Comments

Dear Ms Blunck - thank you for this review. I'm sorry that you were not persuaded. If you are still interested and at ANU next year, I invite you to visit my class 'Courts Justice & Development', so we can discuss - or debate - the argument further. It has importance. I'd like to try to persuade you. best, Livingston

One other point which I think is important (and which we do cover in the paper) is that, once we include a control variable for Greens support in the regressions (both for support for ODA and donations), the negative association between religion and these types of support for aid disappears (it doesn't become positive but ceases to be different from zero in a statistical sense). To my mind this suggests that it is perhaps not religiosity per se that is negatively associated with support for ODA but rather a particular conservative type of religious belief, which is also strongly negatively associated with Green party support (quite a strong conservatism it should be noted, strong enough to not be positively associated with Coalition support on first preferences). At least that's my thinking thus far, although I'd like to do some more work in this area.

Jo Spratt, thanks a lot for your insightful comments. Today, undernutrition and overnutrition (overweight and obesity) increasingly coexist, especially in emerging economies. In fact, evidence shows that there is a higher risk of adult obesity when undernutrition is present in childhood. While these two phenomena are different, some of the underlying causes are linked. Rapid urbanization and dietary changes towards meat products, for example, can put pressure on food systems (demand more water, land and energy) thereby adding to the burden of undernutrition (higher prices of nutritious foods like fruits and vegetables). These global trends can also lead to overweight and obesity and subsequently to non-communicable diseases such as hypertension, which takes competing public resources away from addressing undernutrition challenges. Solutions for these types of complexly-intertwined challenges that we face today certainly need to be guided by a multi-sectoral framework that aims to achieve multiple goals.

Stephen, thanks so much for your feedback. Obesity is a growing global concern, shared by developed and developing countries. A recent Lancet article reports that obesity is not just increasing, but there have been no national success stories in tackling obesity in the last 33 years. Also, the Copenhagen Consensus Center recently noted that projections on the elimination of overweight and obesity are uncertain due to sparse evidence on the implementation and effectiveness of interventions to address these growing challenges. It is certainly a complex issue that requires urgent attention and more effort. To solve the obesity problem, education and information campaigns are important, but labeling and proper regulation of the fast-food industry in both developed and emerging middle-income countries are also critical. Re-prioritizing investments and rethinking policies (as I mentioned in my response to Michael Wulfsohn) will also help address the obesity issue.

Michael, thanks very much for your comment. One way to re-prioritize investments to end hunger and malnutrition is for governments to reduce subsidies on the production of staple grains (as well as water, electricity, and fertilizers). Those savings could then support the production of more nutrient-dense crops, including fruits and vegetables, via investments in R&D, improving the marketing chains of these more perishable crops. But increased investment is not the only answer. It is equally important to change policies. For example, it is essential to re-shape the agriculture sector for improved nutrition and health, but that can only occur if ministries of agriculture are made responsible for nutrition outcomes.

Thanks Robin. A useful contribution. In my tell-tale “pithy” style, I’d like to offer a short observation. Giving Enterprise Challenge Funds a Chance. Youthful. Promising. Almost there. Really? If we’re to look forward to a glass half full, we should at least be clear that when looking back the glass wasn’t actually half empty. So let’s look back briefly… Looking back a little, the ECF hangs almost entirely off its face saving mobile banking project (WING Cambodia). Evidently, this one project (of 23) accounts for 93% of total ECF beneficiaries reached, and 78% of the net income generated. Strip it out and the cupboard is almost bare. Looking back a little further, according to a recent DFID report (“Meeting the challenge: How can enterprise challenge funds be made to work better”, April 2014) at least GBP 850mn has been invested in challenge funds over recent years. AusAID should be praised for subjecting the ECF to a CBA assessment, as none of these funds have come under anything like a similar level of scrutiny. But then again, why should they when they too can hang off their face saving mobile banking project (M-PESA)?! Looking back even further, again according to the above mentioned DFID report, challenge funds can be traced back in the UK to 1714, and the Longitude Prize. How did this perform? Well, none of the major prizes were ever awarded. John Harrison, the esteemed clock maker, cracked the challenge of measuring longitude with his sea clock, then marine watch. He did this through his, and other private investment and endeavour. He was finally awarded £10k by the British Government 50 years later in 1764, when at the ripe old age of 71 his best work was behind him. Innovation? Additionality? Leverage? Really? Youthful. Promising. Almost there. Isn’t 300 years long enough for researchers to learn something of value Robin? John Harrison’s marine watch allowed sailors to find their way through the maritime mists. Who’s finally going to step up and help the development sector navigate their way through the deep layers of Challenge Fund Fog?

Hi Michelle, Thank you that is a very good point, or actually two good points in one.. 1. On regular attendees of religious practice. Our data are census data and just tell us the proportion of the population who describe themselves as religious (or Christian - which we ran as an alternate model, getting the same results). As we discuss in the paper, the data give us nothing about frequency of attendance. And it is possible that patterns for regular attendance and associated giving might be different than those we see for people who are just nominally religious. Indeed, one oversees study has findings which suggest this is the case. 2. On the second point, about missing NGOs, we cover this a bit in the paper. It's true that Compassion aren't in the dataset, but nor are MSF, an equally large secular NGO. And we know that the NGOs in the dataset comprise a very large share of aid NGOs in Australia. And these facts, along with the fact we see the same negative correlation in surveyed support for government aid, suggest the finding is real. Although -- for both of the reasons just discussed -- I am very keen to test it using different data. Something we hope to do. Thanks again. Terence

Useful summation and discussion - thanks. On the matter of religiosity and ODA giving, it's also possible that those who are regular service attendees give quite generously, but to NGOs that are not ACFID members and thus are not captured in your raw data. I'm thinking particularly of Compassion which - from my vague recollection (I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong) - is not an ACFID member because it chooses to use its work as a platform for proselytising... but, if included among the usual size and income rankings of NGOs, would be among the top few NGOs in the country. Look forward to your further work on this topic.

Thank you very much for this discussion Robin. It is good to see this research debate and discussion in the field of challenge funds. It is important to consider the expected outcomes in advance for challenge funds and working in private sector development in general. Does the program intend to use the business as a vehicle to achieve development outcomes (such as innovative new products or to link to a particular supply chain) or to change the business to achieve these means? The ECF was a pilot program which means that the objective was intentionally broad in order to feed into discussions like this around what works best and in what context. Importantly, DFAT provided additional resources for strong monitoring, research and external evaluation – these are all available on the ECF website (www.enterprisechallengefund.org). The ECF ran in both Pacific and South East Asia – two very different regions demographically, economically and with very different in business environments – and the results were similarly differentiated. In the Pacific, the fund worked with more small-medium businesses. There were fewer larger businesses and the development outreach (also called employees, suppliers or customers by the companies) was smaller. Interestingly, the quality of outreach (the dollars that the beneficiaries earned) was higher. This approach was more consistent with an ‘enterprise development’ objective. In Asia, there was a much larger pool of businesses to work, larger populations of beneficiaries and it was easier to have a “business modification” objective in this environment. An independent review found that a future challenge fund would work well in Asia – and potentially it could be used to incentivise companies to expand into more remote areas; innovate new products for the poor and could potentially go some way to address growing inequality. This also raises a final point that it is important to consider the approach and the context not just at the design but during implementation. In smaller markets, operating a fund targeting only larger companies with a ‘business modification’ objective may quickly reduce the pool of eligible companies to work with – and as it progresses, the fund may need to consider either pulling out or changing objective to work with smaller firms.

Thank you Paul for your comment. Yes, in the words of Machiavelli 'the ends justify the means'. I see this as a challenge for PNG political thinkers to do more research in order to find a workable design capturing the vital elements of both traditional and contemporary political systems.

Thanks Terence for drawing attention to Nancy Qian's paper. It is bemusing that only when an economist makes an argument that adding up aid flows and expecting to draw global evidence of impact is flawed, there is a possibility of 'progress'. But its great that she makes the argument and anyone with experience 'in the field' is likely to agree. My book 'Capacity Across Cultures: Global Lessons from Pacific Experiences' highlights the relevance of diverse cultural values for aid work and thus for impact on poverty or any other developmental result. Cultural values influence perceptions of change, leadership, development, results and many other fundamental elements in the world of aid and development. The manifestation of these values differs in every context so that what works in one, is not likely to work in another. When added to the complexity and diversity of donor motivations mentioned by Qian (commercial and geopolitical), its not surprising that macro-level analysis is thus likely to be relatively meaningless. I'd like to propose that we save money on over-researching macro-economic impact of aid flows and put it into contributing to long-term, respectful, collaborative and learning-focused partnerships on the ground, because we know these are what really make a difference. When there are shared values among people focused on shared objectives, backed up with decent resources, its more likely there will be sensible ways of achieving improvements in development prospects.

In line with Joel's comment regarding the usefulness of regional breakdowns, readers may also be interested in the latest MDG Tracking Report for the Pacific region: http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/2014_Pacific_Regional_MDGs_Tracking_Report.pdf It is fairly clear in its assessment of progress: "Forum island country progress toward achieving the MDGs remains largely unchanged from the status reported in 2013. Only Cook Islands and Niue are on track to achieve all the MDGs, while Palau, Fiji and Tonga are on track to achieve at least four or more of the MDGs. Samoa and Tuvalu are on track to achieve three of the MDGs, with the Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru and Vanuatu on track to achieve two of the MDGs. Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) is likely to achieve only one of the MDGs, while Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are not on track to achieve any of the seven MDGs. With around 500 days left to the 2015 deadline, there is a relatively slim chance that the region’s progress next year will be any different. Even though some countries are continuing with MDG acceleration strategies, it is unlikely that these efforts will be reflected in the data by 2015".