Best laid plans

No one else could possibly think of the same thing

There is a wonderful moment in the 1979 film “Life of Brian,” where the People’s Front of Judea, an anti-Roman revolutionary group, embarks on a mission to kidnap the wife of Pontius Pilate to force him to make political concessions. As they sneak through the palace, the group bumps into the Campaign for a Free Galilee, another separatist movement which is also planning to capture Pilate’s wife. The two groups argue over who gets to do this and end up killing each other before Pilate’s guards even get a chance to intervene. You can watch the scene here (fast-forward to 5:00).

Monty Python’s comical vision of a fracture resistance, comprising dozens of similarly-named groups with redundant objectives, is strikingly familiar in the world of aid. While the NGO community suffers from these problems the most, it is official donor fragmentation and duplication which is particularly disheartening as its relative size (a few dozen approaching 100 donors versus hundreds of international NGOs) means coordination and communication ought to be easier.

It is in this muddled context that USAID, has just announced its own “plan” for achieving the 2015 targets for the Millennium Development Goals, soon to be followed by USAID’s overall strategy for development assistance, all ahead of next month’s UN summit on the MDGs.

Let’s simplify things for a minute: Imagine a world where the US was the only donor. In this context, an individual strategy seems quite sensible – the solo donor just needs to decide on what its objective function is (i.e poverty reduction, growth, reaching the MDGs) and allocate aid flows accordingly to best achieve those objectives.

Now let’s move to a world where there are two donors and make the rather strict assumption that they have the same objective (perhaps achieving the MDGs). If each of those donors continues to operate as if they are in a vacuum, without knowledge of or concern over each other’s movements, they will both tend to spend money on the same programmes in the same places. This results in “donor darlings,” countries and programmes that have too many donors and probably receive too much aid money.

Continue reading

What’s in a name?

Quite a lot actually. Thanks to the Roving Bandit, I happened upon this BBC news article. The main focus of the article is on DFID’s totally original new strategy to start focusing more on post-conflict countries, but tucked into the middle of the article is a single, terrifying sentence:

His department will also get a new look – branded UK Aid – to try to raise the profile of British government spending on international development.

Noooooooooooooooo! This is such an awful, awful idea. DFID has, since its inception worked up a decent, if spotty reputation for being serious about development, which is a wholly different concept than aid (yes, I know that our blog name doesn’t seem to make that distinction, but it’s catchy, so there). There’s a nice, short discussion by Lant Pritchett over at Aid Watch on the difference between the two, and the very basic problems with USAID’s name, which it seems that DFID, an infinitely better department, is fervently trying to ape.

They do look rather similar, don't they?

Seem familiar?

It’s unclear as to whether or not this is a full re-branding. Currently the new logo sits awkwardly on the right hand side of DFID’s website, peering evilly at its older brother, waiting for a chance to take its proper place at the helm.

On another note, since when did Collier’s ideas on security (which I agree somewhat with wished there would be more discussion about) become accepted enough to start influencing policy? The book has only been out a few months!

His department will also get a new look – branded UK Aid – to try to raise the profile of British government spending on international development.