Comments

Stephen thank you for writing about what we can do as individuals. I think our discussions about aid and development on sites such as this would be enriched by the inclusion of more ethical and other personal reflections and not just focussing on the politics, economics and research sides of things.

Dear Jane and Anne Marie, Great article and lots more to read via the hyperlinks in the article. I am writing to you from Cali Colombia where the country has now graduated to a middle-income country. It's interesting to put in perspective the fact that 60% of poverty in Latin America is found in the three countries that are generating the most wealth (Mexico, Colombia, Brazil). I am not necessarily a fan of ODA by any means as they missed a good opportunity to start the process in 1960 by putting in place the tools to measure the impact of these human and financial flows to developing countries. Did the shift come from Official Aid or Private flows...the debate will go on!! - The definition of ODA or what is included has changed so much that it would be hard to even evaluate what is actually making it to destination or country of focus..Current initiative for transparency are not producing much results....all different website publishing different numbers...one good example is Colombia -- the country's website reports 1/2 of billion in ODA while the OECD reports 1 billion. Are government's department technically equipped to distribute a new form of aid coming in the shape of loans? or should they stick to what they should be doing best...create the economic and social conditions for the private sector to thrive! I have had the opportunity to travel all over the Americas and part of Africa. The social and infrastructure deficit is humongous. This is at the same time a "commercial opportunity" if we believe that there is an abundant amount of natural resources to address this "deficit". There is also a belief that the private sector can deliver social services as part of their CSR programs. It's hard to imagine "collective and wide-spread collaboration" of efforts as well continuity in program deliveries. I could go on forever about all of the problems that this unfortunate sector of hyper-individual efforts create but I rather focus on the potential for this sector to become hyper collective. We have a world of opportunities in front of us to speed up fair and equitable development that is not "one of the other" BUT "one with the other". I am focusing on lobbying all sectors (direct or indirect) to participate in a collective efforts in Colombia which will become even more relevant in the context of a potential peace accord and reintegration of 5 million+ displaced people. Luc Lapointe CEO & Founder, Keen TO http://www.keento.org (under development)

Here is a really powerful follow up item on this from Dan McGarry: http://pacificpolitics.com/2014/01/an-end-to-impunity/

I have three of these "relocation camps" in my area in Suluwesi. Surely you can see the money going into pockets. Tony said, "It is hard to comprehend how a major housing project could be so inept." It truly is for a 30-year builder like myself, until I learned to watch the money. Housing projects, like all other projects, are avenues for money diversion. When you say you are doing good for others it means that people will give you money which can "disappear" in certain areas. Tony also said, "We each have some vision and understanding..." The people who want to help others have a higher vision and understanding than the criminal element that has a lower and more narrow vision directed at the pocket. Once people understand that, giving money to people to help others is not really a good idea without proper supervision. Even for some faith-based groups.

It is interesting to see how the AusAID people rate their own agency effectiveness. I am wondering if the high turnover (Staff Continuity weakness) has to do with the knowledge in the agency’s inefficiency and lack of effectiveness. I believe the sincerity of the aid staff in desiring to help people have better lives, and I think this survey's statistic shows that many become disillusioned with the organization. I, too, have become disillusioned at the aid organizations (UNDP, AusAID, USAid, etc). I first came to Indonesia after the tsunami. On the island of Nias, I helped our faith-based organization build houses for a small community. We stayed with the community while all the other organizations stayed in hotels in the larger city and drove through the countryside in their signed vehicles. The locals called them “drive by helpers.” On a trip to the city to purchase materials, we passed by the UN offices. We stopped in to ask what they were doing about water for the communities throughout the area. The person there was actually an acquaintance and told us the truth that the UN had about $100,000 for the water projects but the man in charge would not give it out unless someone agreed to give him 15%. We called people from our extended organization who cheerfully gave about half that and put shallow wells in 30 communities. Three years ago I moved here to Indonesia to help academy students learn about themselves and the specific skills they have so that they can be successful in their lives. During that time I have had first hand experience in the education sector corruption. Our school was “given” $18,000 to refurbish several classrooms. We had to use the government supplied contractor who promised that the job would be done in three months. Six months later the job was not finished because they ran out of money. Having been in the construction business for 30 years, I estimated the remodel at $6,000. For the $18,000 we could have purchased 25 computers for a state of the art computer lab as well. I mentioned this to my friend who also has a school where I help,, and she said that she was approached to be “given” $7,500, but she would have to “return” $2,500 to the person who was “giving” it. I told her that I calculated that about 60% of aid money gets to the people who need it and she corrected me and said it is the other way around, only 40% gets to the people. She has been in the business for many years. I have more stories from the other sectors as well, but my point is that the aid organizations are just avenues for corruption. People are making big money from “helping” others. The survey of people who are making money from the aid institutions is interesting. A better survey for the effectiveness of aid would be to ask people to whom the aid is directed. The other foreigners that live here have excellent ideas that work and actually help the local people, but they do not have Master’s degrees and many years of experience for ideas that do not work that are required to work for a development organization. They are simple folks who learn and understand the indigenous people and know what works. If they had one-half the budget, they could have twice the effectiveness of the current system. But, as they say here when I disagree with what the “all knowing” government says, “That is my opinion.”

Hi Grant & Jen I guess I was not quite clear on what I intended to say regarding the wantok system. Like any other system there are gaps or loop holes that can be exploited by the unscrupulous for personal gain. It is very easy as in most instances to say "its the wantok system". For example, if a public servant illegitimately took public money (somehow) and gives it to a brother, sister, uncle, aunty, sister-in-law or brother-in-law to build a copra shed, the most likely reaction to this act will be? It's the wantok system! Now, is that right? If a public servant illegitimately took public money (somehow) and gives it to a foreign national of no blood ties with the public servant to finance a business interest. How will you react? Will you react the same if the foreign national is married to a relative of the public servant? Most certainly the family ties will get more attention! So what's more important? the act of committing corruption or doing wrong? the socio-economic circumstances surrounding the act? or both? Just remember what is called wantok system is unregulated! Can wantok system be seen as a positive combination of resources through affinity to achieve a greater communal good? If wantok system has been a sustainable livelihood mechanism for the Melanesian societies of the Pacific is there room to explore further on how it can be adopted as a sustainable development model? I believe there is more positive to wantok system that development partners and the wider donor community could harness. Cheers Edd

Congrats Sina for Speaking Out!! Enough is seriously ENOUGH!!!

Mel, thanks for continuing to provide leadership on this point (engaging with the intellectual resources within the private sector) which is one with which I fully agree. Looking forward to talking more on this and other things in February (assuming you will be at the 13th/14th conference)

Thanks Milos, great to hear our analysis was of use to you. Terence

An interesting read. Although quantitative data does not show the whole picture as you say, its disappointing that our development aid figure reaches nowhere near the 0.7% target (particularly when countries such as Sweden show that it can be reached if there is the political will). Nonetheless, it is interesting to learn more about New Zealand's development aid priorities, so thanks!

Stephen Thanks for this continuing summary for it is a conversation worth keeping alive. As I presented at the results launch last week, I agree that the findings/perceptions relating to the knowledge burden are most interesting and I offer there are two (at least) opportunities that emerge from this. First, there has been much commentary about the changes to the aid program and the potential of changes to the staffing base. And survey perceptions talk to issues with turnover and hence a consequent risk of intellectual property loss exacerbating the knowledge burden. So, the data seems very timely and rich to assist DFAT with its planning and change considerations and it is hoped it is considered. Second, relates to one specific aspect of managing the knowledge burden that you have previously defined – working through effective partnerships. Not all intellectual property of value to the aid program sits in agency. The stakeholders surveyed, and undoubtedly countless others, also have knowledge and value to contribute. The breadth of experiences from the private sector implementing partners remains. Many such implementing partners are members of IDC Australia. By continuing to explore more effective partnerships with the private sector implementing partners, and with the IDC, at a minimum the perceptions of any risk of IP loss from staffing changes could be mitigated. More strategically, the private sector implementing partners are development professionals, not just contract and project managers, and they bring a lot of learning and experience to better inform practice that is usefully harnessed. Importantly, the private sector implementing partners are not homogenous – individuals and SMEs are critically important in this complex development tapestry and we need to ensure their involvement and contribution is sought and valued. Mel Dunn (Chair, IDC Australia)

This is a ground breaking step for women and children in our region. Thank goodness Australia is stepping up to the plate. I think many of us have shared a concern that with 2015 approaching and the new post 2015 agenda, women and children may be forgotten. I know its a concern globally, as well as in our region. Thanks Ashlee for blogging on this - it is indeed welcome news!