Comments

Garth, your contributions to the aid debate have not been great. Were you the 'genius' at WVA who got Costello to run around using the $2000 per life figure???????

Hi Tess, Thanks a lot for your comment - both very important points. The first is particularly crucial as challenge funds are seen as 'light-touch', which often translates as 'cheap'. That's why prioritisation across the portfolio is important (which I think ECF did well? I remember not all of your projects went for audit) I also agree with the second point - especially when trying to assess intangible aspects like the additionality of the grant, there's no substitute for good local knowledge. Which also doesn't come cheap, and in many places is hard to find at all... ECF just published a report on their experiences of using the DCED Standard, which is well worth a read - http://www.enterprisechallengefund.org/images/publicationsandreports/Designing%20a%20results%20measurement%20system%20for%20the%20ECF%20Nov%202013.pdf Best wishes Adam

Hi Tess, I agree with your concerns around state-based anti-corruption agencies, they have a pretty poor track record around the world, particularly in developing countries. PNG is trying to learn from these experiences. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy Working Group has compared ‘best practice’ to PNG’s draft Organic Law: http://www.actnowpng.org/sites/default/files/ICAC%20public%20discussion%20paper%20May%202013.pdf. While there are some areas where the draft legislation is in line with ‘best practice’, there are still many concerns – including unease about the proposed ICAC’s independence, accountability, ability to pursue past corruption (eg that uncovered by Taskforce Sweep), and processes around securing resources. I’m also disappointed to see that the ICAC will focus on public officials; I think that far more attention needs to be given to private sector corruption in PNG. Parliament has just passed a constitutional amendment for an ICAC, and we are waiting for the Organic Law to get passed. So, we still don’t know what the final law will look like, or if the ICAC will make it over the remaining legislative hurdles. Having said that, I think that in the short-term an ICAC could be useful. It could play a role in better coordinating anti-corruption responses – a key to Taskforce Sweep’s success. It also has the potential to help augment government processes, and to improve prosecution rates. As our survey suggests these improvements would be welcomed. However, by itself it’s unlikely that ICAC will effect long-lasting change. Sustained change will most likely come from a broader cultural shift. As a part of this, anti-corruption agencies will need to prove (not just promote) that transparency and accountability have tangible pay-offs. This is particularly the case in rural and remote areas, where most of the population live. If the public is convinced that corruption is damaging to resources and social harmony, they will be more likely to support an ICAC and other efforts to address corruption. I’d like to see a lot more discussion on shifting public attitudes towards corruption, and what role donors, state-based organizations, NGOs, and GROs could play in bringing this about. Grant

Thanks for this Adam, it is a really clear exposition of some key principles. As a (former) country manager for ECF I was involved in numerous discussions about appropriate principles for monitoring projects and I would agree that the current iteration of ECF monitoring and evaluation is much improved from how it started with it being a much truer reflection of these standards. I would add two things to this. One is implied in what you have written here but bears explicit statement and that is funders need to be prepared to invest in monitoring and evaluation and be explicit in recognising that it is likely to be expensive. Exciting and innovative projects located in rural areas with limited transportation links will require site visits and these need to be budgeted for up front. The second (and this applies to other stages of challenge fund activity including formulating criteria for selection, designing application procedures) is the need to know and understand the context in which (potentially) participating businesses operate (and remember that challenge funds work with existing businesses so that is a good location of knowledge about these things) - this includes legal, regulatory, political and cultural issues which may have an impact on the ability of a business to participate in the fund or contribute to monitoring activities.

Hi Edward Social networks are important and underpin our communities. I wanted to clarify that my comment didn't intend any disrespect toward the wantok system. As you've said, it does come down to the context - the context in which a network is operating and how the it's being utilised. Cheers Jen

Hi Grant You're most welcome to use the Robin Hood analogy :). By framing it with a legend familiar to our culture, I think it makes it easier to relate/understand others' perceptions. Cheers Jen

Two points are worth noting with regards to the comments on overheads. 1. Delivering aid well is hard and success requires staff. The best overheads ratio isn't the lowest but rather the ratio the allows time for staff to learn context, engage with evidence and make informed decisions, while not being wasteful. There's no reason to think the current ratio errs on the wasteful side of the line. 2. OCED data on overheads (unless they have changed since I last looked into this) are based on self-reporting and different countries call different things overheads. Something that renders international comparisons largely meaningless.

I wonder what the millions of people who still can't get AIDS or TB treatment because of a shortage of funding think about the quality of the discussions about aid in our Parliament?

Hi Edward, Nice to hear from you. I'm with you on the importance of context. Although there are also many similarities in the way Papua New Guineans and Westerners understand corruption. It's worth remembering that most respondents were unsympathetic to the scenarios. I think that it is important to understand these similarities when seeking to engage citizens in the fight against corruption. Cheers, Grant

Thanks Jen, interesting comments. Some of the responses do suggest a kind of Robin Hood approach to redistributing gains from corruption, although I most condemned all forms of corruption. I might just borrow the Robin Hood concept for upcoming papers though...hope you don't mind...it's rather catchy. Thanks!! Grant

Thanks for your comment Michael, great to get your views. First, I agree that a small-scale studies of corruption is inadequate to understand the complexities of corruption. But, given the difficulties of measuring corruption and understanding its impacts, so are all attempts to research it. The problem with most research into corruption to date is that it has relied on the perceptions of elites (see TI’s Corruption Perception’s Index, Bribe Payers’ Index, the World Bank’s World Governance Indicators, etc). Many researchers assume that we know what corruption is and it is ultimately bad for all involved, so there is no point in understanding it from a citizen’s point of view. As a result, there is a paucity of research into what ‘corruption’ means for poor people. So while small-scale research might be inadequate to capture the totality of a broad concept like corruption, right now it is absolutely necessary. Without this analysis we will continue to come to the problem informed only/mostly by elite views. Moreover, understanding the views of the poor and marginalised should be a key concern for all of us engaged in the practice/study of development. For too long development has overlooked the views of those it is ostensibly meant to help – much to the detriment of people in developing countries. The problem with your assumption that the ‘silent masses’ would think in a particular way is that, given the support for some of the types of practices described in the study across PNG, it is likely that we would find similar results elsewhere. (Although possibly less so with urbanites, who make up a minority of the PNG population). I’m also aware that future generations are likely to suffer from today’s corruption, as are many Papua New Guineans judging by the household survey we conducted. But future generations are also likely to be subject to the same pressures of today’s Papua New Guineans, making it doubly important to understand how poverty and culture influence people’s support/rejection of corruption. Having said this, it is very difficult to speak for future generations; it’s a group whose views are impossible to survey (I’m ruling out time travel). We’ve only got people alive today to participate in our research. Second, the sympathetic respondents (who, it should be noted were a minority) did more than showing us that those who engage in corruption benefit from it. They highlight why corruption can be justified, and the difficulties that anti-corruption agencies face in changing these views. Anti-corruption efforts often focus the blame for corruption on those involved in corrupt acts. This sounds right, but it might be inadequate for garnering popular support against corruption. It also overlooks the structural violence of the state (and, it might be argued, other actors), through failing to provide essential services to the poor and marginalised. Given this, providing a link between acting ‘ethically’ and tangible development might help create better conditions for people to reject corruption. I’m not guaranteeing this will work, but I think it’s an option worth considering/testing. The relevance of such options, I think, only become apparent when garnering the views of local people and believing what they say. Of course, no one wants to encourage ‘corruption’, but we must be mindful about how it is defined across time and space. As James Scott (1972) points out many acts that the west now decries as corrupt were a part of conquering colonial regimes of the past. Likewise, the rules around developers supporting political parties has changed in the past few years in NSW. Was this type of transfer always corrupt, or only when it was legislated against due to public pressure? I think we need to be mindful of these issues if corruption is to be meaningfully addressed with the support of citizenry. Thanks again, Grant

It's more than a little mind-boggling that the PM can suggest that cutting aid is "not at odds with any aspect of foreign policy". The statement: "Redirecting flagged future increases in spending from foreign aid to domestic infrastructure should actually boost our influence in the region when it helps to bring about the stronger economy on which our international standing rests" would seem to suggest that spending on domestic infrastructure should be the primary means of enhancing foreign policy clout. (Leaving to one side, of course, whether the domestic infrastructure that is currently prioritised is the best bang for the buck in terms of domestic growth.) Interesting, too, that while aid has been subject to this fairly ruthless calculus, defence spending (where there is a timetabled target for increase as a proportion of GNI to 2% within a decade) is quarantined.