Transcript Slide 1
The Value for Money Agenda and
NGOs
Aid effectiveness, at the micro level
Dr Patrick Kilby
Australian National University
Value for Money Agenda
Part of aid effectiveness debates since the late 1980s;
Focus is on whether aid objectives have been met; or if
there has been an impact,
has the aid has been well spent; has there been no
waste; and has it all been worth the investment?
Now put into a rubric of: economy, efficiency and
effectiveness, to which some may add equity (or
fairness);
Issue of it being cost exercises where comparative costs
are made.
The Abbott Government now shifted the rhetoric to
‘benchmarking’, but some of the issues are still common
Value for Money in NGO programs
early work on VfM in DFAT has been done with NGO
programs - they are relatively small and lay outsides the
complexity of intergovernmental bilateral relationship or
multilateral organisations;
The focus has been on the processes involved: is there
adequate cost control, awareness of alternatives, and the
like.
Danger is that if metrics are attempted, lead to league
tables, and measures of alternatives, then a whole host
of questions emerge.
Example is GiveWell criteria versus
OAGDS/Accredation/Code criteria. The former is on
metrics the latter on processes.
Questions: VfM for whom, what, and
when
For Whom: the donor or the recipient? Most think of the
donor, but for effective aid it must be the recipient. This
raises questions (Paris Declaration):
of impositions on the recipient;
recipient control;
Tied aid;
For What: Is it the outputs or outcomes that should
represent Value for Money:
Outcomes but often gets reduced to outputs due to time
lags.
For When: the life of the project, or the life or the change
– how sustainable is what is proposed.
NGO Programs
usually about micro level (sub-district) social change;
Issues:
Social change takes time e.g Ragpicker program in
Pune over 20 years was transformed, but the change
was not predictable;
socialising change is a slow process;
the unexpected and unknowable: programs evolve and
so what was known at the start is built upon with new
knowledge as change occurs (causal connections not
clear);
how can meaningful comparisons be made across
programs. Context, if not everything, is nearly
everything in development.
Ways Forward
For NGO programs value for money might mean:
Strong partnership processes; clear, and mutually
accountable;
In-built flexibility – a possible move away from rigid
frameworks;
Aiming for longer-term change, with possible intermediate way
points;
A different way in accounting for money: less prescriptive
budgets to perhaps a budget framework but with more
rigorous audits and detailed annual reports, which justify
decisions made;
This implies a move away from traditional projects modes
Implications
It puts the VfM (benchmarking?) agenda more in the hands
of the partner (in line with Paris Principles etc); but:
Might not accord with government/parliamentary risk
averse approaches;
Moves into the ‘unknowns’ when development has
always been about the predictable and known;
Has a longer time horizon, much longer than the average
program or project cycle;
My have to have intermediate process steps;
Doesn’t provide easy metrics in many, if not most, cases
How to balance efficiency, economy, (equity) and
effectiveness considerations, what weighting should be
given to each;
From civil society framework – ‘that CSOs make optimal
use of resources in achieving intended outcomes (value
for money) …[and[ results achieved are commensurate
with resources allocated in differing operating
environments’ is vague but with sting in there.
Davis notes:
‘ issues in capturing the adverse effects of political and
social contexts on delivery costs’.
the dilemma of clashing rationalities (world views) between
donors, NGOs and partners;
Time frames (3-5 years) but why?
Thank you