Comments

Hi Terence, Thanks very much for this blog. Did Roger Hodgson ever provide links to other evaluations of child sponsorship? Just looking at various Australian NGO programs and quite a few of them now seem to emphasise community development rather than focusing on an individual child (CARE, UNICEF, even Save the Children). Which I think makes more sense. Do let me know if you've heard of more evaluations since your blog was released. Cheers, Joel

Hi there Alex, Thank you for your comment. I think you make a fair point: my colloquial 'uncool' does not do justice to the reasons that people have for opposing child sponsorship. Nevertheless, I don't think child sponsorship is unethical. Following Utilitarian ethics, I think there is a case to be made for child sponsorship. It runs as follows: 1. Its direct effects, as per the study above, appear positive in terms of welfare outcomes. 2. I think that much of the money child sponsorship elicits is unlikely to have been donated to other aid work. 3. I do not think that NGO advertising has that much impact on how people in developed countries think about what causes poverty in developing countries. And that even if it did most people in developed countries still wouldn't actually form a powerful untapped constituency that might bring about changes in developed country trade and foreign policy where they not being beguiled by child sponsorship adds. Rather I think that most developed country voters do not devote much thought to the causes of poverty in developing countries and are unlikely to vote on the basis of foreign policy -- domestic policy is what's real to them and that drives their voting. 4. I think that the major share of global poverty doesn't actually stem from developed country foreign policy. (Although I do think we do a lot wrong and am always keen to see foreign policy improved.) In short - while I think child sponsorship is an imperfect aid delivery mechanism, I think it is, on balance good because it gets money and services where it's needed, which wouldn't otherwise be devoted to helping people in developing countries, and with relatively few associated negative impacts. Those are my thoughts though. Like your arguments they hinge on assumptions, and I am open to replacing them should you or anyone else be able to provide good evidence. Thanks again for your comment. Terence

As a second year student in Political Science Strand, I went through the struggles and hardship as points outlined by Scott Mcwilliams, to complete my second year because my mouthpiece couldn't stand up and speak for me. We, the majority, gave them the legal rights to speak on behalf of essential student welfare and teaching conditions on the campus but they just couldn't. The problem I see in this university is that,there is no proper channel of communication between the Student Reps and Administration. If Student Reps voice out their concerns to the public in any publication using media, then I am preaty sure most of problems would have been solved.However, the VC's term is over and the academic year is over, and I am confident that 2013 will be a turning point for everything. I am praying to see a good VC, a visionary and innovative person that has the heart for this country to excell in every aspect of life disphite the criticism. I for one belive that this institution will produce the intellectuals the country would need for tomorrow. Finally, I believe that 2013 will be a great year and I put all my hope in my Reps and believe that God will make a way out for this forsaken institution.

Tapping into this post quite late, but I think it's important and useful to add some extra commentary to this. Child sponsorship is not just unpopular in development circles because it is "uncool" - it is unpopular because it is unethical. It feeds into ideas about poverty and development which are patronising to families and communities living in developing countries. How would you feel as a parent if some rich stranger off in a country you'd never been to ''bought''your child, because you couldn't afford to support them yourself. Pretty demoralising and disempowering. It also promotes the idea that we can ''buy'' people's way out of poverty (reinforcing the current global system of market capitalism), rather than recognising the root causes of that poverty, largely related to that very system. And what about the children themselves? What do they think about these strangers supporting them in far off countries and sending over cards and gifts, sometimes even visiting? Are we promoting ourselves as ''saviours'' to these children, creating unequal power dynamics as was done with colonialism in many instances, when really, we were just lucky to be born in a wealthy country where we have disposable income to spend on ''charitable'' actions like this. I suggest someone considers impact evaluations with some of these issues in mind - not just statistical calculations based on materials improvements. I suggest some further reading too, for anyone interested in a broader look at the issues: www.caritas.org.au/docs/about-us/can-we-end-poverty.pdf

Thanks John for your well-informed comments. And Terence, who I largely agree with on most issues discussed here. I too, hope that my perceptions will be changed by the current and future procurement reform initiatives in SI that you've outlined. Ideally these initiatives are driven by the political demand for procurement reform being made upon the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister by SI citizenry. I hope that procurement reform efforts will recognise that sub-optimal public sector performance does not arise purely out of technical ignorance, but also because of the power/information asymmetry that allows small groups of insiders to capture public resources at the expense of the vast majority. I hope that consequently procurement reform in SI focuses on seeking a more equitable distribution of the current power and information asymmetry that is the primary cause of procurement maladministration and malfeasance in SI. This may mean putting transparency, accompanied by an understanding of Northian concepts of ‘open access orders’, at the centre of procurement reform efforts. I know I’ve used the word 'hope' a lot, and “hope is not a strategy”, but if we base our collective efforts on understanding the nature of the problem unfettered by preconceived notions of what we would prefer the problem to be, then we’ve got a better chance that our response to the problem is based more on sound, frank and open analysis (and less on hope).

I appreciated the blog and its sentiments. However, it might be inconsistent to recognise - as the blog rightly does - that support for refugees qualifies as ODA but then to argue that the reallocation of aid from one legitimate purpose to another such purpose amounts to a reduction in aid. I recall the debate in the mid 80s on the discovery by the Jackson Committee of the $100 million 'subsidy' to overseas students who enrolled at Australian universities at the same (or only slightly higher) fee levels to those applying to Australian students. Australia's ODA count increased but AIDAB as AusAID was then known had no additional funding to spend. However, the problem was corrected over time as the subsidy was phased out and spending on full scholarships under Equity and Merit Scheme was steadily increased. The 'subsidy' which had been directed to relatively well-off students was replaced with a targeted scheme for the poor and disadvantaged. Instead of railing against a legitimate government policy change and expressing doubts about the quality of support for refugees or displaced persons, it might be better if the development community worked on ways to evolve the means of support for them to higher quality forms of assistance from the aid program.

Pacific Solution (Mark 1) under the Howard government saw shocking examples of poor governance in the aid budget. The Federal Budget papers did not reflect the full costs of all departments operating in Nauru and Manus (AusAID, Australian Federal Police, Health etc), or extra costs outside the core departmental programs. Amounts reported in the annual May budget papers were routinely upgraded in supplementary estimates, and official development assistance (ODA) for Nauru was supplemented by an extra budget line “Nauru additional”. On orders from then Foreign Minister Downer, the budget papers in 2006-07 and 2007-08 did not even reveal the amount for “Nauru additional”, stating that the figure is “not for publication.” This was an unprecedented lack of transparency, as noted in this exchange during Senate Estimates in May 2007: Senator Hogg: Are there any other such transactions in any of the documentation related to AusAID? Mr. Scott Dawson [AusAID]: There are no other measures that I am aware of that have an instruction from ministers that they are to be presented with a “not for publication” annotation. Senator Hogg: So there is nowhere else where this committee – if it pored over the documentation line by line – would be denied access to the appropriate figures. Is that a correct assessment? Mr. Dawson: That is correct (Senate Estimates, Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee, Monday 28 May 2007, p.86.) It seems that we’re heading down the same path again. Little wonder that our lectures to Pacific governments about accountability and transparency get short shrift.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis Stephen. I have also looked at the issue from a different perspective, placing this move in the historical context (and growing trend) of DAC member countries to report 'in-donor refugee costs'. http://www.whydev.org/in-donor-refugee-costs-breaking-down-australias-latest-aid-cut/ I think it is important to consider Australia's decision in this context, as it is also representative of the failings of the current aid system. What perhaps is significant to note, is the early lack of consensus from DAC members around this issue in the '90s. Many were against the reporting method. Now, only two countries do not report these costs as ODA. There is no standardisation around this reporting. It is very inconsistent among DAC members. Australia has a track record of this reporting, but after the 2005, it disappears and does not occur again until 2009. But, the amounts of reported 'in-donor refugee costs' are insignificant at this stage. In 2010, it represented only 0.17%! Now, it will account for 7.2%. I think you break down the motivations behind this move well. It is a growing trend among DAC members to report these costs. However, we need to re-open the dead debate in the DAC about whether -in-donor refugee costs' should be reported as ODA.

Using part of the aid budget to fund border protection is simply wrong. And others doing the same is no excuse. The argument that sheltering and feeding refugees offshore is the same as helping them onshore is just as flawed. Providing food and shelter to refugees abroad is core humanitarian assistance: period. Incarcerating them onshore (or in Nauru, PNG, etc) as part of border protection is pre-planned punishment to deter further boat arrivals. Using funds allocated for ‘humanitarian assistance’ for ‘inhumane treatment’ of refugees is morally reprehensible. Worse still is having the cheek to claim the latter as the former.

PNG is ruled by kleptocracy...The rule of law is very weak but it is good to see the current PM Peter O'Neill trying to fight corruption at the national level so am looking forward to seeing the reults.

You have done many great jobs so far. Though we hope that there would be many and many more people helped in the next year. A better system that which ease all of the process of your work sounds like a good plan.

Reminds me... "Thank God our time is now when wrong Comes up to face us till we take The longest stride of soul men ever took. Affairs are now soul size. The enterprise Is exploration into God. Where are you making for? It takes So many thousand years to wake, But will you wake for pity's sake!" From "The Sleep of Prisoners" by Christopher Fry