Comments

Thanks for this post Mel, I think it raises some significant points. There definitely needs to be a means to harness the experience and thinking of managing contractors and the consultants they place within aid projects at the concept and design stages. They do not necessarily have all the answers and indeed they may not have any of the answers but they may have some pertinent questions that can add value at many stages before tenders are released or TORs are advertised. I have lost count of the number of consultancy assignments I have looked at and then tossed aside because they fall into the category of "well I wouldn't be starting from here" and the thought of trying to impress upon anyone (including, but not limited to, managing contractors) why they should be changed in order to improve the quality or effectiveness of the exercise is just too tiring to contemplate. But, ranting aside, I think we need to recognise that we are all involved in these activities because we care about what we do and we care about doing it well. There are some opportunities for those of us who are interested in thinking and innovating in whatever sector to come together to contest ideas rather than compete for work, but there could be more and let's hope that there are.

All major aid donors have their own specialised aid agencies, staffed with development assistance professionals designing, implementing and assessing their assistance programs. Even the relatively small aid donor countries in Scandinavia. If the idea to reintegrate AusAID into DFAT comes from New Zealand (where it seems that decision is still being contested), it needs to be remembered that New Zealand is not a major aid donor, and there are many aid situations where New Zealand has no program and not even a presence. So what is good enough for New Zealand is certainly not good enough for Australia! Importantly, these aid agencies everywhere act as an advocate and resource base for international development assistance. One of the less well-known aspects of AusAID’s role in Australian Government administration is to be the repository of professional expertise and domestic advocacy about development assistance. This role has become more important, inevitably but not necessarily deliberately, since the UN's Millennium Summit and the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000. As a corollary of this, AusAID also had responsibility for representing the Australian Government on aid matters internationally: in an increasing number of international conferences, in consultations with other donor countries, and at various international agencies overseeing development assistance. While AusAID staff currently assigned to the management boards of the World Bank in Washington, the Asian Development Bank in Manila, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee in Paris and the UN in New York may remain in place, their effectiveness will gradually be reduced, and Australia’s voice weakened over time as Australian development assistance expertise declines. Over the years, AusAID has earned considerable respect and recognition as an active and worthy contributor to conversations about international aid. In 1999, I witnessed its warm reception into dialogues with the aid bureaucracy of Japan, which has long been a major aid donor in the Asia-Pacific region. Recently, in Myanmar - where the challenge for all donors has been to capitalise on political openings to increase aid flows quickly - AusAID has acted as a partner with the British aid agency, the Department for International Development (DfID), to lead sectoral multi-donor initiatives. These are just the sort of 'global partnerships' called for in the Labor Government’s 2011 Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness. But it is highly unlikely that AusAID would be able to continue such activities once it is ‘integrated' into DFAT. One of the losers if this occurred would be the Australian nation.

Interesting findings - can you give us access to the report as it doesn't seem available on the Boston University website that you referred to previously?

Ariel This is a very interesting read so thanks for sharing. What I find most interesting is that this seems very much about the role of influence and persuasion and maybe social networks are just part of a delivery/dissemination solution. Your closing comment that by “working with farmers typical of each community (rather than those we may typically think would be influential)” you can get greater gains, is particularly interesting when considering the science of persuasion and influence – to whom we must credit Professor Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University. There are a number of dimensions to positive influence, and two in particular are of relevance to your example: seeing in others ourselves (the typical farmer in this example); and, seeing what others are doing (community in your example). I am sure these two elements played a great role in this success. Similarly, the gift of information (even if incentivised), and the importance of being an authority in the subject matter I am sure also contributed - as they are another two core dimensions of influence. There is no doubt in my mind that well considered, ethical and positive influence is one of, if not the most, powerful tool of development. Thanks again for taking the time to share this experience. M

Hi Kiki, A significant portion of Australian Aid goes through partner systems (e.g. directly to the Government of the partner country to manage). In line with a policy move away from tied aid - contracts for managing aid are also tendered internationally. While locally owned initiatives are crucial - there are a myriad examples of locally-owned initiatives that are ineffective, corrupt, distorted by politics etc. Development is complex - and no one solution is going to make a difference.

The increases in access and quality are much greater as a percentage, than the cost increase. There are many ways to look at the costs- for example, including capital expenditures, which would have occurred in any case because the hospital needed to be replaced, or looking only at increases in operating expenditures. The full report from Boston University is available on http://www.linkedin.com under Neelam Sekhri Feachem. Endline Report Lesotho final report. If you can not get it from there, please let me know and I will find another way to provide access to the report since it has not been posted yet on BU's or World Bank sites.

Thanks Jane. Very interested to read the report - but the link just goes to a general project page. Do you know the direct link?

Has AusAID fulfilled its objective since establishment? For an Australian who has never been to a recipient country, the answer is certainly yes. For the recipient country? No, or maybe it did. Here is the reason. All AusAID projects are managed by Australian companies and their partners, hence a good portion of the funding goes to remuneration and profits. The best metaphor is a boomerang. The recipient country is left with an asset that it cannot maintain and the asset falls apart, whether it be a tool or infrastructure. Lots of the projects/programs are driven by politics, onshore and offshore, and in many cases AusAID uses the model that has worked in Australia and applies it to the developing nation. Some do not have the essential components or budget to maintain or continue the initiative by AusAID. Tony Abbott knows something and he has the prerogative to review the function of AusAID. Rename the agency for a good start and so make AusAID history, and restructure it under the umbrella of DFAT. Solution: identify the problem and design a sustainable project/program with the locals (not in Australia) and let them be the owners and drive it. It may take years. Start with education.

Hi Rob, the link to the evaluation report is <a href="http://www.bu.edu/cghd/our-work/projects/evaluation-of-the-queen-mamohato-memorial-hospital-public-private-partnership-ppp-in-lesotho/" rel="nofollow">available here</a>, so you can access the information on costs and the full report.

Hi Nik, Thanks for your comment. I agree that reframing masculinities in a way that doesn't come off as 'man bashing' is very important... and an extremely difficult thing to achieve. The report gave some examples of how this could be done -- for example, through the promotion of ideas of positive fatherhood, men in caring roles, the use of positive male role models. One of the things that struck me from this report was the early age that men and boys started to perpetrate rape. So perhaps there is potential in trying to promote different notions of masculinity in early childhood education and primary school and to start to change some gender stereotypes through that (once again though, difficult to do in developing countries with education systems that are often struggling to teach the basics--and this kind of approach would also need community buy-in). Improved sexual and reproductive health education could also be one way to deliver more accurate information about sex and respectful relationships, and to address socially ingrained ideas of male sexual entitlement. You are right that there is likely a strong historical element to this, and the 'tough guy' ideal is very much perpetuated in a lot of pop culture and through media (new, social and old)--as are sexualised images of girls and women. So it's hard to counter these loud, flashy messages. Educating those who create media and bringing them on board as partners (or even introducing standards or codes) could be another option. I think it's a difficult and slow process that requires innovation and a variety of approaches--and it needs to be done hand in hand with other interventions, such as ending cultures of impunity around violence against women and providing women and men with appropriate health services and information. And it's something that definitely needs to be done with men as partners in the process.

Eve teasing to physical torture are all about a sense of ability to overpower the weaker who are taken for granted. Overpowering can be in many forms and can have varied reasons some of which even may not be directly linked to the victim. Reasons are going to stay for a long time and can be smoothed only with decades of corrective efforts. The biggest challenge is how to combat overpowering so that one dare not bring the intention in mind? Already many countries have taken steps through implementation of toll free rescue numbers, stringent punishments if one proved guilty but these steps may not stop one from immediate reaction to overpower the weaker. By the time actions initiate, the weaker might already been overpowered. Definitely then something weaker has to only do. Weaker has to devise new ways to secure, quick ways to inform so that threats can be controlled if not omitted. With this, weaker may not then any more be considered as weaker and taken for granted stamp will slowly disappear. As a society then we have to cull out innovative practices to support the currently weaker section of mankind and help them devising ways of their own to face the every day challenges. It has to be more of pulling exercise that need to be brought in rather than pushing of laws, policing and other stuff.

Robin, The logic of what has happened makes little sense. If we start with the preface that FA and aid are integrated (it is a fact and in that regard I agree with you - not an ideal world but that is the reality and we need to deal with it). Then as you say Aid is an essential part of the diplomatic tool kit. In the modern world AusAID is competing with new and relatively well funded development partners in the sphere for global influence. Therefore, announcing a massive cut and re-organisation is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. It sends the message to partners that Australia has no long terms plans, it has little money and therefore you are better off looking elsewhere. Before folk argue otherwise - I know the cut is actually to growth but the way this has been communicated with the "freezing" of programs across the region is a bit of PR disaster. It would have been better to call it a focused re-prioritization whereby key areas (I guess in the Pacific and Asia) would be given greater emphasis over others. Diplomatically that would have been better. Alas the first move by FA has shown exactly why many feared the move would be a retrograde step - it has actually been a diplomatic and communication faux pas no matter which side of the debate one stands. I expect the next announcements to be somewhat more positive in tone - but let's see !