Comments

I can't help feeling that evaluating the delivery of aid is a bit like the old story of tourists asking for directions in Ireland to be told "Well I wouldn't be starting from here if I were you". It is often hard to be sure that the fundamental questions have been framed properly before the "busy work" of evaluating has begun. It would be good to know how ODE compares with similar outfits such as the World Bank's Evaluation Department referenced by Satish in terms of output, timeliness, etc.

Thanks to Stephen for seeking explanations for the silence of ODE. I mused at the creation of ODE, as I do now, on whether this function should be housed within AusAID rather than in the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The merits of placing ODE within AusAID were to allow access to in-house data. ODE’s independence was to be protected through and organisational structure modelled on the World Bank's Evaluation Department. With Stephen's thoughts now, is it time to fold ODE into ANAO? ANAO, after all, is independent, reports directly to parliament, and is mandated to provide: "independent assessment of selected areas of public administration, and assurance about public sector financial reporting, administration, and accountability". This may be a superior strategy to the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, in the form of an Independent Evaluations Committee, to oversee the functions of ODE.

Development work is often focused on unanswered questions, something very well known by the religious. To be an effective aid worker, is in and of itself a leap of faith. See: http://www.how-matters.org/2011/09/28/a-matter-of-faith/

Thanks for this piece which I found very interesting and hopefully there will be more to come by way of research in this area. I wonder whether there are any significant differences between the established players (e.g. Catholic and Anglican derived entities) and those who are newer on the scene (e.g. LDS & SDA based groupings). My examples are based on the Pacific experience but I imagine that elsewhere in the world there are similar divides between FBOs and FBDOs that have been around for a long time and others that are new on the block.

Thanks for that Sharon. It was only 'officially' opened this month, I will change that in the text.

I think the USAID office in PNG has been open for 6 months.

Thank you for your comment Tess. I very much agree with your sentiment that it is important for key players to be honest with themselves and stakeholders — I think aid and development sector jargon is another barrier to broader understanding in the community of what humanitarian assistance and aid really does and what the process involves. Putting a simple message forward to the public to get support, but then using jargon/technical language in reports and other documents and basically making information impenetrable to laymen, is a problem. I think the NGO sector does a much better job at publishing clear, readable reports (or at least more accessible executive summaries) that cater to a wider range of readers than government agencies or multilaterals. I feel there needs to be more communication materials in this middle ground... not overly simplified but not overly technical.

I think your penultimate point is particularly valid - if agencies make this information available and include it in their communications then there is hopefully less risk of it being held up as some sort of smoking gun by someone else. And of course as media develops agencies are becoming more adept at tailoring messages according to the intended audience and the means by which it is to be transmitted. But in order to build transparency and, more importantly, sustainability, it is really important that the key players are honest with themselves and their stakeholders about the reality of what they are doing and the environment in which they are doing it.

Dear John, Thank you for sharing a provocative post on funding to multilateral development banks. I think if you re-read my blog again you will see that it is very clearly about core contributions to the IDA16 replenishment round. I don't dispute that Australia gives earmarked funding to the multilateral banks, and this reported on the AusAID website. The issue is that picking projects and programs, and then earmarking funding for these could be thought of as bilateral aid--with the multilateral banks being used as an agent. There has been a proliferation of this kind of funding in recent years, not just from Australia but also other donors. And I'd argue that this undermines, rather than strengthens, multilateral banks. I look forward to discussing this and other concerns with the balance of your report during the panel discussion tomorrow. Best regards, Matt

I find it interesting that Korea and Japan did so well in the ActionAID analysis but so poorly on the CGD's Quality of ODA assessment. Any thoughts on why that may be?

The whole report is now available online at the link contained here. I agree that it is really important that assessment (which may include criticisms) of aid effectiveness and efficiency has to be done with a great deal of rigour and appropriate criteria need to be applied. It is essential that recipient countries' leaders are well informed in order to enter into meaningful dialogue with (potential) development partners and in terms of the domestic situation for donor countries, aid should not be at risk of becoming a political football on the back of poorly constructed critiques.

A review of ‘Measures and standards of performance and accountability of partner country systems in public financial management, procurement, fiduciary standards and environmental assessments’, especially with regards procurement, suggest that progress has been at best patchy. While some emphasis has been placed on the development of procurement legislation and regulations, these documents by themselves does not deliver an efficient and effective public procurement system. Governments need to invest in the institutions, process and procedures of public procurement. While public procurement is a key element of government administrative programs, specifically the management of public finance, the magnitude and significance of public procurement is usually not fully understood by stakeholders. The role of public procurement in reducing costs and improving operating performance without adversely affecting the breadth or quality of government services is also not well understood. Even with the best of intentions on the part of the responsible agencies in partner governments and donors, the importance of good procurement is not well understood and high level support for effective reforms is weak. Good public procurement is underpinned by high-level support for the public procurement system, clear institutional structures, a robust legal regime, a capacitated cadre of procurement professionals and effective governance and oversight institutions and processes. In many countries, public procurement has not been viewed as having a strategic impact in the management of public resources. It is largely treated as a process-oriented, ‘back-office’ support function often implemented by non-professional staff of the buying agencies. Consequently, little effort is expended to ensure that the policies and rules and the institutional framework governing public procurement systems are maintained in a manner that ensures that public funds are used in the most efficient and economic way and that systems deliver the best value for money. But recently, this has been changing. • In the last few years, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action have provided renewed focus on strengthening procurement systems at the country level. • The OECD has developed an integrated set of tools and good practices to improve developing country public procurement systems and their contribution to development outcomes. • In the face of shrinking budgets and the need to fight corruption, many governments have realized that significant savings can be gained by a well-organized public procurement system. • Many developing countries have realized that a well-organized public procurement system contributes to good governance by increasing confidence that public funds are well spent. • Many developing countries have instituted reforms aimed at making their public procurement systems more transparent and efficient and increasing the accountability of public officials. Public procurement is the single largest area of public scrutiny into acts of alleged corruption as it represents a major cost to the system – not only in terms of lost money. While further work is required in this critical area, a start has been made. It will be very interesting to see what happens at Busan, including with regards to continuing reform of public procurement. Mr. E. John Blunt is an Institutional and Public Procurement Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments. He is currently on assignment with the Southern African Development Community in Botswana.