliament. Thank you Win.Nicholas Student Crawford Shool of Economics and Governance. ANU

Thanks Tess Yes I agree that managing contractors, the private sector in general, and each of us does not have all the answers - together we may just get there! One thing I do want to respond to relates to the the potential inference that readers could take from your statement linking managing contractors to the tendering alone for that is only one part of managing contractors' DNA. Managing contractors certainly require tendering competence, but it would remain a shame if managing contractors and other private sector actors are not drawn on more purposefully outside the bounds of procurement rules, for they have so much to offer beyond just preparing quality tender responses. I know from the members of the IDC that all see themselves as true development professionals - small and large organisations alike - because they are development professionals - the rest is a governance construct. They all possess the desire and commitment to continue to support good development, by being drawn on for ideas etc is irrespective of any competitive tendering process. In fairness and to remain balanced in view, it is also up to us, the private sector, to stand up and be heard and show this commitment in action as well as words. M