Comments

Hi Brendan, thanks for bringing out the corruption issue. I'll be mindful to avoid bias here, and confess it's an issue I worked on very closely at AusAID and elsewhere. It's actually how I became interested in the role of the private sector in development: in short, I think anti-corruption is among the better entry points for donors into private sector partnerships. Why? Because the private sector has a growing mass which you could now call critical, which is increasingly placing companies between a bribe request and very hard place. Ethical investors and discerning shareholders (quite apart from the Concerned Public) are pressuring companies to operate without the business and dividend advantage which corruption can seem to bring - at least in the short term. Here's where donors come in. They can help broker a middle way by helping change the rules of the game, and supporting local politicians/businesses engaged in this effort. Of course I'm thinking about the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI - see blog proper) which gives companies and the governments who licence and benefit from their activities an opportunity to build transparency and therefore political and business credibility. Supporting options that appeal to the better natures of all players seems to work here (surprise), and it allows the honest as well as the ambivalent the opportunity to point to a better business model. What is the role of donors in addressing corruption? That's a big question! I think the best they can do is make sure their policies and practices are aligned with the best knowledge available - which leads you back to the communities where the corruption is felt. Finding local change champions (like Mums who want to know what happened to the government money that was intended for their children's schooling) and engaging local notions of accountability seem to be among the best long-term investments that donors can make. And engaging small and large businesses who want to see a cleaner operating environment, though here is where donors have tended to get stuck. Yes, the correlation between corruption and human development is pretty clearly made out - Italy seemed to be the exception but perhaps less these days. Hope this is useful.

This is a very informative piece, many thanks. It is rightly cautious in optimism about the role of the private sector in development. Bill Gates advocacy for innovation in development is welcome, but it is also important to consider the implications for outcomes of the most marginalised. See my blog on these issues related to education: http://efareport.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/beyond-busan-1-will-new-partnerships-with-brics-and-the-private-sector-help-get-all-children-into-school/

We very much welcome the appointment of Penny Williams and we kindly request to be supported to go and help train trainers in Bukavu Eastern Congo as the women and girls are really in need of anti rape strategies that will help them avoid,identify, prevent and protect themselves in a practical way as we are doing here in Kenya where we have empowered over 1.5 million women,girls and children since 1998. We were in Bukavu in August and we were only able to train over 50 trainers and that was just like a drop in the sea because because of financial inadequacy. If we can be facilitated and supported we can be able to train over 1,000 women and girls in a period of 2 months and this will address the problem of rape because at the moment men in civilian are the ones leading as perpetrators of rape. As you focus on The Pacific region, please also remember the desperate women of Congo. Thank as i look forward to hear from you Yours sincerely Duncan Oundo Program Officer Dolphin Anti rape and AIDS Control Outreach,Nairobi Kenya

Thanks for a great post that addresses some of the issues around fostering public-private sector partnerships. I particularly like how you address the role of donors, which seems to be under-thought. However, I was wondering where you see corruption within this topic, and how much of a barrier it is to these relationships you discuss. What is the role of donors in addressing corruption? There is a very apparent correlation between corruption and human development, and you can find many of AusAID's recipient countries (and those in which the resource industy has operations and interest) in the lower end of corruption perception. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/12/corruption-and-development?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/corrosivecorruption

As a former country manager for the Enterprise Challenge Fund, I have had some experience of how AusAID has moved towards greater engagement with the private sector and I agree there is a whole lot more to be done in this area. As I understand it, It remains undecided whether the ECF will continue beyond its present status of a pilot and there is plenty of learning there to inform whatever might come next (see here for the 2011 portfolio report:http://www.enterprisechallengefund.org/ecfund/Uploadfile/ECF%20Annual%20Portfolio%20Report%202011%20web%20version(1).pdf). I would make a couple of points about aid agencies engaging with the private sector, with a Pacific island perspective. One is that in PIC economies, the private sector is already 'doing' development even though it may be calling it something else. There still remains the need for meaningful dialogue between agencies such as AusAID and private sector operatives to arrive at a shared understanding of not only the relevant development issues but also the culture(s) of aid agencies and the private sector in order to maximise convergence and minimise misunderstanding and conflict. The other is that in small economies such as those of the Pacific Island countries, it is sometimes difficult to get 'big business' to be able to operate at the (small) level that can really make a difference. With a couple of exceptions PICs are not going to be welcoming global miners to their shores and are (and will remain) very small markets making them unattractive to many 'big' businesses which means that engaging with the private sector needs to be a much more localised 'home grown' activity.

Hi Sam, Very interesting and important points. I agree that lots of the skills needed for this kind of work are probably better to learn "on-the-job." But I don't want to let universities (including my own) off the hook of developing appropriate training programs. The Master of Public Policy Services and Management (despite the wordy name) sounds interesting. Perhaps we will start to see a shift towards "MBAs for not for profit industries." A colleague of mine who has worked in Rwanda for years wrote a paper called "Doctors Without Orders" which is basically about the fact that we need better managers for the billions of dollars going into public health - rather than having doctors and PhDs in biochemistry managing huge scale health projects. And on teh topic of languages that you and Ashlee raised - absolutely. I'm Canadian and French is mandatory for a number of years. Not everyone picks it up but everyone is exposed to it. I like the idea of second language proficiency as a prerequisite for development studies, foreign policy, any internationally-focused degree. Joel

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.