tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/independent-review-of-aid-effectiveness-1633/articlesIndependent Review of Aid Effectiveness – The Conversation2017-01-30T19:08:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/711462017-01-30T19:08:41Z2017-01-30T19:08:41ZFactCheck: What are the facts on Australia’s foreign aid spending?<blockquote>
<p>Aid was at its highest under Menzies, at 0.5% … when per capita income was much lower. – <strong>World Vision Australia chief advocate Tim Costello, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-foreign-aid-spending-at-lowest-level-in-eight-years-20161228-gtiqpe.html?deviceType=text">quoted</a> in The Sydney Morning Herald, December 28, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>A <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-foreign-aid-spending-at-lowest-level-in-eight-years-20161228-gtiqpe.html">news report</a> highlighting the fall in Australia’s foreign aid spending quoted World Vision Australia chief advocate Tim Costello as saying aid was at its highest under Prime Minister Robert Menzies, at 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) – at a time when per capita income was much lower.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his statement, Reverend Tim Costello referred The Conversation to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data published <a href="http://www2.compareyourcountry.org/oda?cr=801&cr1=oecd&lg=en&page=1">here</a>. He added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If anything, I perhaps understated the case because aid was actually a bit higher than 0.5% in the 1960s. </p>
<p>Aid first went over 0.5% in 1963, dipped slightly in 1964, then went over 0.5% again from 1965 and every subsequent year into the 1970s. In 1967 and again in 1970 it hit 0.62%. </p>
<p>The highest single year was 1975 at 0.65%, but the highest decade taken as an average was the 1960s under Menzies. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read Costello’s full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-reverend-tim-costello-71268">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Is it true Australia’s foreign aid spending was at its highest under Menzies?</h2>
<p>In making his statement about foreign aid spending, Costello relied on data published by the OECD that go back as far as 1960.</p>
<p>Given <a href="http://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-over-time-71470">the difficulty</a> of obtaining data from Australian government sources on aid spending during the Menzies era (meaning 1949-66 for present purposes, though Menzies <a href="http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/">also served</a> as prime minister from 1939-1941), this is understandable. However, it’s not safe to depend upon OECD aid statistics in this instance.</p>
<p>Based on the most up-to-date Australian government data, the highest ratio of aid to gross national income under any Australian government since annual reporting began was 0.48%. That was in the financial year 1967-68 under three prime ministers in quick succession: Harold Holt, John McEwen and John Gorton.</p>
<p>Costello’s broader point is correct. Australian aid generosity is a fraction of what it once was. Australia’s share of aid to GNI is projected to decline to 0.22% in 2016-17, its <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">lowest level ever</a>. Generosity under Menzies was twice as high as it is now, even though GNI per capita was less than half of its present level in real terms.</p>
<h2>What’s the problem with using OECD data on aid spending?</h2>
<p>A careful review of the statistics published by relevant Australian government agencies, including some that are tricky to find, indicates that the OECD’s aid-to-GNI ratios for Australia are quite inflated for the three decades or so from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s. </p>
<p>This inflation is mainly down to differences between the OECD’s estimates of Australia’s <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gross-national-income-gni.asp">gross national income</a> and Australia’s own estimates. </p>
<p>While OECD data on Australia’s GNI over time are based on the Australian government’s reporting to the OECD, the Australian government periodically revises its estimates of past GNI. Such revisions appear not to have been reflected uniformly in OECD data. </p>
<p>On average, the aid-to-GNI ratios for Australia published by the OECD up to 1995 are inflated by about 20%. For some individual years, including 1975, the ratios are inflated by more than 40%. </p>
<h2>How else can we track Australia’s aid spending?</h2>
<p>The Development Policy Centre’s <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">Aid Tracker</a> uses the most readily available Australian government statistics to show Australian aid flows since the financial year 1971-72. The highest aid-to-GNI ratio between then and now was 0.47%, in 1974-75.</p>
<p>But what about the Menzies era? </p>
<p>It’s no straightforward matter to obtain statistics from Australian government sources on annual aid flows under Menzies, or any other prime minister before Whitlam. But they can be found with a little <a href="https://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-over-time-71470">detective work</a>. Data on annual aid spending as far back as 1961-62 are buried in old Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) year books. </p>
<p>Australian government data, including the old ABS data just mentioned, show that the highest aid-to-GNI ratio under <em>any</em> Australian government was 0.48%. That ratio was seen under Prime Ministers Holt, McEwen and Gorton in 1967-68.</p>
<p>The chart below compares Australia’s actual aid-to-GNI ratios (blue line) with those asserted in OECD statistics (orange line). The <a href="http://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/trends/">red line</a> represents the 0.5% aid spending target that both major political parties had, for a time, pledged to meet by 2015. The purple line represents the 0.7% United Nations target for foreign aid spending.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154487/original/image-20170126-30394-12wz2ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation/Data from: ABS Annual Year Books, 1970-72; AusAID Blue Book 2012-13; DFAT Green Book 2013-14; Federal Government Budget Papers 2014-15 to 2016-17; OECD Development Assistance Committee Official Development Assistance database.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>See <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpu46qhp7qcnvcy/Data%20and%20charts.xlsx?dl=0">this spreadsheet</a> for a collation of the data on which the above chart is based. You can read more about my methodology, including how the chart was constructed, <a href="http://theconversation.com/methodology-finding-the-numbers-on-australias-foreign-aid-spending-71470">here</a>.</p>
<h2>How has Australia’s foreign aid spend changed over time?</h2>
<p>Australia’s overseas aid spending has had <a href="https://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854">unprecedented reductions</a> since the Coalition came to office in 2013. </p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corporate/portfolio-budget-statements/Pages/budget-highlights-2016-17.aspx">aid budget for 2016-17</a>, at $3.8 billion, is around one-third less in real terms than the $5.1 billion spent in <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/summary-of-australia-s-overseas-aid-program-2012-13.aspx">2012-13</a>.</p>
<p>The $5.1 billion spent in 2012-13 represented the peak of Australia’s aid effort in dollar terms. But in terms of the ratio of aid to GNI, it was well below the levels of the 1960s and 1970s.</p>
<p>Based on the economic growth forecast in the government’s <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/myefo/download/01-Part-1.pdf">December 2016 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook</a>, Australia’s 2016-17 aid budget is estimated to amount to 0.22% of Australia’s gross national income. </p>
<p>In dollar terms, that’s 22 cents in every $100, compared with 34 cents in every $100 in 2012-13, and 48 cents in every $100 in the late 1960s. </p>
<p>In recent years both major Australian political parties have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3657243.htm">made and subsequently abandoned time-bound commitments</a> to meet an aid-to-GNI ratio of 0.5%. </p>
<p>A ratio of 0.5% would be well below <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/the07odagnitarget-ahistory.htm">the UN target of 0.7%</a>, which <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/development-aid-rises-again-in-2015-spending-on-refugees-doubles.htm">six OECD donor countries</a> met or exceeded in 2015 (the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden).</p>
<p>Given that estimates of gross national income have been revised over time, it’s important also to consider policy intentions. ABS year books from the early 1970s show that Australian governments believed, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that they were allocating more than 0.5% of Australia’s national income to aid. </p>
<h2>Australians are much wealthier than they were 50 years ago</h2>
<p>Costello is certainly right to say per capita income (gross national income divided by the number of Australians) was much lower in the Menzies era than it is now.</p>
<p>Growth in per capita income has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/18/even-though-myefo-figures-might-cost-us-our-aaa-rating-the-coalition-faces-greater-dangers">slowed lately</a>, and household disposable income has <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/the-population-booms-hidden-secret/news-story/d2a892dcea0ab8e9967455880502f4c1">fallen</a> over the last several years. But Australia’s per capita income remains well above the average of OECD member countries, and of all high-income countries.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153815/original/image-20170123-8070-u01ro9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators">The Conversation/Data from World Bank - World Development Indicators</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>So while Australians have grown richer, our aid generosity has declined.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Tim Costello’s underlying point is correct, even if his specifics were a bit out. </p>
<p>The highest aid-to-GNI ratio under any Australian government was in fact 0.48% under Holt, McEwen and Gorton in 1967-68.</p>
<p>Costello relied on OECD statistics that are unreliable for the period in question. Even so, he was only out by a year and a fraction of a percentage point. Moreover, governments at the time did believe they were spending more than 0.5% of Australia’s national income on aid.</p>
<p>Costello’s broader message – that Australia’s foreign aid generosity has diminished while Australians have become wealthier – is correct.</p>
<p>Aid generosity under Menzies was twice as high as it is now, even though per capita income was less than half of its present level. <strong>– Robin Davies</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. The author has provided a careful, sophisticated and impartial analysis of Australia’s foreign aid spending from the 1960s to the present day. We know little about how Australian aid spending levels prior to 1971 compare to today’s and it is terrific that the author has delved into this area despite the data-related and methodological challenges.</p>
<p>I would add that it is worth considering how the Australian government has measured foreign aid spending, whether this has changed between the early 1960s and the present, and — if there have been changes — whether they affect our ability to compare ratios of aid to gross national income across this time period. I expect that doing so will not materially affect the analysis, but it would be useful to know. <strong>– Andrew Rosser</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71146/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Davies is the Associate Director of the Development Policy Centre, a think tank on aid and development which is hosted by the Australian National University and funded by the university and two foundations, the Harold Mitchell Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Development Policy Centre has received project-related grant funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Rosser has received funding from a range of donor organisations including AusAID/DFAT. He has also received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>We check the facts on how Australia’s foreign aid spend has changed over time.Robin Davies, Associate Director, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/63962012-05-11T04:48:40Z2012-05-11T04:48:40ZBeyond aid numbers: accountability for human rights abuses<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9970/original/h45vktnw-1335417624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The rehabilitation of Cambodia's railways has involved the forced relocation of many families that live along the railway line</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Neil Rickards</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the lead-up to the federal government’s decision to delay the promised increase in the aid budget, a <a href="http://www.care.org.au/Page.aspx?pid=268">CARE Australia survey</a> found strong public support for Australia’s international aid program.</p>
<p>From the popular <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23dontcutaid">#dontcutaid</a> Twitter hashtag, to the <a href="http://www.acfid.asn.au/media-room/press-releases/prominent-australians-call-on-pm-to-keep-aid-promise">letter to the Prime Minister</a> from over 100 prominent Australians including Geoffrey Rush, the debate over the delay has focused on the important issue of the quantity of aid spending. </p>
<p>But beyond the headline numbers, the sometimes <a href="http://aidwatch.org.au/publications/publication-in-defence-of-melanesian-customary-land">damaging</a> and <a href="http://www.aidwatch.org.au/news/media-release-no-strings-to-independent-pacific-trade-advice-australian-ngos">self-interested</a> reality of Australia’s aid program looks set to continue in this year’s aid budget. </p>
<p>For example, AusAID will spend $127 million over the next four years on the <a href="http://www.ausaid.gov.au/aidissues/mining/Pages/home.aspx">‘Mining for Development Initiative’</a>, which is more likely to benefit Australian mining companies than reduce poverty. </p>
<p>Amid talk of “broken promises”, demands for government accountability need to be extended to the quality of Australian aid for those people the public want to help – the global poor. </p>
<h2>The Cambodian railways project</h2>
<p>One troubled program allocated money in the 2012/13 aid budget is the <a href="http://www2.adb.org/Projects/project.asp?id=37269">Cambodia Railway Rehabilitation Project</a>. </p>
<p>It is funded by the Australian government through AusAID, co-funded and managed by the Asian Development Bank, and linked to a public-private partnership between the Cambodian government and a consortium led by Australian-owned Toll Holdings.</p>
<p>The project will see the rehabilitation of 650 kilometres of dilapidated railway lines, which run from the northern town of Poipet on the Thai-Cambodian border, through Phnom Penh, to the southern port town of Sihanoukville. AusAID justifies their $26 million involvement on the basis that it will promote economic growth and reduce poverty by decreasing transport costs and creating jobs. </p>
<p>However, the project has been heavily criticised in reports by local NGO <a href="http://teangtnaut.org/PDF/Rehabilitation%20of%20Cambodias%20Railways_STT%20July%202011.pdf">Sahmakum Teang Tnaut</a>, <a href="http://www.babcambodia.org/railways/">Bridges across Borders Cambodia</a> and <a href="http://www.aidwatch.org.au/news/aidwatch-new-report-off-the-rails-ausaid-and-the-troubled-cambodian-railways-project-0">AID/WATCH</a> for its de facto privatisation of public infrastructure and its negative impact on the 4,000 households that lie on the path of the tracks.</p>
<p>Many people displaced by the project have been relocated to inappropriate sites large distances away from their jobs. They have also been forced into debt by inadequate compensation payments. Some relocation sites lack basic amenities like running water and electricity. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/gone-for-good-to-fetch-a-pail-of-water-20101031-178zr.html">Two children died</a> in 2010 while searching for water near the resettlement site.</p>
<p>The human impact of the forced resettlement is revealed in a <a href="http://teangtnaut.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/FF20_Railways-Relocation-in-PP_FINAL1.pdf">collection of testimonials</a> from six widows released by Sahmakum Teang Tnaut. When the organisation publicly complained about the railway project, the Cambodian government <a href="http://cambodiatrainspotter.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/cambodian-ngos-under-the-gun/">responded</a> by suspending it for having “incited people to oppose national development”.</p>
<h2>Donor responsibilities and accountability mechanisms</h2>
<p>When aid permits human rights abuses, what are the responsibilities - legal or otherwise - of donors? What accountability mechanisms are in place?</p>
<p>Toll Holdings <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/gone-for-good-to-fetch-a-pail-of-water-20101031-178zr.html">insists</a> that resettlement isn’t part of their commercial agreement with the Cambodian government, but suspended their own involvement in the project for one year in April 2012. </p>
<p>AusAID <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/7afd22ed-c48e-4bfa-afdd-f0c6c22a0235/toc_pdf/Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade%20Legislation%20Committee_2012_02_16_800.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/7">told</a> the Senate that resettlement wasn’t their responsibility, though it has commenced an income restoration program. AusAID argues that the railways project is covered by the Asian Development Bank’s resettlement policy. However, the processes that have been followed in Cambodia breach the policies of both organisations. </p>
<p>Last year, the Asian Development Bank <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3216781.htm">denied allegations</a> of threats and intimidation, and they are still investigating the botched resettlement process. Affected communities have <a href="http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2012040955504/National-news/railway-evictees-step-up-fight.html">lodged formal complaints</a> over the violence and decrease in living standards that they have suffered. </p>
<p>The bank, which <a href="http://www.adb.org/documents/agreement-establishing-asian-development-bank-adb-charter">operates with immunity</a> from local legal systems, has an “Accountability Mechanism” to deal with such complaints. But it was described in its own independent review as <a href="http://www2.adb.org/Documents/Policies/Accountability-Mechanism-Review/Independent-Review-Accountability-Mechanism.pdf">“less than optimal”</a>, due to problems of accessibility, lack of knowledge of its existence and time-consuming procedures. </p>
<p>Internationally, accountability has been a key part of the elite “aid effectiveness” agenda. “Mutual accountability” is one of the five principles of the 2005 <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3746,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html">Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness</a>, which the Australian government has signed on to.</p>
<p>But the principle restricts accountability relationships to those between donor and recipient governments. </p>
<p>Accordingly, AusAID will fund a number of <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/ministerial_statements/ausaid/html/ausaid-08.htm">internal accountability mechanisms</a> in the budget, none of which enable immediate and direct access for people that are negatively impacted by aid. </p>
<h2>More aid, less accountability?</h2>
<p>The 2011 <a href="http://www.aidreview.gov.au/report/index.html">Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness</a> recommended a greater proportion of Australian aid money be channelled through multilateral organisations like the Asian Development Bank. </p>
<p>With Australia’s aid program set to rise to 0.5% of gross national income by 2016-17, and AusAID’s commitment to using aid as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-politics-behind-the-cuts-to-foreign-aid-6924">“key tool of foreign policy”</a>, we can expect more privately operated large infrastructure projects like the Cambodian railways project that have little to do with poverty. </p>
<p>Despite deferring the promised aid increase, the budget <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-11.htm">allocated</a> an additional $46.9 million to the Asian Development Bank. </p>
<p>AusAID speaks the <a href="http://www.ausaid.gov.au/keyaid/humanrights.cfm">language of human rights</a>, but has not been serious about its responsibilities when those rights are abused. </p>
<p>AusAID should suspend its involvement with the Cambodian railway project and fully respond to the demands of the affected communities and workers. </p>
<p>To avoid similar incidents in the future, AusAID should abandon the <a href="http://www.ausaid.gov.au/about/pages/our-mission-our-values.aspx">“national interest”</a> paradigm by moving away from economic growth-oriented projects with “<a href="http://www.forum-adb.org/">trusted partners</a>” and instead support strong public and civil society institutions.</p>
<p>This change extends to AusAID itself, which must develop its own institutions for meaningful accountability to the global poor, and to the Australian people, who want an increased aid budget to help - not harm.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6396/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gareth Bryant is a member of the AID/WATCH Committee of Management.</span></em></p>In the lead-up to the federal government’s decision to delay the promised increase in the aid budget, a CARE Australia survey found strong public support for Australia’s international aid program. From…Gareth Bryant, Ph.D Candidate , University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/37862011-10-13T04:48:43Z2011-10-13T04:48:43ZHow Australian aid in Asia can benefit those at home<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4343/original/AusAid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia's aid program is mostly focused on the Asia-Pacific region, but Australians answer the call for help from all over the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AusAID</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/australia-in-asia">AUSTRALIA IN ASIA</a>: In the fourth part of our series, Deakin University’s Matthew Clarke examines why more Australian aid to Asia would improve regional security.</em></p>
<p>Australians are a generous lot. On a per capita basis, public donations to help those affected by natural disasters are amongst the highest in the world. And the government provides a substantial aid budget too, although its motives may include more than just seeking to reduce poverty. </p>
<h2>Public donations</h2>
<p>Studies show that it doesn’t hinge on where emergencies occur or what type they are, Australians will respond to appeals for aid. It doesn’t even matter how long it has been since the last public appeal. Where a need exists, Australians will answer the call. </p>
<p>Non-government organisations receive around $1 billion a year from the public, with nearly one in twenty Australians donating on a monthly basis to child sponsorship or similar fund-raising schemes.</p>
<h2>AusAid’s budget</h2>
<p>In a similar vein, the Australian Government also has a very generous international aid program, administered by <a href="http://www.ausaid.gov.au/">AusAID</a>. Currently <a href="http://cache.treasury.gov.au/budget/2011-12/content/download/ms_ausaid.pdf">it provides</a> around $4.5 billion in official development assistance, predominantly to developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region. </p>
<p>This is the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3746,en_2649_34447_1893129_1_1_1_1,00.html">13th largest aid program</a> amongst OECD countries. And it’s <a href="http://cache.treasury.gov.au/budget/2011-12/content/download/ms_ausaid.pdf">slated to increase</a> to around 0.5 of gross national income by 2015, pushing it up on the OECD list of generous nations.</p>
<p>Aid in this program is largely targeted towards the achievement of the <a href="http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/">Millennium Development Goals</a> so focuses on poverty reduction, education, women and children’s health as well as water and sanitation.</p>
<h2>Size isn’t everything</h2>
<p>Of course, it’s not the size of the aid program that ultimately matters – but rather its effectiveness. </p>
<p>While examples of failed interventions will always be found, the recent <a href="http://www.aidreview.gov.au/">Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness</a> found that the Australian aid program was “good”. The most indicator being whether the program has achieved that it set out to do.</p>
<p>While the primary purpose of aid is to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, it is important to realise that the Australian government makes clear that those goals also serve Australia’s own national interest.</p>
<h2>Aid in the national interest</h2>
<p>Aid that improves regional security is not just of benefit to local communities, but also to Australians travellers and companies doing business in the region. </p>
<p>Poverty is a major source of insecurity, so while it may be easy to be cynical about the aid program serving Australian interests first and foremost, our national interest does neatly synchronise with poverty reduction in the region.</p>
<p>The building of mosques to support moderate Islamic schools in Indonesia, the focus on education and health programs in Papua New Guinea, and the building of community buildings in Afghanistan result in both enhanced opportunities for local communities as well as promoting Australia’s needs. These activites are important as they address real needs for these communities.</p>
<h2>Risks of aid</h2>
<p>Of course, aid can of course be utilised in a manner in which national interests are given primacy over poverty reduction. </p>
<p>When economic resources are scarce within developing countries, aid can ease this scarcity and subsequently can enhance Australia’s standing within the recipient country. </p>
<p>A generous aid program that allows local communities or leaders to access resources that would normally not exist does deliver influence and support in other forums.</p>
<p>A cynical view would understand this as abuse of aid. A realist would see it being used more as a tool of diplomacy. </p>
<h2>Striking the balance</h2>
<p>We shouldn’t shy away from the reality that aid can serve two goals. The importance is of course getting the balance right.</p>
<p>As the Australian aid program continues to expand, there may be increased pressures to use it first and foremost to support our diplomatic endeavors. </p>
<p>As an adjunct to our efforts of diplomacy, this is appropriate if the aid mutually addressed real humanitarian needs. </p>
<p>If it fails this test, then we can no longer consider it aid.</p>
<p><strong><em>This is the fourth part of our Australia in Asia series. To read the other parts, follow these links:</em></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part one: <a href="http://theconversation.com/is-australia-ready-for-the-asian-century-3648">Is Australia ready for the “Asian Century”</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/australia-in-asia-how-to-keep-the-peace-and-ensure-regional-security-3592">Australia in Asia: How to keep the peace and ensure regional security</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-lucky-lazy-country-shows-how-not-to-win-friends-in-asia-3654">The lucky, lazy country shows how not to win friends in Asia</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-australian-aid-in-asia-can-benefit-those-at-home-3786">How Australian aid in Asia can benefit those at home</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/learning-to-live-in-the-asian-century-3586">Learning to live in the Asian Century</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/colombo-plan-an-initiative-that-brought-australia-and-asia-closer-3590">Colombo plan: An initiative that brought Australia and Asia together</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-australias-trade-relationship-with-china-remains-at-ground-level-3852">Why Australia’s trade relationship with China remains at ground level</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>- Part eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/finding-the-balance-between-india-and-china-in-the-asian-concert-of-powers-3646">Finding the balance between India and China in the Asian ‘concert of powers’</a></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3786/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Clarke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>AUSTRALIA IN ASIA: In the fourth part of our series, Deakin University’s Matthew Clarke examines why more Australian aid to Asia would improve regional security. Australians are a generous lot. On a per…Matthew Clarke, Head of School of International and Political Studies, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.