I want to clarify I’m positive about the idea too—I think there’s definitely space for this. But I think there will be more impact if it compliments existing efforts in this area and thinks hard about what is really neglected.
I’ve worked in development for about 10 years, some experience with evaluation of grass-roots projects but mainly working implementing projects funded by governments/donors. I try to stay anonymous on here, but I’ve lived and worked in Central, East Africa and South Asia for about 7 years. Never worked in Uganda.
CGD has a few work streams on aid effectiveness, I went to a presentation on their Quoda index a while back: https://www.cgdev.org/quoda-2021 I would recommend anything Owen Barder has written on this topic.
I think the examples in CGD’s report are where they have recommended things, and then actually seen them happen. This is really quite unusual in terms of research/policy impact.
They’ve definitely done lots more work that hasn’t necessarily led to neat case studies of change. For instance, they host the IDSI who look at making cost-effective decisions in health for LMICs: https://www.idsihealth.org/our-strategy/ I think it’s true that CGD doesn’t try to compare education and health or climate and governance… but they definitely have thought hard about cost-effectiveness within health for instance.
We may be talking past each other but in my experience—diplomats and aid practitioners often dislike govt to govt direct aid (budget support) because it cuts them out… it gives govts the chance to choose their own priorities rather than having them dictated by donors/external experts.
I think you could be right that smaller country funders might be easier to influence. Generally in my experience the Scandinavian donors do better projects & are able to focus more on poverty rather than being pushed around by political priorities/flashy ineffective projects.
Thanks so much Finn again, a lot of wisdom there and good links to look at. ISDI in particular looks like a great initiative and I didn’t know about it!
You might be right that we are talking past each other n the government to government aid thing given that I think it’s a complete disaster and should stop, while you understandably seem to agree with the development norm that government ownership is part of aid best practise. This is definitely off topic a bit, but I wanted to clarify that I am not against govt. to govt. aid for any petty reason that it cuts anyone out, but for a lot of other reasons.
Evidence of failure. (The classic Dambisa Moyo) Govt. to govt. aid has miserably failed for 50 years in Africa. Most development successes have been in either in partnership with govt. or despite governments. Why go against the evidence because it seems right?
Corruption
There is a strong norm that we should give governments the power to prioritise what they want. But the reality is that most low income governments don’t care much about the poorest of the poor (evidenced by both rhetoric and lack of action), so they won’t prioritise them with the money you give them. So why give them money to prioritise other things the aid was not intended for in the first place?
For undemocratic countries specifically, when you give aid to those governments you prop up the stranglehold of dictatorships. This can cause more harm than the good you can potentially do.
I know these are all fairly classic arguments, but I still believe that they stand. Don’t feel you have to reply by the way, just wanted to get it out there ;)
Hi Nick,
I want to clarify I’m positive about the idea too—I think there’s definitely space for this. But I think there will be more impact if it compliments existing efforts in this area and thinks hard about what is really neglected.
I’ve worked in development for about 10 years, some experience with evaluation of grass-roots projects but mainly working implementing projects funded by governments/donors. I try to stay anonymous on here, but I’ve lived and worked in Central, East Africa and South Asia for about 7 years. Never worked in Uganda.
CGD has a few work streams on aid effectiveness, I went to a presentation on their Quoda index a while back: https://www.cgdev.org/quoda-2021 I would recommend anything Owen Barder has written on this topic.
I think the examples in CGD’s report are where they have recommended things, and then actually seen them happen. This is really quite unusual in terms of research/policy impact.
They’ve definitely done lots more work that hasn’t necessarily led to neat case studies of change. For instance, they host the IDSI who look at making cost-effective decisions in health for LMICs: https://www.idsihealth.org/our-strategy/ I think it’s true that CGD doesn’t try to compare education and health or climate and governance… but they definitely have thought hard about cost-effectiveness within health for instance.
We may be talking past each other but in my experience—diplomats and aid practitioners often dislike govt to govt direct aid (budget support) because it cuts them out… it gives govts the chance to choose their own priorities rather than having them dictated by donors/external experts.
I think you could be right that smaller country funders might be easier to influence. Generally in my experience the Scandinavian donors do better projects & are able to focus more on poverty rather than being pushed around by political priorities/flashy ineffective projects.
Thanks for your comment.
Thanks so much Finn again, a lot of wisdom there and good links to look at. ISDI in particular looks like a great initiative and I didn’t know about it!
You might be right that we are talking past each other n the government to government aid thing given that I think it’s a complete disaster and should stop, while you understandably seem to agree with the development norm that government ownership is part of aid best practise. This is definitely off topic a bit, but I wanted to clarify that I am not against govt. to govt. aid for any petty reason that it cuts anyone out, but for a lot of other reasons.
Evidence of failure. (The classic Dambisa Moyo) Govt. to govt. aid has miserably failed for 50 years in Africa. Most development successes have been in either in partnership with govt. or despite governments. Why go against the evidence because it seems right?
Corruption
There is a strong norm that we should give governments the power to prioritise what they want. But the reality is that most low income governments don’t care much about the poorest of the poor (evidenced by both rhetoric and lack of action), so they won’t prioritise them with the money you give them. So why give them money to prioritise other things the aid was not intended for in the first place?
For undemocratic countries specifically, when you give aid to those governments you prop up the stranglehold of dictatorships. This can cause more harm than the good you can potentially do.
I know these are all fairly classic arguments, but I still believe that they stand. Don’t feel you have to reply by the way, just wanted to get it out there ;)