Comments

It is only a result of the incredible transformation of the Chinese economy that there is hope for the key MDG poverty targets to be reached. Countries where Western donors have dominated - bringing with them agendas other than reductions in poverty through economic development - have so far failed dismally in progress against MDGs.

The CGD have contacted me to clarify that Australia ranks 11th overall. There was an error in one table but it has now been fixed.

How can aid support growth? The article ties very well with a couple of IMF papers in 2005 that looked at different types of aid and their contribution to growth. - http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/radelet.htm#author%23author - http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/wp05126.pdf. These papers (correctly) broke aid down in a few categories, emergency, economic, institutional and then ran some regressions. They found that institutional support had a long term positive effect, economic support a medium term economic effect and humanitarian was negatively correlated (only because you apply it during times of crisis – I guess lagged dummies did not work out). So I think that is one argument I would like to see teased out a little – view your aid basket like an investment portfolio. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket but have a mix of support. Or maybe like a balanced meal - little bit of institutional support, seasoned with economic aid (wharfs roads etc) and a side dish of humanitarian help – now that’s a proper meal ticket to growth! I think the second point which I find interesting is the assertion (correctly) that economic growth is ultimately a domestic issue. I believe competitiveness has so long been confused with openness that it has become a part of the problem. So for example for small islands if you simply open your markets you end up with an external monopoly (the market is only big enough for one player). So you have openness but less competition. However, if you had policies that encouraged domestic competition then you would improve matters. The two are not mutually exclusive – obviously - but I am glad that the emphasis is not on simply opening markets – as that often reduces competition if it is not done after or at the same time as the necessary domestic reforms.

Is it likely you will consider the possibility of 'membership' with a braoder range of players (aid workers across the region) being able to become members and participate more fully in debates, emerging issues etc? Similiar to other professional bodies that support members in the particular professional field and provide a forum for a knowledge base, information, debate and reference. This policy centre is a good move!

Thanks Peter - I mentioned CID in my talk and you're right. Another change made essentially out of the blue with no reasonable justification, which is likely to have adverse development effects. And I agree, bipartisan support of an aid programme is definitely not something to take for granted. Kind regards Terence

Hi Terence, you could also add to your list the government's defunding of the NZ Council for International Development - which has been serverely hampered in its ability to work on behalf of the NZ NGOs involved in aid and development. It's also a reminder of the importance of the current bipartisan support for the aid program (regarding the 0.5 GNI target at the very least) here in Australia, and the fact that it shouldn't be taken for granted that it will always exist.

I agree with the efforts to structure aid more transparently and particularly scrutinize the funding going to multilateral organisations. I am working with a continental European (bilateral) agency and looked through the '10 point plan' and was dissapointed not to find a European perspective in the document. I was actually hoping for stronger ties which apparently are not discussed / considered. Particularly the German aid system is undergoing similar processes as the British...

An interesting range of facts. It contributes and I trust will be a catalyst to the discussion that should surround development assistance and how it is delivered. I have been unable to download the pdf atti stage but in contribution I share the following thoughts: Regarding the geographic shift. One of the downsides regularly raised is that aid is spread too thin and the number of projects is potentially a parrallel. In this context should there be a greater focus on selected nations in order to achieve economies of scale and efficiency in aid delivery? If so where should a geographically based focus be oriented? i.e. should Australia be focusing on its backyard rather than further afield? If so how does this relate to the use of multilateral agencies for aid delivery? While it is clear that there is a difference between Australia and other donors in terms use of Technical Assistance and/or Bi-lateral mechanisms it begs the question is this a positive rather than a negative? History is littered with bad decisions based on a lemmings mentality. As discussion points: In an environment where there sound governance systems in place it would make sense to focus on infrastructure investments to promote development but in the absence of good governance questions surround the sustainability of infrastructure investments. A disaggregation of development assistance type by the state of governance systems would make for an interesting by-line to the discussion. The related question would then have to be: Does the nature of the nations that Australia assists suggest a requirement for Technical Assistance in preference to other forms? In a similar vein to the above. The gap from the majority approach of using multilateral aid vehicles is acknowledged. The question is whether this is desirable or undesirable and raises a host of questions such as: are Multilateral Aid agencies poised to deliver the sort of Technical Assistance that might be required? do they have an effective presence in the countries in which Australian Aid is focused? I would be interested to see the responses and data to address some of these questions and indeed whether the different profile in Australian aid delivery is a desirable and warranted element.

Thanks everyone in sharing your views. I would say that it is an opportunity too for me to share my opinions. I remember, in 2006, there was this warning alerting people of dry spell or drought. Actually it never turned out as expected... However, any natural disaster is bound to happen and scientists can predict on such studying certain environmental course that is reckoned to be abnormal. I would rather say that adequate assessments and alerting public preparation would be good. Otherwise,expecting such that never eventuate creating such a public annoyance. In that regard, provide accurate information and alerting public for preparedness for such time is what commendable and accepted.

Thankyou Dr. Bourke for the opportunity to share our thoughts on this blog. I live in the central highlands in Goroka, Eastern Highlands province. About April/May this year, there was an awareness pamphlet distributed throughout EHP on the possible drought in 2012. Soon after that, about a month or two later, we started experiencing this long period of dry season. Many of us were wondering if this was the predicted drought. Fortunately, we started experiencing rains in mid October. My concern is that accurate information about this predicted drought needs to be provided so that rural as well as urban communities in the affected areas can prepare themselves. CBOs, NGOs and other responsible government bodies should be involved in awareness on how best communities can prepare themselves for this catastrophe. Some of us have started talking about food security and measures to take to avoid being caught in this drought. However, we lack the accurate information and knowledge about how best to address this.

Dr. Sandy Tudhope of the University of Edinburgh has 10,000 years worth of coral core samples from Madang. His data indicates severe droughts far worse than 1997 some 2,000 years ago. Does anyone know if he ever published his data?

Hi Matt, Congratulations, on what I think is a great paper. Making a case for more aid through multilateral in the current economic climate and climate of ever increasing scrutiny is a big challenge and you measure up to the challenge really well. IDA 15 has had great achievements and more financial resources for scaling up the good work through IDA 16 makes sense. But that should not undermine the importance of reform of the BW institutions, in particular need for decentralisation, especially to African regions, and the need to reduce WB's own transactions cost - e.g. it is interesting that WB continues with its fly-business policy when Ministers from some of its main donors are flying economy to get more value for their tax payers' hard-earned money!