Comments

Hi Tony, Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure that's Ben's position, but should the new government simply have no more than a well-intended desire to refocus aid on promoting economic development in recipient countries I shan't have any major complaints. I'm not so sure that economic development is the area where aid is most effective, but I certainly agree it's essential to reducing poverty. Similarly, I'm not terribly concerned about slower than planned increases in aid volume. Quality matters more than quantity. My worry (based on cross-country evidence, the New Zealand case, and the Coalition's actions thus far) though is that, rather than enlightened self interest and concern for aid that works, we will see more aid given solely for the purpose of benefiting Australian interests, and haphazard decision making more generally. Of course, I could be mistaken in my worries. I certainly hope I am. We'll see. In the meantime, and this is the main point of the post, even if predictions are still hard to make, we do know what to promote, and what to lobby for, when it comes to good aid work. And it seems worth emphasising this.

Hi Terence / Jo Similar to Ben Day I believe the Australian government aid agenda is likely to be about fostering economic opportunities to drive development rather than a reactionary approach - here's poverty, let's do something about it. Whether this change is good or bad really comes down to ideology. There will always be instances of good or bad outcomes but rarely is it the case that one particular ideology is won over. We only have to look to our previous Prime Minister's mistaken prediction of the end capitalism to see this. When it comes to aid, the fact that there is debate/change indicates that there is no right answer accepted by all. Yes, the new aid agenda will be more aligned to Australia's interests but this is not necessarily bad for international development. Economic development can bring win-win situations that ultimately might be much more effective than other forms of poverty alleviation. Nor is the case that cuts to planned aid spending over the next 4 years is necessarily bad. There is some validity to the argument that aid spending was ramped up too quickly from an aid effectiveness perspective. Whilst on shaky ground, there still is consensus by the major parties on the 0.5% target. This target will only be delivered if voters are confident of the effectiveness of the aid program and, whether the aid community likes it or not, that it is in Australia's strategic interest. What is needed is careful evidence based analysis of the program to ensure that it avoids the many pitfalls you and Ben point out.

Very fascinating. Thank you for laying this issue out, as you highlighted the issue has gotten very little press.

This would have been more impressive if they had taken a broader definition of VFM - where is Aid Effectivenss? Where is Country Ownership, building capacity and commitments to Paris & Busan principles? This is an area that GFATM has been weak on from the outset, and this does not help. Richard Horton's recent Comment in The Lancet captures the issue well: http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673613615330.pdf

Good stuff. Hopefully the new government is serious about the program. To me, it seems like an issue the Nationals should get behind to 'future-proof' regional labour markets. If they are in a position of driving any reform, the program will better suit the industries they seek to represent. However I think there are some pretty significant barriers implicit in these suggestions. Removing the incentive for backpackers would be good policy, but I'm not sure if it will be politically acceptable. The long-term argument is firmly with seasonal workers over backpackers (productivity and labour certainty) but in the short-term, industry sees WHMs as the only thing propping many of them up. Why take that away? Someone needs to do some serious work on the productivity benefits of the program to convince industry of the merits of seasonal workers. In a similar vein, clamping down on illegal workers is very expensive and very much unknown. Compliance operations across regional Australia would be one of the most expensive to undertake and given the estimated scope of the problem, is unlikely to occur even in the medium term. If an ALP-led government wasn't interested in cracking down on illegal farm labour, why would the Coalition government be? Unfortunately, I think any change will have to come from employers choosing to use the seasonal work program as opposed to withdrawing labour from other sources. While I agree with increasing cost-sharing arrangements, why should employers not be liable for anything? There is a risk you will increase cost repayments and lower minimum work hours to such an extent that any net gains may become marginal. I don't think this would be common, but it should be considered. In New Zealand they are still required to co-pay on a range of activities and this doesn't reduce program activity. Having the aid program facilitate increased program activity in Melanesia is a fantastic idea given the potential returns over time. Finally, I think expanding the WHM program to Pacific island nations is a good idea but the amount of effort required is substantial. The WHM agreements take years to evolve and if we understand the bureaucracy to have a limited amount of resources and opportunities, isn't it better to focus on providing a workable seasonal worker program instead of introducing multiple bilateral MoUs with many pacific governments? This should especially with a new government that may be focused on improving the seasonal worker program.

Now that SDP is out Western Province the people's future in Development terms is quashed.

Hi Robin, Thanks for this. I want to strongly concur with your point that much of the criticised "excess" of AusAID over the past few years was indeed conducted to support a barely concealed "foreign policy" agenda. The Africa scale-up that included provision of programs to all 54 countries on the continent had a lot more to do with the foreign policy goal of a Security Council seat than effective poverty reduction as driven by AusAID. And now that the seat has been won, it seems that the Africa program was refocusing on a smaller set of deep-engagement countries. So the suggestion that AusAID was off going about its business with no thought to national interest just doesn't hold water.

Spot on! It would not only be ‘odd’, but very risky behavior 'if a high-powered task force was busily drawing up alternative organisational charts but no similar body was looking … at options for implementing large and immediate aid cuts'. AusAID’s existing identity in the Asia-Pacific region, which presents Australia as a good partner and neighbor, has developed over many years, and not without the occasional hiccup. Carefully considered strategies for minimising any negative impact, to either development programs of diplomatic relations, are required.

You are quite right - PNG has many health problems needing attention, some of which you highlight. Hospitals are just one of these.

Thanks Anna for sharing John Lister's analysis on Lesotho. As you correctly point out there is quite a body of literature on PPIPs from UK and Australia and elsewhere. We agree that this should inform consideration of any PPIP in PNG or elsewhere. Your comments emphasise, and we strongly endorse, the need for thorough due diligence by a team of experts, before embarking on such new models of service delivery.

Thank you for your comment. I am not sure that a PPIP is the only alternative to ailing public hospitals, but as we suggest: "This approach could be an option worth considering in PNG." The PNG government has made the rebuilding of major hospitals a policy priority. It is worth getting a range of options for financing and management on the table. We welcome suggestions from others.

Thanks Tess for raising the important issue of Development Impact Bonds, we have been following the nascent Impact Investing industry in Australia. You and other readers may be interested in the link to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/impact-australia_april_2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">DEEWR report on Impact Investing in Australia</a> [pdf].