Comments

Thanks for a very interesting post, Joel. 7 years ago or so when i was tossing up what sort of Masters to complete i went with the Strategic Affairs option at ANU - which provides a broader overview of public policy, defence and foreign policy, etc, than your standard Development Studies Masters. As AusAID's public policy role increases and aid enters the foreign policy mainstream, i think AusAID staff will need to have a better handle on broader issues of foreign policy - not just how to manage a contract or run public awareness campaign on HIV. Skills in diplomacy, negotiation etc can be picked up through study- but also through working in a role that requires them or doing seperate training while employed. Training in facilitation skills for instance can be rally valuable. An American friend of mine who works in development exemplifies what you're talking about. He has a Masters of Development studies but recently moved to London to undertake a Master of Public Policy Services and Management- he describes it as an MBA with a not for profit/development focus. I think we'll see more and more movement in that direction, especially for development workers with managerial aspirations. I agree entirely with Ashlee's comment about second language proficiency as well. My understanding is that at the moment DFAT provide much better language training pre-posting than AusAID, I imagine that in coming years more emphasis will be placed on language at AusAID (French, for instance as Africa aid increases, and obviously a range of Asian languages). Establishing trust, rapport, credibility and simply being able to communicate are much easier when you have more language in common.

Great post Joel. This is interesting for me, because I started my Masters degree in the US last year (at American University's School of International Service) and returned to Australia to complete it this year (at ANU) due to personal reasons. However, when I made the decision to return to Australia, I found it difficult to find a degree here that completely matched the content of the MA in International Development at American, where it was possible to major in development management, communications, policy and a whole range of other areas. Ultimately I chose a public policy degree majoring in development here rather than a development studies course. There's a number of other interesting options in the US besides SIPA as well — at NYU there's a masters in non-profit management, an alternative to those profit-driven MBAs. Public administration degrees are prolific as well (HKS and Princeton being the most well known). American has just started a graduate program in social enterprise. Another major difference that I noted between Australian and American programs is that at the top schools in the US, there is a requirement that all students demonstrate intermediate proficiency in a second language before they are eligible to graduate — or at some schools, for admission. Surely multilingualism in staff would benefit AusAID as well?

Hi Joel, Thanks for taking the time to read the post and comments. Very appreciated and honoured. I really like the idea of embedding diplomacy and intergovernmental relations into development studies and courses. But, this could be expanded to also include relations with NGOs and with national governments. I am finding more and more in my own role that I need not just technical knowledge, but also discrete skills in facilitating partnerships with national government and their public servants. At least in my MA course at UNSW, such learning was not even on the horizon. Yet, many graduates would be going into roles, not just at AusAID, which would require such. The program at USYD sounds interesting and could be something AusAID staff take on for professional development. Brendan

Hi Brendan, Great post at whydev.org - thanks for sharing. Lots of great thoughts in there - much needed. I used to work at Columbia University and know the Masters of Development Practice team and program well. I do want to add that even their program does not really spend lots of time on the diplomacy and intergovernmental relations side of practicing development. Someone who is going to work at AusAID (or DFID or WHO) needs a good dose of those skills as well as the technical knowledge. I'm not sure Australian Universities teach that well or teach that within dev studies or MPH. Here at the University of Sydney, the Graduate School of Government led by Geoff Gallop has been increasingly getting involved with leadership training with foreign diplomats and governments. Maybe AusAID could look there for some extra credit! Joel

This is a very important, and I think much overlooked, topic in the aid and development sector. And, I agree that Australian universities have a key role to play in supporting students and graduates in their learning for aid and development. This is a shameless plug, I know, but I wrote on this same topic not last week and had some very insightful responses from both students and graduates around this topic. I think it contributes and complements this discussion by Joel Negin nicely. http://www.whydev.org/?p=2785

Nice post Joel, useful thoughts to chew on. Ramping up staff exchanges between AusAID and other donor agencies (DFID, SIDA, CIDA et al) would provide a complementary (and perhaps more targeted and timely) approach to bringing new ideas and skillsets to the organisation, while the changes to the furniture you're proposing are underway.

Many thanks for sharing the list. Here is one to add: the Education for All Global Monitoring Report has just produced a policy paper to show how aid effectiveness principles impact on education. See ‘Beyond Busan: Strengthening Aid to Improve Education Outcomes’ http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2011-pp02-beyond-busan.pdf

Great article on a development topic that I think a lot of people (including aid agencies) often ignore. If it's done right, tourism definitely has potential to contribute to development in the Pacific (it already is), and there's good reason why basically every Pacific government has already identified it as a priority. Earlier this year the Marshall Islands held a tourism symposium during which the economics of tourism was discussed. We believe that it has good potential to help in our development. Tourism development has been slow, but the Marshalls now has its first major outer island resort under construction (targeting "high-end" surfers and the like -- yes, there is such a thing as a high-end surfer market!). Good on Kiribati for its innovative partnership with the Maldives! Like Kiribati, the Marshalls has a thousand empty islands -- idle assets that are ideal for small scale resorts. Global tourism demand (from investors and consumers) is growing and diversifying rapidly and little remote destinations can take advantage of this, if they position themselves right. I believe that more attention (at a regional level and from the Pacific's key development partners) needs to be paid to tourism and its potential to serve as a lever for development and poverty reduction. It's not a silver bullet, but it's a bullet nonetheless.

Labour mobility means more lenient immigration laws on regional islands and refugees to enable them to work, and earn a decent bread crumb at least!!!

Pacific is definitely not the Caribbean. We are people who have lived in our own natural habitats and that is different from being naturalised by some citizenship law. Secondly we have each our own languages, culture, customs and our ancestors before us were free men and women. Never compare the Pacific to the Caribbean thank you. And stop looking at World Bank and major world organisations for them to come and tell you what you want and how you should get it. They will only make you slaves of their systems. The Pacific needs to get together and plot its own course of destiny. We are the best and ours can be copied by the world because it is simple, untainted by world politics and it works.

Listen here for some additional comment on President Obama's visit to the region and what it means or may means for our bit of the Pacific: http://blogs.radioaustralia.net.au/english/2011/pacific/wheres-the-pacific-in-obamas-asia-pacific

Thanks for the post and all the comments. It's rather hard finding info about this topic. I will be reading them all since I have been thinking about this for a long time. I am from Thailand which used to be a developing country a while back. I have never held any aid/development scholarship since I have an 'average' profile and I am from a middle class of the country. I did my masters in environmental management at UQ graduated in 2006 on my family support and part-time work while there. I do not think that these no-string-attached scholarships fro developing countries can really have an impact. I know some of the recipients of several of such scholarships. Most of them do not contribute directly to the development of their hole countries, some of my friends after finished their PhDs have gone on to work abroad (even though a different country than the one giving scholarships) for private sector doing things that will only make the poor poorer and the rich richer for example researching for new drugs for a for-profit pharmaceutical. The main concern is that msot of these scholarship recipients only come from the 'elite' group of developing countries. They are the only people who can afford to study English to the level that fulfill the requirement of the scholarship let alone the higher education which is normally not free and available in such countries. So all in all, I would only like to conclude that this type of scholarship only serves to protect and extend the elite class in developing countries so that they can in turn benefit the giving countries when they are in high and powerful positions!!!