Comments

Oops, sorry Aileen. You're correct, I was referring to Anna's comment. I am with you - the concept of boomerang aid doesn't take into account any of the complexities. Agree with you too Joel, there is a lot of opportunity for strengthening the outcomes for scholarships. But overall, and especially after speaking with alumni, it does seem like a successful development program.

Note to Jen - I said nothing about boomerang aid (that was Anna). I was observing that we probably aren't comparing apples and apples when comparing the Kiribati Nursing program with ADS, and that if we factored in the additional bridging work, the degrees themselves probably have similar costs. Personally, I don't believe in the concept of boomerang aid - it's overly simplistic.

Thank you for bearing witness so eloquently and for the splendid work you do. Are any donors keen to support your work?

Dear Neil, thanks for this nice overview! I agree that Lin does not really provide solutions, but rather a description. However, even the description is contended by authors such as Ha-Joon Chang, who argue that there is too much neoclassical focus in Lin's ideas. Best wishes, Nicolai

Thanks Stephen, even though the introduction makes me sound like a person who is very hard to please, I very much agree with your post! I found it baffling that the evaluation defined capacity building in such narrow terms. Even skill transfer in the most basic sense is a positive and arguably builds capacity in some way. Even if staff or counterparts move on to other jobs or other organisations, as often happens, you are still boosting the range of skills and competencies in the country's human resource pool. I don't really understand why the volunteer program would be the tool you would choose to use for institutional capacity building if it is deemed to be so important, especially since the program by nature focuses more on building 'people to people' links rather than institution or organisational strengthening. Do Australia Awards and other scholarships, for example, aim to build institutional capacity or just the country's human resource capacity more generally?

I have been working on projects that foster community empowerment/participation for the past 15+ years. I can see that aid is effective for all three questions raised by Mr. Ridell. In 90% of cases, in community-based projects people have their immediate needs met, they are upskilled and empowered through the process, and have the ability to move on to their next endeavours once a project ends. They are better off for the experience, new skills and the benefits it brings. I think more focus needs to be on supporting community based projects throughout the life cycle of a project, having better baseline information as well as helping groups monitor/document their own change-management processes and results. Overall, the relatively small amounts of money invested in people helps them not only build their own ongoing support mechanisms with government, NGOS and the private sector, more often than not these projects result in a range of diversified livelihood and on-going community activities that are beneficial for themselves and their area. It's a 'one step at a time' process. Investing in communities is a long-term transformational approach. Particularly if you help them understand how the broader policy and climate context is affecting them, and give them the opportunity to feed into pertinent policy processes. So, at the community/area level I think aid can be very effective. What I often struggle with is how much money goes into developing enormous reports no one reads or uses - or my pet peeve, government and international agency staff attending endless inter/national meetings. There is then the subsequent twists and turns that the groups implementing projects need to make to plan for, or report on, the latest agency objective/trend or international convention. It is exhausting and time-consuming. And I won't even mention the satire that is 'donor harmonisation' and the Paris Declaration. I wonder how much that meeting cost? What has that done to reduce the silo mentality within organisations let alone between different agencies? I have also seen many government officers and others use aid projects to further their own careers and move on to get more lucrative employment elsewhere. You can't blame them when pay and conditions are uninspiring in their national context. This is a really serious issue for the Pacific Islands. Have you ever tried to meet a Minister of Finance from the Pacific? Only to find they travel to meetings about 200 days a year? Or have recently left to do further their studies or career in Australia? I am being over-dramatic - but the change-over in personnel is a real problem. Within a year you can meet with several different people as they change roles and organisations and countries. There is no long term commitment. I think the private sector has an important role to play, but the trickle down effect still doesn't work for the most vulnerable. We should have learnt that much at least over the past 50 years. We don't need to look further than our own back yard to see the effects of a market-led economy. The gap between the rich and poor just grows. There is a fine balance to be had to keep aid effective. There are very good reasons to help other countries with transport, health, food security, energy, environmental management, education and breaking cycles of poverty. I often think if there was more common sense and less ego it would go a long way in helping make aid more effective.

Hi Jen, Great response. I am in the midst of a DFAT funded (but independent) study on the impact of scholarships in Africa. And I just got back from some fieldwork in Mozambique. I have been quite skeptical of scholarships in the past (generally agreeing with Anna's contention that they are of great benefit to Australian institutions and are limited in terms of aid effectiveness) and indeed have written pieces to that effect. But having conducted this fieldwork, I was very impressed by the impact of so-called "soft skills" as you note. All the alumni I interviewed focused on this - seeing how Australia and Australians worked, expectations, cross-cultural communication, directness, etc. While most of the technical skills could be taught just as well (or close to it) in their own universities, the cultural experience can only really be gained in Australia (at home most would study part-time which would further limit their ability to invest fully in study). I still think there are things the Australia Awards program can do to get the balance right but I support what you have emphasised in your post. Joel

I'd like to respond to Aileen's comments about Australia Awards, indicating it's an example of boomerang aid. Although funds are going to Australian universities, I've observed that the scholarships provide real and measurable, good development outcomes in most cases. I know women who studied agriculture at UQ, who are now applying what they learnt in the ministry in Baghdad. I know a Samoan woman who studied at Bond Uni, Indonesians that studied in Sydney, a Kenyan lady who studied in Canberra - all of whom have returned to their home countries and are actively contributing to strengthened public sectors. These individual's stories represent a good investment when compared to the alternatives. As an example, an education at University of Baghdad is unlikely to have produced the same outcome as study within Australia. Part of the scholarship value is also providing an opportunity for future leaders to experience what functioning service delivery looks like - buses that turn up on a schedule, police that turn up to work without taking bribes, road rules that are commonly followed, public amenities, weekly rubbish collection, access to qualified doctors, reliable electricity supplies, hospitals where doctors can only work if qualified, etc. (Things we take for granted.) Then the other longer term benefit of the program is the transnational linkages created and now sustained through the alumni network. The short term and long term development value received from studying at Australian institutions is the reason for continued commitment to the program, rather than some kind of influence you may perceive Australian institutions have over government. (On another note, with regard to the length of time for studies, you may find the additional time relates to pre-requisites for bridging programs and academic preparatory studies.)

Jesse, fascinating article. One element that would be interesting to look at is whilst the investment is large, it seems much of the funding is being spent in Australia. This is one of the huge issues with the Australia Awards (Australian Development Scholarships). If the government were to decide not to continue funding the AAs (unlikely), there would be a massive backlash to the decision from universities who appreciate the healthy addition to their funding pool from the fees paid on behalf of awardees. So whilst it is an aid program, it has a very happy domestic constituency. I would guess this program is similar.

Just further, I checked and the Bachelor of Nursing at Griffith is normally 3 years full-time, not five years. Even with a year off for children, there appears to be more happening to successfully graduate participants than is usual for a scholarship recipient.

Clearly one of the challenges here is also the amount of assistance the I-Kiribati participants need to perform to acceptable standards. To take 3.5 years to achieve a Certificate III - something I understood normally takes six months - means that there is a LOT of work happening prior to the commencement of their studies to ensure they are able to pass - and this is to be expected, the education system in Kiribati not being of a high standard. Your costing may therefore be out if you are comparing it to ADS, where the vast majority of participants are coming in able to study at an expected standard (and where most are quickly sent home when they fail courses). If you factor this additional assistance in, you may find the program more cost-effective than it appears at first.

Thank you for your comment Alistair. You are certainly correct that GIZ has the power and responsibility to improve the situation in the park. And I would add that DFAT does as well. You mentioned that a statement by Dr Henckes is unsupported by any evidence. Unfortunately, there is no evidence available to substantiate how and/or why the situation has occurred at all. One hopes that GIZ and DFAT are currently in the process of collecting that information, they will share it in a transparent manner, and will use it as the basis of substantive action. Cheers, Paul