Brookings Institute measure of aid effectiveness.
http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/aid_effectiveness/quoda?p=i&d=23,18,32,12,19
http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/aid_effectiveness/quoda?p=i&d=23,18,32,12,19
Showing posts with label foreign aid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign aid. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Saturday, 11 February 2012
Helpers in a hostile world: the risk of aid work grows
Some 242 aid workers were killed in 2010, up from 91 a decade before. Is 'humanitarian space' shrinking, or are aid groups spreading out to more conflict zones than before?
Friday, 9 December 2011
Saturday, 3 September 2011
Fragile states: measuring what makes a good pooled fund
Tinpot countries play donors off against each other.
The practice of pooling funds from multiple donors into a single instrument is becoming an increasingly popular method of delivering aid to fragile states.
This Project Briefing introduces a potential tool for scoring the effectiveness of individual pooled funds, allowing for their systematic comparison. The briefing goes on to score and compare funds in Afghanistan, Liberia and South Sudan, demonstrating how the tool can be used to identify good practice.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Somali Famine & Al-Shabaab
Has the famine weakened al-Shabaab in any way?
Does this present an opportunity to stabilize the country?
If al-Shabaab was a cohesive organization and it was serious about averting humanitarian crisis in southern Somalia, then there would have been an opportunity. The problem is that you have a string of factions of al-Shabaab; you don't know who speaks for al-Shabaab. Even engaging them on the question of provisions of humanitarian supplies to the vulnerable populations in southern Somalia is no longer credible, because you don't know how senior or powerful that interlocutor is. Unless we know the power configurations within al-Shabaab, unless we know who calls the shots and who is in charge, it will be difficult for this crisis to have a peace dividend.
Do you think the international community is doing enough to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Somalia and the rest of the Horn? And what more can they do?
For more, see here.
Al-Shabaab has been enormously weakened by this crisis. Many are blaming al-Shabaab for catalyzing the [crisis] by locking out aid agencies. Al-Shabaab has been under enormous pressure from clan leaders in the region to act fast, but they have been dragging their feet, and when they reacted it was probably too late. Tens of thousands of children have already died. Tens of thousands of people have fled as refugees to eastern Kenya and southeastern Ethiopia. Many in Somalia, even those who initially supported al-Shabaab, are now blaming them and seeing them as culpable in this crisis.
Does this present an opportunity to stabilize the country?
If al-Shabaab was a cohesive organization and it was serious about averting humanitarian crisis in southern Somalia, then there would have been an opportunity. The problem is that you have a string of factions of al-Shabaab; you don't know who speaks for al-Shabaab. Even engaging them on the question of provisions of humanitarian supplies to the vulnerable populations in southern Somalia is no longer credible, because you don't know how senior or powerful that interlocutor is. Unless we know the power configurations within al-Shabaab, unless we know who calls the shots and who is in charge, it will be difficult for this crisis to have a peace dividend.
Potentially there is an opportunity that you may cut a deal with one faction or another. But what if you have a faction that doesn't like it, that creates its own challenges. As long as al-Shabaab is fragmented and deeply divided as a group, the possibilities of engagement for a positive result are very remote. Many had hoped that engaging al-Shabaab on humanitarian corridors and a ceasefire for a brief period [would] kick-start a positive dynamic. But I don't think we are there.
Do you think the international community is doing enough to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Somalia and the rest of the Horn? And what more can they do?
For more, see here.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Terence Wood on the foreign aid debate
Aid is no panacea: it can’t solve all the problems of the world by any means. But it can, and does, help. Similarly economic growth has an important role to play. Yet economic growth isn’t everything either, and even in its absence some good can be done.
Terence Wood is a PhD student at ANU. Prior to commencing study he worked for the New Zealand government aid programme.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
When having a strong economy is not enough...
Harold Mitchell is the chairman of CARE Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/when-having-a-strong-economy-is-not-enough--20110724-1hvez.html#ixzz1TM9xK9XD
THERE is a lot of fuzzy thinking about Australia's foreign aid. It is time to be much clearer about what aid can and can't achieve.
Hugh White, on this page last Tuesday ("Economic growth, not foreign aid, is overcoming long-term poverty in the world"), asked why Australia was increasing its aid program when poverty was actually being beaten by economic growth.
...Papua New Guinea has seen strong economic growth over the past five years, but it is not clear that it is being translated into lower levels of poverty.
Economic growth needs to be coupled with effective government institutions, a vibrant civil society and with a population that can take advantage of the opportunities that economic growth may provide.
Aid has played an important role in enabling poor people to take advantage of economic growth. About 80 per cent of children in developing countries now get basic vaccinations. About half these vaccinations are funded through aid programs. Millions of children are studying in schools funded by aid, with school books delivered by aid programs. These children often eat school lunches funded by aid, too. This aid often leverages greater efficiency and effectiveness in government resources through better tender processes and improving policies.
...
...Without basic healthcare and a decent education, economic growth passes you by.
About 60 per cent of aid from all donors goes to support these basic improvements in the living standards of ordinary people who just haven't had the chances Australians take for granted.
About 22 per cent of all aid goes to support economic growth by providing infrastructure, improving agriculture and so on. A further 12 per cent responds to humanitarian crises, such as the current terrible drought and famine in east Africa.
...
First, let's remember that economic growth is powerful, but it takes a long time. If a country's economy grows by 7 per cent a year for a decade, then its economy will double. If your population grows at the same time, say around 3 per cent, then the resources per person won't double and it might take 15 years or more for this to happen. So for a country such as Indonesia, with a GDP per person of around $3000, it will take many decades of sustained economic growth for it to reach Australia's level of $55,600. In the meantime, I think it makes sense for Australia to make a contribution to help the Indonesian people overcome poverty.
Second, economic growth is never distributed evenly. Government policies need to promote growth and at the same time provide services to everyone. Poor countries with very limited resources just can't do this; nor can poor families. That is why many poor families in developing countries don't send all their children to school. It is usually the daughters who stay at home doing housework or helping on farms or in shops. When they miss out on even a basic education, they are set up for a lifetime of disadvantage. By focusing our aid on those who are most disadvantaged, particularly women, they are more able to seize the opportunities of a growing economy.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/when-having-a-strong-economy-is-not-enough--20110724-1hvez.html#ixzz1TM9xK9XD
THERE is a lot of fuzzy thinking about Australia's foreign aid. It is time to be much clearer about what aid can and can't achieve.
Hugh White, on this page last Tuesday ("Economic growth, not foreign aid, is overcoming long-term poverty in the world"), asked why Australia was increasing its aid program when poverty was actually being beaten by economic growth.
...Papua New Guinea has seen strong economic growth over the past five years, but it is not clear that it is being translated into lower levels of poverty.
Economic growth needs to be coupled with effective government institutions, a vibrant civil society and with a population that can take advantage of the opportunities that economic growth may provide.
Aid has played an important role in enabling poor people to take advantage of economic growth. About 80 per cent of children in developing countries now get basic vaccinations. About half these vaccinations are funded through aid programs. Millions of children are studying in schools funded by aid, with school books delivered by aid programs. These children often eat school lunches funded by aid, too. This aid often leverages greater efficiency and effectiveness in government resources through better tender processes and improving policies.
...
...Without basic healthcare and a decent education, economic growth passes you by.
About 60 per cent of aid from all donors goes to support these basic improvements in the living standards of ordinary people who just haven't had the chances Australians take for granted.
About 22 per cent of all aid goes to support economic growth by providing infrastructure, improving agriculture and so on. A further 12 per cent responds to humanitarian crises, such as the current terrible drought and famine in east Africa.
...
First, let's remember that economic growth is powerful, but it takes a long time. If a country's economy grows by 7 per cent a year for a decade, then its economy will double. If your population grows at the same time, say around 3 per cent, then the resources per person won't double and it might take 15 years or more for this to happen. So for a country such as Indonesia, with a GDP per person of around $3000, it will take many decades of sustained economic growth for it to reach Australia's level of $55,600. In the meantime, I think it makes sense for Australia to make a contribution to help the Indonesian people overcome poverty.
Second, economic growth is never distributed evenly. Government policies need to promote growth and at the same time provide services to everyone. Poor countries with very limited resources just can't do this; nor can poor families. That is why many poor families in developing countries don't send all their children to school. It is usually the daughters who stay at home doing housework or helping on farms or in shops. When they miss out on even a basic education, they are set up for a lifetime of disadvantage. By focusing our aid on those who are most disadvantaged, particularly women, they are more able to seize the opportunities of a growing economy.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Feachem on aid and growth
Sir Richard Feachem concludes that "the link between aid and growth was either weak or non-existent".
Sound file included.
Takeaways:
* Government policies, not aid, create economic growth.
* Aid does not make you loved. Exceptions: Higher education assistance.
* Successes: health.
* Failures: Economic growth per capita etc.
Sound file included.
Takeaways:
* Government policies, not aid, create economic growth.
* Aid does not make you loved. Exceptions: Higher education assistance.
* Successes: health.
* Failures: Economic growth per capita etc.
What is the rationale for foreign aid?
The argument continues. Here's Hugh White's response to Annmaree's response.
I'm not 'anti-aid'. But I do think that we should be clear about what the aid program is trying to achieve, and I think both the Aid Review and the Government's response have left that very muddled. Both say that the primary purpose of Australia's aid is to 'overcome poverty'. Is that something aid can do?
Friday, 22 July 2011
There's more to development than money
H/t The Interpreter
Opinion by Annmaree O'Keeffe.
There's more to development than money
By Annmaree O'Keeffe - 20 July 2011 12:22PM
Annmaree O'Keeffe is a Lowy Institute research fellow. She has served as Australian Ambassador for HIV/AIDS and Deputy Director General of AusAID.
...it was argued in the report released earlier this month by the team who reviewed Australia's aid program. As the report puts it :
'There is no single recipe for development progress. Commonly cited development success stories, such as South Korea, Botswana and Singapore, have used different policies and adopted different priorities. But there are some basic principles that underlie development success. These include economic growth, investing in opportunities and building strong institutions'.
...
The significant value of aid is as a catalyst; a reformer; advocate; banker of last resort; innovator; rescuer; and yes, it can even be in the donor country's own interest. Don't take my word for it, look at these examples.
Example 1: The 2000 Millennium Development Summit provided the crucible for a new global development paradigm — the 2015 Millennium Development Goals – which continues to inspire and shape the approach and objectives of the global strategy for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life. Each of the goals target fundamental factors affecting quality of life — hunger, health, education, gender equity, environment — and the 2015 targets seek to make significant improvements in each.
While progress hasn't been smooth across all countries, and the global financial crisis played its part in affecting the MDG efforts, 2015 will see major advances in reducing poverty and improving the quality of lives for the poor. The role of aid in achieving these advances is in part through developed country support to developing country services and systems. But a particularly important role the MDG has played, is as the advocate for the poor. How to reduce global poverty is now in the thinking of domestic and international policy makers because they are aware of it, and the pressure is on to do something about it. This wasn't always the case.
Example 2: One of the most successful international innovations of the past decade has been the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Created in 2002 as a public/private partnership, it emerged from an environment of mounting concern about the effects of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in developing countries.
As a financing mechanism, it has been particularly effective at attracting and channeling large amounts into country-owned programs to fight these diseases. Thanks to that funding, 3.2 million people are now receiving antiretroviral treatment for HIV, 8.2 million new cases of TB have been detected and are being treated and 190 million insecticide-treated bed nets have been distributed to reduce malaria infection.
Example 3: The GAVI Alliance was started in 2000 as a global health partnership bringing together private and public sectors, government, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, civil society organisations and relevant multilateral organisations. Its role was and still is to fund immunisation programs in the world's poorest countries. Its uniqueness lies in the way it applies donor funding to adopt market-based solutions to public health funding.
A particularly smart innovation is providing incentives to pharmaceutical companies to undertake the needed research and development of vaccines for diseases affecting developing countries. Left to market forces, these diseases would not attract the attention of the pharmaceuticals because of the very limited promise of eventual returns on their research investments.
Close to home, in PNG and the Pacific, it's evident that there are still major development challenges confronting this region. The reality is that some of the small Pacific states simply do not have the physical resources and human numbers to be ever completely economically self-reliant. It is a reality which has been acknowledged for some time.
With regard to PNG, it is not just a developing country with major challenges. Last time I looked, you could still walk to PNG from Australia at low tide. It is a country where the national interest objective intersects with the humanitarian objective for Australia's aid program. PNG is lagging behind on achieving the MDGs, and there are real governance issues that the government of PNG has to take responsibility for. But it is less reliant on aid, and the proportion of Australia's aid is now equivalent to less than 5% of PNG's gross domestic product, down from 20% at the time of Independence in 1975.
Opinion by Annmaree O'Keeffe.
There's more to development than money
By Annmaree O'Keeffe - 20 July 2011 12:22PM
Annmaree O'Keeffe is a Lowy Institute research fellow. She has served as Australian Ambassador for HIV/AIDS and Deputy Director General of AusAID.
...it was argued in the report released earlier this month by the team who reviewed Australia's aid program. As the report puts it :
'There is no single recipe for development progress. Commonly cited development success stories, such as South Korea, Botswana and Singapore, have used different policies and adopted different priorities. But there are some basic principles that underlie development success. These include economic growth, investing in opportunities and building strong institutions'.
...
The significant value of aid is as a catalyst; a reformer; advocate; banker of last resort; innovator; rescuer; and yes, it can even be in the donor country's own interest. Don't take my word for it, look at these examples.
Example 1: The 2000 Millennium Development Summit provided the crucible for a new global development paradigm — the 2015 Millennium Development Goals – which continues to inspire and shape the approach and objectives of the global strategy for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life. Each of the goals target fundamental factors affecting quality of life — hunger, health, education, gender equity, environment — and the 2015 targets seek to make significant improvements in each.
While progress hasn't been smooth across all countries, and the global financial crisis played its part in affecting the MDG efforts, 2015 will see major advances in reducing poverty and improving the quality of lives for the poor. The role of aid in achieving these advances is in part through developed country support to developing country services and systems. But a particularly important role the MDG has played, is as the advocate for the poor. How to reduce global poverty is now in the thinking of domestic and international policy makers because they are aware of it, and the pressure is on to do something about it. This wasn't always the case.
Example 2: One of the most successful international innovations of the past decade has been the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Created in 2002 as a public/private partnership, it emerged from an environment of mounting concern about the effects of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in developing countries.
As a financing mechanism, it has been particularly effective at attracting and channeling large amounts into country-owned programs to fight these diseases. Thanks to that funding, 3.2 million people are now receiving antiretroviral treatment for HIV, 8.2 million new cases of TB have been detected and are being treated and 190 million insecticide-treated bed nets have been distributed to reduce malaria infection.
Example 3: The GAVI Alliance was started in 2000 as a global health partnership bringing together private and public sectors, government, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, civil society organisations and relevant multilateral organisations. Its role was and still is to fund immunisation programs in the world's poorest countries. Its uniqueness lies in the way it applies donor funding to adopt market-based solutions to public health funding.
A particularly smart innovation is providing incentives to pharmaceutical companies to undertake the needed research and development of vaccines for diseases affecting developing countries. Left to market forces, these diseases would not attract the attention of the pharmaceuticals because of the very limited promise of eventual returns on their research investments.
Close to home, in PNG and the Pacific, it's evident that there are still major development challenges confronting this region. The reality is that some of the small Pacific states simply do not have the physical resources and human numbers to be ever completely economically self-reliant. It is a reality which has been acknowledged for some time.
With regard to PNG, it is not just a developing country with major challenges. Last time I looked, you could still walk to PNG from Australia at low tide. It is a country where the national interest objective intersects with the humanitarian objective for Australia's aid program. PNG is lagging behind on achieving the MDGs, and there are real governance issues that the government of PNG has to take responsibility for. But it is less reliant on aid, and the proportion of Australia's aid is now equivalent to less than 5% of PNG's gross domestic product, down from 20% at the time of Independence in 1975.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
What is foreign aid for?
Strategic investment. Foreign aid helps countries whose interests align with our own increase their capacities. The United States gives money to help select countries -- not the entire world -- improve specific abilities, like their ability to provide public security, defend their borders, or buy and sell goods.
The U.S. is not trying to change people's heart or minds, contrary to the bribery view. It is only trying to change their capacity. Additionally, this view helps the U.S. prioritize which countries should get aid, and what kind, contrary to the charity view.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/27/what_is_foreign_aid_for
The U.S. is not trying to change people's heart or minds, contrary to the bribery view. It is only trying to change their capacity. Additionally, this view helps the U.S. prioritize which countries should get aid, and what kind, contrary to the charity view.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/27/what_is_foreign_aid_for
Monday, 7 June 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
