Comments

Hey there Ash, A great post and an interesting read. It is so important to hear thoughtful reflection from people such as yourself, who have experienced these things and had time to synthesise learnings. One thing the evaluation, Stephen's blogs and yours all highlight to me is the problem caused by a neglect to define 'capacity development' in the early stages of any intervention, or in this case, volunteer placement. As you suggest, coming to shared expectations is essential. I would think this would involve arriving at a shared meaning for what capacity development means in relation to any particular intervention. I worked on a reasonably large project that actually had 'capacity building' in its title but had no in-built, articulated concept of what capacity building meant in terms of the project and what was realistic to achieve. This caused so many challenges along the way. For example, what I thought were successes in capacity development were not necessarily viewed as such by others involved in the project because they were looking at things from a different idea of capacity development. (This was particularly so because I saw the loss of some 'capacities' as a success.) So I don't think ditching capacity development is necessarily the way to go, because I think it has use as a concept and an approach. Rather, I think a useful way forward is much as you suggest - for any activity, creating a shared understanding of what capacity and its development means for the people involved (particularly the host organisation), and what change might look like. This might actually mean just having an individual fill a role for a time.

Thank you for pointing that out Terence. The paper argues in its conclusion for further development of alternative metrics due to the lack of correlation between SWB and income levels. I cited this in the posting, however, it is true that the researchers found a correlation between SWB and increases in income and other factors which they explore and which seem consistent with other studies of SWB. The main take-away from that piece, for me, was the justification for non-monetary metrics to be developed given that the SWB data collected in their research does not behave the same way it does in other parts of the world. The paper does not test our Alternative Indicators of Well-being. Best, Jamie

Hi Jamie, Thank you for sharing an interesting piece of work on alternative indicators for measuring well-being in the Pacific. When it comes to well-being concerns in the Pacific, the issues are doubly complex. Because the notion of measuring well-being in monetary terms through consumption or income is still relatively foreign. When in fact a significant share of the population in the Pacific still rely on self-produced or procured resources from land (often communal) and sea. Existence of poverty measured in monetary terms would imply the failure of the traditional networks of support that exist across the Pacific, making it a culturally sensitive topic! Not only that but current measures of poverty in the Pacific still rely on household-level data as the basis for estimating the number of people living below the poverty line. This is problematic and arguably hide rather than reveal the extent of poverty among women and men within the same household. Such measures of poverty, which focuses on income alone and on the household as a unit, ignores intra-household disparities because the ways in which women and men relate to material resources, are grounded in their different social relations and positions in communities and societies at large. There’s already some research done in this area in six countries (Angola, Fiji, Indonesia, Malawi, Mozambique and the Philippines) as part of a Australian Research Council-funded linkage research project Assessing Development: Designing Better Indices of Poverty and Gender Equity. The project website www.genderpovertymeasure.org provides a wealth of information about the research including the people and organisations involved, methodology, data analysis, and country reports. The project has concluded with a first trial of a newly developed gender-sensitive measure of poverty in the Philippines. But further trialling of the gender sensitive poverty measure is needed in different contexts of the Pacific to provide comparable data across the region and refine measures of well-being taking into consideration such studies like the Vanuatu one to the point where it can be readily integrated into national and regional systems of social valuation. Thanks Priya

Re-posting this comment as wordpress swallowed my last effort. Hi Jamie, Thank you for a very interesting blog post. In it you write that: "A number of academic papers have referenced the report since its launch. One notable example of academic testing and application of the alternative indicators can be found in a recent paper by Simon Feeny, Lachlan McDonald and Alberto Posso of the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University. The paper explored the relationship between poverty and happiness using data from Solomon Islands and Vanuatu that revealed a critical shortcoming of traditional monetary poverty indicators. Contrary to what is found to be true in Western developed countries, the level of income does not explain variation in happiness in either of these Melanesian countries, leading the authors to conclude that “the quest for alternative indicators of well-being in the region is therefore well justified". However, the abstract of the paper you link to states that: "The focus is on whether those living in poverty are less happy. Findings indicate that wealth, increases in income, relative income, and living on communally owned land are all positively associated with happiness. Household size and food insecurity have a negative association. There is also strong support for poor households being less happy." I haven't read the whole paper yet (although I will, thank you for linking to it). However, your statement and the abstract's claims seem very hard to reconcile. Cheers Terence

A significant point not highlighted here but which I have seen referenced elsewhere is the importance of investing in undertaking this type of assessment at all stages by the aid agency. There are two aspects to this. One is that the aid agency should be investing in this in order to maximise value for money and to be able to collect information to feed into future decisions about how and where allocations should or should not be made. Another aspect is that aid agencies must take care not to shift the burden of this type of assessment onto businesses. This is of particular importance in the Pacific island region, where businesses are small with limited capacity - in some cases the senior management team comprises one or two people. Agency staff need to have the requisite skills to be able to use reports that the business generates for internal purposes as the basis of assessment of additionality (and other things) rather than creating new and burdensome processes.

This piece from Bomai D Witne provides an interesting addition to this discussion in terms of how money politics plays out in communities and strategies employed by (aspirant) candidates and electors in order to participate to (perceived) best effect: http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2014/05/the-wiles-guiles-of-national-election-campaigns-in-png.html

Jo, I agree with you that putting someone in an in-line position might be an effective, perhaps the most effective, way to build capacity. But it would be unlikely that you placed a volunteer in such a position with the main purpose of building capacity. Rather, you'd put them there because you need someone to fill the position. That's one reason why it doesn't make sense to give as much weight to capacity development as a goal for the volunteer program as this evaluation does.

Thanks for your comment Paul. About the 2% defence spending target, I know that there are some in the defence community that are in favour of additional spending but would rather not have the target. The rapid increases in spending associated with the target (if they eventuate) can undermine strategic planning and significantly reduce bang for buck. It is interesting that you raise the issue of bang for buck in relation to aid spending but not for defence, especially when the 0.5% target for aid is not on the agenda. I think that the cuts to aid are partly driven by push back from those that think the ramp-up to the 0.5% target was either excessive or not value for money. There is a lot that the defence community can learn from this experience. On Hockey's statement, I'd rather save my ammunition for a later blog but I do note that it seems to resonate with a large number of people. I agree with your view about a more transparent and accountable approach to aid but recent changes do not seem to be positive in this regard (for example, see Stephen Howes' budget blog). DFAT has taken on a big responsibility as managers of the aid program despite never having managed spending of this magnitude. DFAT can value add on a number of fronts in relation to aid effectiveness but transparency, open debate, reduced insularity, rigorous monitoring and evaluation, risk taking, and evidence based approaches need to be further developed in the department.

Whether Australia actually meets Defence spending of 2% GDP or not the future that is still 50% below the traditional levels of last Century where 3% was the expected norm. The likely cost increases due to fluctuations in exchange rates will probably take up significantly more funds than what is budgeted for future Defence spending. Foreign aid spending levels are very ephemeral in nature since they have never really been related to realistic long term and sustainable goals. Boomerang aid projects come to mind as well. The point Hockey makes about why we give aid to countries who then give aid to other countries is well made. If we are to try and give 0.5% of our GDP to other nations we need to establish some ground rules about how the money is spent and what bang we get for our buck and whether the end result is what we want? At the risk of raising the ire of the foreign aid fraternity, current protestations are just that. What is actually required here is a genuine and accountable formula for providing aid that makes a real difference to those we give it to and not just to line the bank accounts of those who are possibly using the money to indirectly stay in power while at the same time absolve themselves of the responsibility to properly govern their country. Most Australians have no idea about where their foreign aid goes but moan about extra taxes that actually provide the funds for foreign aid. What is required is a more transparent allocation system that provides feedback answers to everyday Australians about what their taxes actually are being used for. The objectiveness of many aid projects in other countries may well not sit well with the Australian people if they were aware of what they are actually funding and how sustainable these projects have been in the past. A black hole indeed!

Tony, This is insightful analysis. It’s clear that aid has become a soft target for politicians looking for cost savings. I wonder what it would take to make it more difficult to cut aid. Protest? Lobbying? The 'aged lobby' has been successful in raising pensions in the past; perhaps there are some lessons to be learnt from their efforts? Until there is a more concerted effort to push back against aid cuts, I’m afraid the Australian aid industry will face further downsizing.

Is this special treatment or an insult to other Pasifika people? It would help to take the signs off. It intends to fool the PNG and Nauru people. The signs portray such a strong message that it not inserts other Pacific Island visitors but place Australia in the spotlight. This is what these signs say, "only certain group of people in the Pacific are wanted. The rest of you in the region can do whatever you want while in Australia, we don't need you". Perhaps it would be smart to remove the signs as it only insults the intelligence of the Pacific people. Whoever thought of such an idea should do themselves a favour and remove the signs. It pays to start work on a better solution which the SPC has tried in the past but failed because of such arrogance.

Agree that a "cooling saucer" would be a nice tool to have in parliament.....talking about world records in PNG we can pass bills at the speed of light. Would be good to put a brake on this exuberance..........