Comments

A quick follow-up related to the DFID-Global Fund performance agreement we mention in this post - Amanda Glassman at CGD has a blog about it <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/blog/new-dfid-global-fund-10-benchmarks-achieve-maximum-impact" rel="nofollow">here</a>, including a link to the actual agreement.

Thanks for the per capita breakdown Garth, an enlightening comparison. We've been reasonably positive on the 10% increase in the post just because of the sheer size of the cuts to Australian aid - but I agree we should be doing more. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to do more when we've decimated the aid budget so badly - this is just another example of the consequences. Though as the numbers above show, more of the aid budget will be spent on the Global Fund over the next three years as a percentage - so I feel that's a sign of some support for the Fund from government, but within our constrained ability to contribute due to the shrinking aid budget.

Thank you for this breakdown Ashlee and Camilla. To add to the perspectives you provided, Australians will be contributing US$2.38 each each year to the Global Fund. Americans will give $4.50 each, Canadians $5.76 and the British $7.44 each. Given that these three diseases result in around 3 million deaths of poor people each year, and the Global Fund is proven to be an effective way of cutting these deaths, I am concerned at the low priority DFAT gives to supporting the Fund.

Hi Paul, Thank you for an excellent comment. I think you've done a great job of explaining the complexity of the decisions all NGOs must go through when deciding about advocacy, and when deciding about funding sources. To be clear, we are not suggesting our findings are deterministic. There will also be, as you describe, many other facts that come into play. What we've identified is a trend: on average, amongst all the other stuff, NGOs that get more money from the government appear to devote more web-space to awareness raising and encouraging public action on development issues. There will always be NGOs that buck the trend, and there will always be other factors that have an influence. But there does appear to be a pattern. We've pointed it out and we are eager to explain it. We haven't (as you'll see from the blog post and the paper) drawn too many conclusions yet, other to identify the pattern and offer some possible explanations for its cause. While I think the strength of quantitative work is that it can sometimes identify a signal amongst the noise (what we've done here). I think a comparative strength of qualitative research is that it can provide nuanced explanations for trends and patterns. This, I think, would be a good way of taking this research forwards. Such research could incorporate many of the comments you have made above. Thanks again Terence

Thanks John for your comment. I guess one point is that K4.4 billion is not a lot: it is only about 500 Kina per person (if the population is 8 million plus). That is not a lot with which to buy drugs, run universities, maintain roads, buy fuel for police cars and so on.

Does RAMSI still exist today at all? or has it completely withdrawn

In practice, there are many complex factors that influence the decision of when and how NGOs will advocate around government policy - the proportion of government funding is clearly a factor but it's only one of many. For example, Save the Children was founded by an outspoken advocate and our theory of change explicitly emphasises the importance of advocacy in achieving systemic change. Hence, advocacy is a core part of our DNA, or our culture as Patrick says. Internal capability to engage in advocacy effectively is another, particularly the sophisticated and politically nuanced advocacy required for a topic like refugee policy. Leadership, both management and Board is critical. Operational issues weigh heavily: will it place staff safety at risk? Will public advocacy undermine your ability to influence behind the scenes? In my experience, public advocacy should be like an iceberg - just the tip. Effective advocacy most frequently occurs behind closed doors and therefore can be extremely difficult to assess from the outside. And what is ultimately in the best interests of the vulnerable groups you are seeking to support? Calculating this requires a very difficult assessment of the implications of reduced impact from meeting people's immediate humanitarian needs, with the potential benefits from systemic change should you be able to change government policy. As a child rights organisation, this balancing act was something we constantly assessed in relation to Nauru, to ensure we were meeting the Convention's overriding obligation to act in "the best interests of children". The broader regulatory and political environment is also relevant. Gag clauses, the Freeedom to Advocate Act, the Australian Border Force Act (for refugee issues) etc are only the most blunt tools - government funding decisions are normally much more subtle. This is an important debate and the above analysis is very thought provoking but given the complexity of the issues we are seeking to influence, I would be wary of drawing too many conclusions and instead encourage continued research and exploration!

Great story of Tumat Sogolik. An achievement that all PNGans would like to be part of, this is a measure of unity in diversity. However, in todays PNG society where Sir Manasupe was recently part of (in the decision making corridors) there are politicians and bureaucrats who were trying to dismantle and disintegrate this unity in diversity into political blocs and regionalism. Bougainville will go, New Ireland will be next and so and so. Corruption took its toll in all areas of development and is the only disease that will break or make PNG. Do you think so?

Serena good presentation on social development. The areas you touched on -- education and health -- are vast areas that will take enormous amount of resources and time before we achieve our dreams. Basic education and health care is the core responsibility of government, let's not worry about it, rather focus on what we can do and be capable of so that it contributes to the bigger picture. For example, your organisation's focus on youth leadership for social changes is one element of the contribution to the bigger picture that we would like to see.

Thanks Steve for this very informative analysis. What would concern us PNGans more is the use of the remaining balance of K4.4 billion discretionary expenditure. It may be subject to contractual obligations or political commitments but the begging question is, “what are those high levels spending”? Even those expenditures that you highlighted; salaries, interest, education subsidy and etc.. can still face actual budget shortfalls through the year, where did all the expected funding go to. I guess the answers are in the treasury, finance and the PM’s offices and known only to a few of the politicians, only time will tell.

Make an example of an outdated statute or specify a particular law that deems obsolete today. Remember changing, altering amending laws are not like opening windows with an hope to see what you want to see. We have to go through changes that will prompt law changes. Law changes can not change you.

Thanks for this story. I think we need a global scan of the situation for working mom's (and dad's) with children, and the extent to which they are supported by development organizations/agencies. I think many organizations that claim to be rights-based, maternal-and-child-health advocates do a poor job of supporting their own employees.