Comments

If it (the government) pushes a development-centred policy such as fairer trading rules, tackling inequality, gender equality, stable governance etc, then leading from the top wouldn't be a problem. But if you lead from the top and let aid drop to the level of a foreign policy tool, then you are walking backwards.

Thank you for this article. I think it is a topic that is almost 100% overlooked. Even as somebody who works in WASH sector, I never hear it brought up and I can recall the one time a female did bring it up, the conversation was brushed aside and somebody said something along the lines of what you write, ¨Women and girls have obviously been coping with menstruation for a long time without the aid of fantastic plastic convenience.¨ That argument, of course, could be used for literally anything in development or technological progress, but it is not an excuse. Anyway, we need more data and I'm glad to see you highlight the issue and am curious to check the WaterAid toolkit out.

Which data Stephanie? This <a href="http://international.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/1424903_file_Moss_Leo_IDA_Retirement_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">CGD report</a> say's the bulk of LDC's will be client states. There's also not just a European effort in Africa.

Thanks for sharing the endline report - it makes for useful and interesting reading. I do want to point out a significant contradiction between an important point you make in favour of the Lesotho PPP in your article and what you have said in response to the endline report both here and in response to our article <a href="http://www.globalhealthcheck.org/?p=481" rel="nofollow">here</a>. In your own article you placed great emphasis on the question: "Could we get better quality and better services for the people of Lesotho, at the same price? The answer has been a resounding yes." Your analysis has since changed to say that of course you have to pay more to get better outcomes. This seems a bit confusing. Key elements missing from the endline report is a thorough assessment of the costs involved in this initiative and how much these have increased since the contract was originally drawn up, and are increasing to date. Neither is there an assessment of value for money. Some outcomes have improved but this is hardly surprising given the amount of expenditure. Should we have expected even greater improvements relative to cost? Could these same improvements been achieved through a different approach for less money? The report did not answer this question. What has been the impact of curtailing the range of services that were previously offered? Finally and crucially, as the report itself states, we are yet to understand the impact of the investment on access - by spending this much more (and this proportion of the MoH health budget) we would want to see significant improvements in the number of people in need of health care being reached who were previously excluded. I think these critical questions would need answering and lessons learnt before we start celebrating or advocating the replication of this initiative.

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.