Comments

Cutting the ODA budget has not lost votes for the coalition and it may have actually gained them a few. Taking to folks in one cafe that I frequent reveals to me that many think Australia gives tons of aid and that most of it is wasted. On the first, the fact is that we give 36 cents in every $100 that we earn. The response I get from most Aussies to the above is: Are you sure? Yes, I am! Most of us spend many multiples of the above on chocolates and the like. On whether most aid is wasted, I would like to believe that this is not the case. But we need good data and thorough analysis to get the skeptics onboard. And unless and until lucky Australians are told of how little we give away to those less fortunate and shown that what we give delivers much needed support, there is little chance that we will ever reach the 0.5 percent target.

Hi Robin, Fundamentally, I think that fact-checking regarding the 450,000 kind of misses the point: the aid cuts will have a big impact on what AusAID is able to deliver and that includes life-saving or life-prolonging interventions, education that expands opportunity, agricultural interventions that fill hungry bellies. Whether the figure is 450,000 or 300,000 or something else, is not - to me at least - the crux of the matter. So we shouldn't spend too much time analysing the figure. That being said - I am going to do just that! As you note, the $2000 figure is an extrapolation of Global Fund spending by Global Fund analysis of lives saved. So the $2000 figure represents an extrapolation on analysis based on some GF assumptions – and then assuming that the AusAID cuts will be applied at a consistent percentage to the health sector – and within the health sector to interventions that are equally cost-effective. That represents multiple assumptions. In the absence of specific data from the Coalition on the nature of the cuts, assumptions do have to be made but the 450,000 is hard to validate at this time. There are however a number of health interventions that can save lives for around $2000 (or much less) so that figure itself is not inaccurate. For example: • “Expanded vaccine coverage is among the most cost-effective programs we've considered. In Sub-Saharan Africa, <a href="http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/immunization" rel="nofollow">available estimates</a> claim that it costs approximately $14 to fully vaccinate a child and $200 to save a life with this program.” • Bednets "cost under $10 each to purchase and distribute (including all costs), and this intervention is <a href="http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets " rel="nofollow">generally considered</a> to be among the most cost-effective ways to save lives. We estimate one life saved for just under $2,300 (this does not include other benefits of ITNs).” • The World Health Organization has <a href="http://www.who.int/choice/results/mnh_afroe/en/index.html. But it confirms that lives can be prolonged/saved for very little money" rel="nofollow">cost effectiveness tables</a> but they are not organised by “life saved” but rather by “disability-adjusted life year saved”. If the AusAID cuts are to programs that deliver immunisation coverage (which a good chunk of AusAID health spending does), then the World Vision figure does have some merit. I personally wouldn't use the 450,000 figure as it implies specificity where we have little. But we can all agree that the aid cuts will have an impact on lives saved and hunger and development. Joel

Really interesting article you've written Sophie. I'm writing my honours thesis on public opinion and the size of the foreign aid budget so it was really nice to finally see the collection of primary data esp. in terms of total dollar amounts. I was wondering if you would be interested in sharing this data - that is if it's easily accessible. If not, thanks for writing a really useful article!

SBS Dateline has produced an item (I have not seen it) which poses some awkward questions about Carnival's engagement with the the people of Wala island plus one of the (Vanuatu) weekend papers carried concerns as voiced by some other participants in the tourism industry about alleged "bully boy" tactics on the part of Carnival/P&O. <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/601721/n/Vanuatu-s-Broken-Dreams" rel="nofollow">This link</a> is to some information about the Dateline item.

Alex, Agree with your points and interesting application to security needs. I can add to this by saying that long-term measures generally carry more uncertainty than immediate actions, because of the uncertain nature of the future. Your food distribution vs. development of new vaccines example is a good one - it's not certain that after 20 years of research there will be a viable vaccine, whereas the benefits of money spent on food distribution are comparatively reliable. This isn't an argument against spending money or effort on long-term measures, just another factor to consider. Perhaps it implies that, for example, we should be willing to try to help prevent the situation where Myanmar relapses into civil war, etc., even if we don't believe that this outcome is very likely. Michael

Re "we look forward to sharing the results with you." Will you also share the raw data? (anonymised to the degree necessary)

Thanks for this contribution Joseph which I think is valid on a number of levels. One of the things that was crystallised for me during the symposium you convened last year was the importance of good public policy around spreading the development impacts of tourism-derived revenues. It has a fair amount in common with resource extraction. Not everywhere has gold deposits and not everywhere has what attracts tourists so there is a pressing need for government to be able to demonstrate how the economic benefits of exploitation of the resource are being disbursed across the population as a whole.This aspect of the tourism/development nexus is largely overlooked I feel but it is really important especially if we are going to see an increase in numbers from the high volume/low (individual) spend segment.

Interesting post. I read it on the same day as I read the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s blog post on 'military readiness' http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/graph-of-the-week-how-ready-do-we-need-to-be/ Military planners also balance the security needs of the current generation with the security needs of future generations. Preferencing the security needs of today would mean paying to keep the army at high readiness rather than investing in the development fighter aircraft that won't be ready to fly for 20 years. This is roughly equivalent to establishing food distribution programs rather than doing the long-term tasks of developing new vaccines. The way military planners balance the needs of current and future needs is by thinking about contingencies. What is the risk of a security situation (contingency) developing that would require forces to be deployed at short notice. If that risk is high then troops will be kept and high readiness. However if the risk of a short-notice contingency is low then money be reprioritized into developing future military forces. If we believe that Myanmar is likely to grow at the same rate as Indonesia and Vietnam for the next 20 years then we should be put our energy into setting up cash transfer programs that can help those living in poverty today. However, if we believe the Myanmar is likely to relapse into civil war, suffer the resource curse or be crippled by corruption then we should be doing the long-term tasks of reforming government institutions. Similar contingencies could be considered for single sectors (risk drug resistance) and for the world as a whole (climate change). But the overall message is that when donors and practitioners are deciding on programs shouldn't just be weighing the relative benefits different types of programs, but the distribution of benefits in among generations.

Thanks so much for your comments Marianne. Let me respond, firstly, to your question about possible benefits from an aid policy that places more emphasis on 'economic diplomacy' (although, like you, I'm not without significant reservations). Firstly, I think such an approach can facilitate better relationships. When it is made explicit that a donor government is motivated (to some degree) by economic self-interest, development cooperation can be more credibly framed as a 'mutually beneficial partnership'. Julie Bishop's emphasis of this approach has been well received in PNG, for instance. Secondly, a commitment to development entails more than just aid. Fairer trade, investment and migration policies, which may flow from an economically-centred foreign policy, are also critical ways rich countries can help the poor. Thirdly, a focus on economic diplomacy may improve the strategic coherence of aid program, enabling closer linkages with other foreign policy goals (in Australia’s case, capitalising on the ‘Asian Century’). I agree with you that the fact a number of countries are embarking on this change doesn't necessarily make it right. What it does show, I think, is that the norms around how traditional donors 'should' provide development assistance are changing. It’s interesting to consider why prominent donors now feel more comfortably about expressing self-interested objectives. I think the rise of emerging donors explains at least part of it, as does the impact of the global financial crisis. Bilateral aid and national interests are always conflated to some degree, of course. Disentangling the self-interested and selfless motivations of donors is something scholars have been attempting for a long time, and continue to without much success. Most conclude that donor motivations are mixed. I think it’s interesting, for example that the UK’s aid program, heralded by many ‘aid for development’ proponents, is justified by both national interest and moral imperatives. Consider these two motivations for aid provided by British PM David Cameron in recent speeches: 1. Britain gives aid “because of the kind of people we are - and the kind of country we are. We are the kind of people who believe in doing what is right. We accept the moral case for keeping our promises to the world’s poorest - even when we face challenges at home.” 2. “We made the decision to protect the aid budget because I believe this commitment is in Britain’s long-term interests.”

Good analysis. That OECD report is always excellent. The fiscal impact in Chapter three is particularly good this year. Net migration rates were abnormally high in 2008-10 because of student visa settings. These have been substantially revised in 2011-12. However, the <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/nom-june-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">latest forecasts</a> [pdf] for net migration is between 220-250,000 per year for the next 1-4 years, which is well above the last estimate in the Inter-Generational Report (180,000). This probably means another debate about 'big Australia' when IGR4 comes out. Also, the role of New Zealand migration is interesting in relation to development. The 2011 census shows big pockets of growth in Samoan, Tongan and Maori migration, which has accelerated since the turn of the century. Basically the only immigration pathway for this to occur is through New Zealand citizenship and temporary visa grants. This is supported by the <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/statistical-info/temp-entrants/nz.htm" rel="nofollow">DIAC figures</a> on New Zealand migration, with about ~40,000 New Zealand citizens born outside of New Zealand currently living in Australia as 'temporary migrants'. Scott Morrison has raised this as an issue in the past so perhaps some policy changes are in the wings which may impact any development impact this migration is having.

This is a really interesting discussion and one that we at Monash University have engaged with quite heavily. Both Tess and Nik were at a symposium on tourism and sustainable livelihoods we conducted in Port Vila in July 2012. There is no question that if islanders are to be in a better position to participate more profitably in tourism (and cruise tourism specifically) a public-private-community sector model may well be the best way to go. Whether tourism in general has had a net-positive impact on the ground is contentious and largely unsubstantiated owing to a lack of consistent, reliable data (notwithstanding the one-off and ad hoc approaches over the years). Leaving it up to the private sector largely to enable tourism to be a vehicle for development and poverty alleviation is fraught. One of the biggest issues related to this discussion is that despite the fact we know very little about tourism's overall impact (economic and non-economic impacts), there has always been, and continues to be a great deal of enthusiasm from all quarters to promote its merits. Recently, NZAID in particular have thrown their support behind the sector. There is no question that on face-value, tourism is critical to Vanuatu's economy. However, whether it is of benefit holistically (in an economic and equally non-economic sense) is another thing. I join the line of sceptics and remain unconvinced that ni-Vanuatus have reaped an optimum return from tourism - I have been examining this issue quite closely for several years now. Growing visitor numbers and tourist expenditure does not equate to stronger development impacts on the ground. Having said that, Vanuatu is no different to the long line of developing countries that court the tourist dollar with little cognisance of what the overall "cost" is. As my good friend and former Director of the Vanuatu Cultural Centre Kirk Huffman says - "tourism for tourism's sake" should not prevail. In my research, I have advocated that a more deliberate, informed policy-oriented approach to tourism expansion is needed - not more ad-hoc, piecemeal attempts. Throwing money at tourism initiatives without reconciling some of the critical knowledge gaps, underpinning issues and seemingly intractable constraints first, is poor development practice. Having said that, I remain open-minded to the possibilities.

Ben - thanks for this really useful comparative analysis of traditional donors and their trend (back) to conflating aid and national interest objectives. It shows Abbott as less radical than he might otherwise appear, if you accept the premise that turning from poverty alleviation to sustainable development (whose?) can still reasonably called an international development policy. I must say that just because everybody is doing it doesn't make it good or equitable policy. I'd like to know more. In my experience emerging donors make a big deal of mutuality and cooperation not by focussing on their own business and economic interests but on similarities of culture and level of development - and therefore their ability to offer locally appropriate, respectful aid that is more aid effective than that offered by traditional donors. The data are not always encouraging on whether they manage to do this, but the rhetoric at least has huge appeal to traditional aid recipients. It seems to me that the shift to greater national and economic self interest by donors is less a lining up with emerging donors than a return to the national interest emphasis (this time on much more explicitly - as you note) that was evident pre the 2006 Aid White Paper. Your final sentence has a lot in it - am keen to know what the benefits of the Coalition's approach might be even if sustainable economic development (for the poor) is its goal. Could it in fact create more favourable conditions for greater development effectiveness? With thanks.