Comments

My concerns about DFAT's take on innovation are twofold: - it seems to default to a "new = good, old = bad" mindset: whereas in development and emergencies (at least through NGOs), there is a lot of good work done through deploying proven techniques, while also quietly trialling new approaches on a small scale and then scaling up successes. - AusAID was previously a pretty risk averse organisation: I would argue DFAT is by nature even more risk averse and short termist. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when the innovation hub has a couple of costly failures, whether DFAT and Ministers are willing to wear the "waste of taxpayers' money" criticisms - especially when the miniscule fraud rate under AusAID was one of the purported reasons for folding it into DFAT. Mind you, press criticism of the aid program seems to have gone mysteriously quiet under this government. Perhaps Steve Lewis and friends from the Daily Telegraph having completed their job have been moved on to other pastures?

While I haven't seen any explicit statement of the rationale, yes, I believe the requirement to pay in 20 per cent of the value of shares held reflects the lower average credit rating of the majority membership of the institution, relative to the World Bank and the existing regional development banks. The AIIB's Articles limit non-regional members to a 30 per cent shareholding in aggregate, and of all actual and potential regional members only Australia and Singapore are currently rated AAA by <a href="http://chartsbin.com/view/1177" rel="nofollow">Standard and Poors</a>. China itself is rated AA-. In other words, pledges to pay in callable capital from many members don't carry great weight, so more actually has to be paid if the AIIB is to have any hope of achieving the same AAA rating as its 'competitors' the World Bank and the ADB. Also, of course, requiring OECD countries to pay a lot in made the decision far more real for them: they couldn't just buy seats on the board with effectively costless pledges.

Thanks for the great analysis, Robin. Any idea why the paid-in capital rate is so high at 20% if others get away with 5 or 6%. Is it to get a good credit rating?

I think there is a lack of transparency and accountability at all levels of government systems. Also, there is noncompliance with the relevant governing legislation in the mining industry. Hence there is a big need to amend all the current legislation, especially the Mining Act 1992 and the Mining (Safety) Act 1977 so that there is effective compliance with all the governing legislation, thus helping the mining industry achieve its intended purpose.

Thanks Peter for posting these documents. Evidenced the complexity of the issue. While it may be an accepted fact, some of these Pacific leaders appeared to suggest that the degree of intrusion, especially by their 'trusted' friends, is somewhat troubling. Sil, West Papua continues to be a challenge. Maybe the recent 'observer' status given to them by the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) will lead to some tangible resolution. Iam, Fiji continues to be an important voice in the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

I didn't either (bit surprising that they didn't define it in the report, now that you mention it). Evidently it has to do with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/sep/25/fun-theory-gamification-development" rel="nofollow">using games and game theory</a> to encourage behaviour change. Maybe another reader out there can offer a fuller explanation?

Hi, Having recently returned from nearly 15 years working in health at the provincial level in PNG, I am concerned about the ineffectiveness of aid efforts to date to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity and GBV. Despite significant aid funding over the past decade or so, not much has changed. In my experience, aid is 'top heavy'. Donors and many aid agencies need to work collaboratively with provinces to improve implementation and service delivery i.e., ensure aid is delivered where it is needed most on the ground. This isn't happening.

Agreed. Maybe the skill is not in the top 10! And thanks for sharing the survey. Z

Thanks Camilla. Interesting read. It was good to see 78% of people thought people skills would be the most important set of skills to have, perhaps this includes cross-cultural? I admit to having no idea what 'gamification' is. And to all others who commented earlier, I'm sorry to say your excellent thoughts were lost in the recent blog failure. Feel free to repost.

And here is an excellent New Yorker <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine" rel="nofollow">article</a> debunking the idea of 'disruptive innovation'. Thank you, this is a really good blog and got me thinking about my very strong aversion to the word 'innovation'. I have no problem investing in research and development, particularly in areas where it can really make a difference, such as in health. My issue is that like so many things in development, the latest fad tends to dominate and drive all decisions, even when it might be inappropriate. Technically, the word 'innovate' means to make new or bring something new. And who doesn't like 'new' ideas and putting them into practice? But to emphasise it so heavily in an aid programme (as this government is) implies that only 'new' matters. To my mind, there are a lot of 'old' ideas in development that have a lot of value. Many of them we don't do, but if we did, we'd make a whole lot more positive impact. Like, taking the time to understand context, listening to the people we're working with, having long-term engagements and focusing on relationships. These are (almost) all things you describe as being necessary for successful innovation. We don't do these things well at the moment. What does this mean for innovation? I guess the point is, like all ideas in development, it depends on how it gets implemented. I won't go any further, as talking about implementation brings me to the innovationXchange, and here I risk descending into unhelpful ranting. Thanks again for an excellent, thought-provoking blog.

Thanks Grant and Caryn, this is a really interesting paper. I wonder, based on this, what your thoughts are on where aid donors/the development industry should be investing when it comes to anti-corruption work? If the return on an investment in corruption education is going to be affected by the perceived level of institutional response/effectiveness, then it would seem to suggest that more attention on institution strengthening is the way to go. But surely, and particularly in the PNG case, that would be a politically difficult path to take for donors (...which is perhaps why they are more willing to invest in education). Seems like a really tricky situation in which to be effective?

Related to several of the issues that Ferguson raises, Chris Blattman recently wrote a <a href="http://chrisblattman.com/2015/06/25/dear-governments-and-aid-agencies-please-stop-hurting-poor-people-with-your-skills-training-programs/" rel="nofollow">blog</a> and <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2622220" rel="nofollow">review paper</a> (coauthored with Laura Ralston) on some of the problems with skills training programs and employment generation in the Global South.