Comments

I think a more reasoned article with examples from a broader range of countries would have been more persuasive. Oh, and maybe one not written by the CEOs of companies who would most likely be first in line to pick up tender documents.....

This example from one hospital experience in a small country should only be one example shared with the Ministry of Health in PNG as they struggle to make the most effective, efficient and equitable policy choices for their population. The case studies shared with the Ministry should include the very negative experiences that many developed and transition countries have had, in trying to establish PPIs to deliver health care. Countries such as the UK, Bangladesh and many countries in Latin America have invested in these PPI agreements, with specifically negative impacts on quality accountability and access for the poor. Health care does not work well under neo-liberial marketing principles. The example that should be shared with the Minister of Health in PNG is the history of how Sri Lanka has managed and financed their health system, one of the few good health systems at low cost in the world. They have positive health outcomes focusing on the principles of Alma Ata, focusing on equity of access, active engagement of the population and a multisectoral approach. The same principles that Margaret Chan and the World Health Assembly endorsed as a key approach for achieving universal coverage of health care in the 2008 World Health Report. Please share these references with the PNG MInistry: <a href="http://www.who.int/whr/2008/en/" rel="nofollow">World Health Report 2008: Primary Health Care: now more than ever</a> and Save the Children's report on Sri Lanka: <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/bucking_the_trend_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bucking the trend, good health at low cost: Sri Lanka's policy lessons for the 21st century</a> and finally the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's book on <a href="http://ghlc.lshtm.ac.uk/files/2011/10/GHLC-book.pdf" rel="nofollow">Good Health at Low Cost</a>. These should all be offered to the Minister to read.

Thanks for this post and raising this important topic. A related conversation is that relating to Development Impact Bonds as put forward by the Center for Global Development and which you can follow <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/blog/development-impact-bonds-comments-welcome" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

PNG needs a good transparent media, to cover the events both good and bad across the country. This will expose and educate the average person about the development. They can make their minds about the "good" and "bad" corruption. Public office belongs to the people of PNG not the handful of those who have the privilege to hold public offices When they make decisions and take actions to benefit the country it will be applauded.

It is not a surprise that the highlands highway from Lae to Kassam Pass will be better than the rest of the highway. The reason is simple. The Markham Valley is flat and has good drains. The second reason is land compensation demands. This has to be resolved before any development infrastructure proceeds.

Thanks to both of you for this realistic assessment of the current level of Australian aid. Interestingly, despite the much higher aid levels in the UK, opinion surveys show that in both countries around 60% of the public have an exaggerated view of the share of the budget that goes to aid. In Australia only 1.4% of the budget goes to aid and a slightly higher percentage in the UK (as their total budget is a larger share of GNI). Yet in both countries a majority think it is much higher. When asked to nominate what share should go to aid a majority of the public in both countries propose levels that are significantly higher than are currently provided (for example see ComRes 2012 UK Overseas Aid Survey for ONE Campaign and Quantum 2009 World Vision Australia Island Nation Survey). In fact when we inform Australians that our current levels of aid are only 1.4% of the budget or 0.37% of national income their usual response is "we can do better than that". <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWtAukUPIY" rel="nofollow">This video</a> sums up the typical response.

Good article Joel. I don't think AusAID should follow DFID slavishly though. And I feel they are now and not necessarily learning from the mistakes DFID has made over the years. For example, value for money analysis is just hitting AusAID. But DFID has made a hash of this one, so will AusAID travel the same route? Counting beans? I would also add that AusAID is becoming DFAT-ised by stealth. It might still be an autonomous agency but the senior executive is largely ex-DFAT. Best, Cate

<a href="http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/01/win-west-papua-melanesia" rel="nofollow">This item</a> from Jason McLeod in New Matilda is (not surprisingly) quite strident - he claims that West Papua is now an international issue and reiterates the growing political significance of the MSG: In February, whilst in Canberra, I heard a Melanesian expert say that West Papua was a non-issue. It may or may not be that in the fullness of time that will be shown to be the case but at this particular moment, it is very much an issue in our part of the world.

Joel, I think you are right that support is wide and not deep, but this applies in all donor countries. When we survey Australians about their support of government aid 80% are in favour (eg see World Vision Australia 2009 Island Nation). This is a very similar figure to the UK and to most other donor nations (eg see UKaid 2010 Public Attitudes Towards Development) . While most people support aid to help people in poverty, I think it is quite understandable that the strength of this support is less than for issues close to home such as roads and hospitals that more immediately affect themselves and their families. It may be that the public are better informed in the UK (after all they have Richard Curtis), but I don't think the survey evidence suggests that levels of public support are higher. Given that aid makes up such a small proportion of the budget (only about 1.4% now and around 2% when we reach 0.5% of GNI) decisions about levels of government aid are generally made by a small number of senior MPs and bureaucrats. This means there is a tenuous relationship between public opinion in countries and levels of government aid. Around 80% of Australians are supportive of government aid and, when asked, they propose that aid spending should be significantly more than 2% of the budget. However it has been a battle to get Australian Government leaders to lift our relatively low levels of aid. Perhaps the difference between aid levels in the UK and Australia has more to do with the strength of aid campaigning in the two countries, or the beliefs of a small number of senior government MPs and/or perhaps it is a just a quirk of the different politics in the two countries.

Just to update Stephen's post, it seems that the issue has received some coverage in the Australian media today. In The Age: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/australianindonesian-carbon-project-abandoned-20130702-2p98w.html" rel="nofollow">Australian-Indonesian carbon project abandoned</a> ABC: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-02/government-ends-ausaid-reforestation-program-in-indonesia/4794554" rel="nofollow">Government ends AusAID reforestation program in Indonesia</a>

There clearly are methodology and applicability issues with the indicators, but it looks as though the Bank is being persuaded to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Particularly disturbing is the Panel's argument that the employing workers indicator should be abandoned because labour market regulation may contribute to reducing inequality. Such regulations may or may not reduce inequality (that is a proposition that would need pretty careful testing) but that is beside the point. Many of the other interventions covered by the Doing Business indicators may in principle serve useful regulatory functions: but if they are badly designed and poorly administered, the costs they impose are matter of policy concern. And the Doing Business indicators have been useful in prompting governments to consider if they could achieve business regulatory goals at lower cost.

Hi Garth, Thanks for your comments. With regard to the comment on support for aid: my impression is more from personal experience and discussions with people in Australia though I cannot confess to having my fingers on the pulse of all of Australia! Conversations I have about aid and development and developing countries here have led me to believe that understanding and support is relatively shallow. Perhaps the expression "a mile wide but an inch deep" captures it to some degree. Additionally, the quality of the public discussion (in blogs, newspapers, etc) about development in the UK is, to my mind, stronger than it is here (though devpolicy.org has certainly started to make important inroads there). You probably have a better sense of the situation and levels of support so I would be pleased to be corrected! Joel