Comments

No Matt, the problem is not simple but the evidence is clear that aid can improve essential services such as health,water and education for people. There is less evidence that aid can predictably improve governance or generate sustainable economic development. Owen Barder provides a recent brief summary at http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1425286. The experience over the last few years with vaccines, bed nets, AIDS treatment is that aid has been able to improve and save the lives of people in a wide range of physical, social and political environments. Of course not all health projects are perfect, but overall, as these programs have shown, the main obstacle to preventing the deaths of millions of people is now the lack of finance. I am not advocating that all aid be spent on essential services such as health, but that Australia's aid program should ensure in the development of its country plans that the provision of essential services is the first priority. Of course other sectoral areas are also important and contribute to the adequate provision of essential services, but based on the historical experience of Australia's aid program there needs to be an operational strategy in place to ensure that essential services are not underfunded. The other important reason to broadly reach our fair share of total health aid funding is that,just as with climate action, Australia is much more likely to generate action by other donors and developing countries when we are seen to be doing our share.

In this article the problem is simple: donors aren't giving enough aid and as a result millions of people are dying. According to the post, the solution is also simple: spend more aid on health and set targets for the amount Australia should contribute (e.g. 20% of Australian aid or $1bn p.a.). In another <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/were-not-really-helping-20110718-1hlhr.html" rel="nofollow">article</a> today in The Age, Hugh White argues that aid isn't helping, instead it is economic growth that is lifting people out of poverty. <blockquote>Helping people in need is a good thing to do, and there are always more people who need help. But spending money in ways that makes no difference doesn't help anyone, and there is no virtue in aid that makes donors feel good but doesn't help the needy.</blockquote> What are your thoughts on this? Who is right?

Mark Baird's reflections of the Aid Review carry weight, not just because of his extensive experience on aid and development policy, but also because of his sharp and insightful analysis. In his latest post for the Development Policy blog he gets to the crux of the scaling up challenge: consistent and disciplined implementation of the agreed reforms -- in other words, sticking to the path. I share Mark's assessment that some of the impetus will come from within AusAID, yet this alone will not be enough to achieve the Aid Review's vision. It will also need more active engagement with the aid program from outside AusAID -- to keep the aid program 'honest' and to foster 'genuine debate'. And that's why the aid transparency agenda is so important. AusAID is moving in the right direction, yet needs to be mindful that aid transparency is not just putting more stuff on the website, but putting in place systems to provide up to date and COMPREHENSIVE data on where aid is going, more detailed information on projects and better data on results, and routine publication of evaluation reports. This is important work -- and as the Aid Review report notes, it is the 'foundation' of a good aid program not an optional add on. In my view, how well AusAID delivers on this reform will be a litmus test for its commitment to implementation of the Aid Review. The Government has agreed with the Aid Review's recommendation to produce a 'Transparency Charter' by the end of the year and last week the Director General promised consultation with partners on the 2011-12 budget. Presumably AusAID will also consult on the four-year aid strategy and the medium term aid budget. These are important first steps in the implementation of the Aid Review, and it will be important keep a keen eye on these issues and share fresh ideas and feedback, including through forthcoming posts on the Development Policy blog.

And a postscript to this. The Lowy Institute is convening a panel next week (Wednesday July 20) with review team leader, Sandy Hollway, Jack de Groot, CEO of CARITAS, and Rowan Callick, The Australian's Asia-Pacific editor. In the wake of the release of the review team's report and the government's response, the discussion will look at how the aid program is placed to respond to evolving development challenges. This is linked to our paper, "The Future State of the World: what it means for Australia's foreign aid program" which was commissioned by the review team (see my blog and the Lowy Institute website) and released by the government for publication this week.

You missed us - we're there. Check out my piece which went up on the Lowy Institute's blogsite, The Interpreter, yesterday. To give you a bit of a flavour of what I say, here's a preview: "The report is a solid, comprehensive piece of work with recommendations based on sound analysis of current and emerging trends and challenges, drawing on the lessons and practices of other donors and even taking into account lessons learnt by Australia’s own aid agency. It acknowledges that Australia’s aid program is already in good shape – a point reinforced by Kevin Rudd when he released the report last week. But the aim of the review wasn’t to give the current program a brick or a bouquet. Its purpose was to advise the government on how to make the program better, stronger and more strategic as the aid budget moves towards $8 to $9 billion in 2015-2016. And the government is listening to its review team."

Thanks Jane, It turns out that we agree on much. I definitely agree that development is prone to fads, and I'm something of a SWap sceptic (although I do think that the right SWap at the right place at the right time may work well). My preferred approach for an aid agency working in any particular area would be: First do the research: find out what the binding constraints on welfare are, study what's been done in the past, and then carefully choose (from all the available options) an approach most likely to help the poor in the recipient area. I think that before the research is done everything should be on the table in terms of sectors and modalities and so on. Then run the activity carefully and monitor and evaluate it well. And then change it if it's not working. Where private sector engagement was suggested by preliminary analysis and where evidence suggests it could work, I'd be in favour of it every bit as much as I would an NGO intervention if that's what context suited. The one way that I do think the private sector is different from most other development 'tools' is in the area of donor country political economy risks. The existence of such risks doesn't mean that donors should ever engage with home country private sector agents. But - to get back to my original point - let's make sure we've thought carefully about the risks. Thanks again for your comments Terence

Hi Terence, I totally agree with you about minimising risks across the aid program. I have worked in development for 30 years, more of it in the public sector than the private sector. I have worked for governments, donors, NGOs, volunteer organisations, universities and the private sector. I have a realistic view of the risks inherient in all of these organisations and modes of delivery. I am a bit tired of the faddism and thought capture that pervades the development industry. The development community threw its self into SWAps, for example, with minimal evidence of their effectiveness in improving development outcomes. There is often a lack of balance in the development dialogue. One rarely hears discussion of the risks of using NGOs, or universities or multilaterals - and as you are surely aware, there are many. I encourage you, and indeed AusAID, to look at the evidence, of where and how the private sector can play an effective role in development. The sites I commended to you are a good start, and DFID is commissioning a review of the evidence in relation to mining and PPPs that will be instructive. I totally agree that there are a wide range of risks in engaging with the private sector - many of these are well documented and need to be managed. But as I said, the private sector is a legitimate player, with a contribution to make. So lets find the evidence and engage with the private sector accordingly. Making the link to another AusAID initiative related to the private sector - which is the mining sector. I believe that donor engagement with the mining sector and the government in the planning and feasibility stages of mining developments in poor countries in the area of social planning would be incredibly beneficial for example, both to mitigate risk and maximise social benefit.

Hello Jane, Thank you for your comment. I agree that there are risks throughout the aid programme. And presumably you agree with me that we should try and manage these risks wherever they might occur? Upon a reread of my paper, you'll note that my argument above is not that AusAID should never engage with the private sector, or that the private sector has no role to play in development work, but rather that such engagement should be undertaken, cautiously, in a way that minimises those political economy risks associated with subsidising private enterprise with through ODA. (If you'd like evidence - an example of this occurring - look at US Food Aid). My critique of the aid review (which I think is in many ways and excellent document) is that it doesn't acknowledge those risks which do exist, nor provide any insights on how to mitigate them. If you have any specific references which detail how aid agencies how engaged with private sector actors from their own country and have done so in a way that has successfully mitigated the risk interest group capture I would be very interested in reading them. Please provide. Kind regards Terence

Be cautious with the private sector because there are risks. Of course there are risks! The entire aid program is littered with risks. Forget the elephant in the room, it’s that old private sector boogeyman again! Just mention the private sector and some of the development set start twitching. However, lets not just exchange opinions, is there any evidence? 1. The IFC after an extensive study looking at the private sector in health in Africa, made a number of informed recommendations including: Including as many people as possible in risk pooling mechanisms; Channelling a portion of public and donor funds through the private sector; Enacting regulations that are more encouraging of the private sector; Improving access to capital to support private health care enterprises. (IFC “The Business of Health in Africa. Partnering with the private sector to improve people’s lives” IFC, 2008 ). 2. Maybe, take time to look at the website of the Rockefeller Foundation on their initiative “Transforming Health Systems.” Rockefeller have commissioned a number of studies on the role of the private sector in development. 3. Please then move on to the UCSF Global Health Sciences website and look at their publications on the “ Health Systems initiative,” which provide a range of papers on the value of working with the private sector in development. 4. There are countless publications exhorting the importance of the private sector in achieving the MDGs. 5. More locally, the Lowey Institute's Jenny Hayward Jones contends that private sector engagement is critical in making progress towards MDGs (Hayward-Jones 2008). I believe that the involvement of the private sector in development initiatives is not a panacea for poverty, but it is a legitimate and valuable asset in the journey towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. So I congratulate AusAID. But don’t take my work for it – lets examine the evidence.

The lease-lease-back arrangements have been used, and more likely abused, for 'land grabs'. It is an issue that is currently under investigation by the PNG government. I am no legal expert, but if the ‘land grabs’ are proven to be indeed the case then that may be sufficient to make the leases illegitimate, both legal and otherwise.

Good numbers, good plan - great summary! The doubling of the 'South Pacific Microstates' allocation is certainly timely and welcome.

Patrick, thank you for your kind comment and article on social media and monitoring. Crowdsourcing is a natural complement to traditional project monitoring and can help to triangulate the accuracy of project/MIS data, and provide important information on outputs and quality. It's great to see that the idea of crowdsourcing feedback from beneficiaries is gaining momentum and the challenge now it to test and evaluate practical methods. One platform which is easy to set up is Ushahidi's Crowdmap, and this is what I'm experimenting with in Papua New Guinea - see http://fixmyroad.crowdmap.com. Thanks again for sharing the link to your interesting blog post and please keep in touch.