15 August 2010

Fear-mongering by The Guardian is bad for aid

DFID is looking into dropping Labour’s commitments on inputs so that it can refocus its monitoring and targets onto outputs, within the context of a ring-fenced total aid budget.

This could work, or it could not. It is an experiment, based on pretty sound logic. Experiments are good.

Fear-mongering by The Guardian doesn’t help anyone.

7 comments:

Matt said...

How is it an experiment? If we haven't been properly monitoring, how on earth are they really going to know if the change of policy is any good?

Roving Bandit said...

It's a poorly designed experiment.

Ranil Dissanayake said...

I have no problem with the dropping of commitments to education, health and any other sector. I have a big problem with the dropping of the Paris Declaration - it's going to DfID more harm than good in its relations with canny developing countries.

'what do you mean why haven't we reformed the budget process? how can you talk, you're not even implementing the Paris Declaration. you improve your commitment to putting aid on the budget before you tell us what to do with the budget.'

I can hear this speech being drafted in a raft of moderately corrupt aid recipient countries as we speak.

Melissa Hall said...

Don't know if you've actually seen the committments that the Govt plans to retain?

Of the eight that (seem) to have made the final cut, over half are input committments ... this much money to hunger etc etc.

Given this Govt's accountability and transparency mantra, it smacks of hipocrisy – at least PD are outputs.

Roving Bandit said...

@Ranil - yeah ok that is not the smartest idea.

Scott said...

Roving Bandit, your hypothesis makes sense within the context of other comments my Mitchell, but have you seen anything specific where DfID says it's about outputs not inputs?

Roving Bandit said...

Here is the more eloquent version by Alex Evans: http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/08/16/a-silent-withdrawal-from-ringfencing-the-aid-budget-hmm/

Post a Comment