An international team of developers supports our diverse offering of technical solutions. These individuals work on AiDA, the aid management program, dgMarket, and Zunia, in addition to projects for clients such as UNDP and AFD. They are based in Friday, November 20, 2009
The team behind our global IT solutions
An international team of developers supports our diverse offering of technical solutions. These individuals work on AiDA, the aid management program, dgMarket, and Zunia, in addition to projects for clients such as UNDP and AFD. They are based in 
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Three things you should know about IATI
The first annual conference for the International Aid Transparency Initiative concluded October 21. Several staff members from Development Gateway attended. From their feedback and the conference presentations, a few themes emerged regarding efforts to make aid data more transparent and accessible. Here are three things you should know:1. The intent of IATI is not to create a database. The aim is to establish a common set of standards and definitions, and a code of conduct for donors.
2. Aid information management systems at the country level do not replace the Creditor Reporting System of the OECD, rather they are complementary. Read the study that compares data reported to the CRS and aid management systems in Malawi and Burkina Faso. Rudolphe Petras of Development Gateway conducted the study, analyzing information in two implementations of the Aid Management Platform.
3. While the primary emphasis is on donors, civil society organizations also share the responsibility for transparency.
So far 18 signatories are committed to the process. The goal of establishing common information standards by the end of this year will probably not be met. Still, there is much interest as the need for increased transparency is great.
The report from the conference is here and the program with links to presentations is here.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Partners on a quest to make aid data transparent
We're back! And a lot has been happening. Look here for updates on IATI, European Development Days, and events like our photo contest and future barcamps.This week we announced our partnership with PLAID and our aim to create a comprehensive repository of development data, easily accessible to all. AidData, as the joint venture is called, will have all the content of AiDA and much more. Captured in the photo are two happy people who have been working hard to make this venture a reality, Riccardo De Marchi Trevisan, manager of AiDA, and Jessica Sloan, associate director of the Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations at the
Friday, August 14, 2009
August Break
We're going to be taking a break from blogging for the rest of August. Enjoy the rest of the month and see you in September.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A bi-partisan change to USAID
by Matt Gyory
On July 28, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, including Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Richard Lugar of Indiana, introduced a bill to improve U.S. development efforts by updating the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for the 21st century. The introduction of this bill was part of a larger effort to improve USAID and increase its role in U.S. development efforts.
Senator Lugar has been particularly vocal in his support of changing the way USAID conducts business. He has written an op-ed in which he outlines many of the features to be found in the bi-partisan bill, including the need for increased staff and tracking project outputs to determine successes and best practices. Recently, Senator Lugar wrote a letter to the editors of the Washington Post to highlight the difficulty the Obama administration has had in finding a USAID Administrator.
In addition to the bi-partisan support and momentum this bill represents, it is a new commitment of USAID to the goals of transparent data and the measurement of its activities. Both Sections five (page nine of the bill in particular) and section six of the bill highlight the need for USAID to collect data and perform monitoring and evaluation assessments on their programs. These sections of the bill will improve the effectiveness of USAID’s efforts and possibly provide the development community as a whole with best practices and certainly with a surfeit of data on USAID’s activities.
To ensure that the information USAID will now collect will be used, Section 10 of the bill recommends that the U.S. fully engage and comply with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). IATI was one of the outcomes of last year’s high level forum in Accra. The type of transparent information IATI compliance would entail will give U.S. and international aid practitioners a greater wealth of information to ensure more effective aid.
The two parts of the bill highlighted here are clearly related. There is little point in collecting all of information USAID will be required to collect if no one will ever see it. The two major points are also key issues for Development Gateway. Aid effectiveness has been a key point of our work and we have begun to emphasize the possibilities that more transparent information can offer. We look forward to the progression of this bill and hope that whatever final version is submitted to President Obama for his signature contains these provisions to ensure more transparent, effective aid.
The full text of the legislation is available here.
On July 28, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, including Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Richard Lugar of Indiana, introduced a bill to improve U.S. development efforts by updating the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for the 21st century. The introduction of this bill was part of a larger effort to improve USAID and increase its role in U.S. development efforts.
Senator Lugar has been particularly vocal in his support of changing the way USAID conducts business. He has written an op-ed in which he outlines many of the features to be found in the bi-partisan bill, including the need for increased staff and tracking project outputs to determine successes and best practices. Recently, Senator Lugar wrote a letter to the editors of the Washington Post to highlight the difficulty the Obama administration has had in finding a USAID Administrator.
In addition to the bi-partisan support and momentum this bill represents, it is a new commitment of USAID to the goals of transparent data and the measurement of its activities. Both Sections five (page nine of the bill in particular) and section six of the bill highlight the need for USAID to collect data and perform monitoring and evaluation assessments on their programs. These sections of the bill will improve the effectiveness of USAID’s efforts and possibly provide the development community as a whole with best practices and certainly with a surfeit of data on USAID’s activities.
To ensure that the information USAID will now collect will be used, Section 10 of the bill recommends that the U.S. fully engage and comply with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). IATI was one of the outcomes of last year’s high level forum in Accra. The type of transparent information IATI compliance would entail will give U.S. and international aid practitioners a greater wealth of information to ensure more effective aid.
The two parts of the bill highlighted here are clearly related. There is little point in collecting all of information USAID will be required to collect if no one will ever see it. The two major points are also key issues for Development Gateway. Aid effectiveness has been a key point of our work and we have begun to emphasize the possibilities that more transparent information can offer. We look forward to the progression of this bill and hope that whatever final version is submitted to President Obama for his signature contains these provisions to ensure more transparent, effective aid.
The full text of the legislation is available here.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Comparing Aid Agencies
by Emily Kallaur
Ariel BenYishay and Franck S. Wiebe of the Millennium Challenge Corporation have just written a paper entitled “Can Aid Agencies Follow Best Practices?: An Assessment of the MCC’s Aid Practices Based on Easterly and Pfutze (2008)”. The paper assesses the MCC’s performance according to indicators of aid agency “best practice” as determined by Easterly and Pfutze.
In the original paper by Easterly and Pfutze, all U.S. agencies providing aid were evaluated in the aggregate. Although (to date) the MCC disburses only a small fraction of total U.S. development assistance, its approach and policies are quite innovative and contrast sharply with other U.S. agencies which follow a more traditional approach, making the MCC a compelling individual case study. When applying the Easterly and Pfutze evaluation criteria solely to the MCC rather than U.S. aid agencies as a whole, BenYishay and Wiebe find that it ranks 8th out of 40 donors, compared to 16th out of 39 for U.S. assistance as a whole.
It’s certainly debatable whether there are universal “best practices” for aid agencies, and if so whether Easterly and Pfutze have correctly identified them. In any case, this result for the MCC is an interesting contribution to the debate.
Ariel BenYishay and Franck S. Wiebe of the Millennium Challenge Corporation have just written a paper entitled “Can Aid Agencies Follow Best Practices?: An Assessment of the MCC’s Aid Practices Based on Easterly and Pfutze (2008)”. The paper assesses the MCC’s performance according to indicators of aid agency “best practice” as determined by Easterly and Pfutze.
In the original paper by Easterly and Pfutze, all U.S. agencies providing aid were evaluated in the aggregate. Although (to date) the MCC disburses only a small fraction of total U.S. development assistance, its approach and policies are quite innovative and contrast sharply with other U.S. agencies which follow a more traditional approach, making the MCC a compelling individual case study. When applying the Easterly and Pfutze evaluation criteria solely to the MCC rather than U.S. aid agencies as a whole, BenYishay and Wiebe find that it ranks 8th out of 40 donors, compared to 16th out of 39 for U.S. assistance as a whole.
It’s certainly debatable whether there are universal “best practices” for aid agencies, and if so whether Easterly and Pfutze have correctly identified them. In any case, this result for the MCC is an interesting contribution to the debate.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Enough with the kids, already
by Elizabeth Corley
A picture is worth a thousand words, so they say. But what are those words actually saying? Too often the image we get of development is poor people, frequently children, looking bereft. While these images can be compelling and evocative of those we aim to benefit, they don’t depict aspects of development that involve economic growth.
We are always looking for images that help show the many sides of development. The annual Development Gateway photo contest is now under way. Show us what you think is a great image of development, in all it manifestations. The winner will receive $1,000. Send in your submissions by September 18, 2009.
Pictured here is one of my favorites from last year. It shows a woman harvesting seaweed in Madagascar. The photo was taken by Laura DeBiaggio of Italy.
A picture is worth a thousand words, so they say. But what are those words actually saying? Too often the image we get of development is poor people, frequently children, looking bereft. While these images can be compelling and evocative of those we aim to benefit, they don’t depict aspects of development that involve economic growth.We are always looking for images that help show the many sides of development. The annual Development Gateway photo contest is now under way. Show us what you think is a great image of development, in all it manifestations. The winner will receive $1,000. Send in your submissions by September 18, 2009.
Pictured here is one of my favorites from last year. It shows a woman harvesting seaweed in Madagascar. The photo was taken by Laura DeBiaggio of Italy.
Relationship building - the overlooked ingredient of effective aid?
by Anna Lauridsen
IDS researcher, Rosalind Eyben recently responded to the call from the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Debt, Aid and Trade for evidence on aid effectiveness. Her response focuses on the importance of relationships.
Eyben argues that effective aid requires as much investment in relationships as in managing money. Hence, development organisations need to change the way they work in order to better manage the multiple partnerships that the Accra Agenda for Action recognises as the core of the aid business.
Part of the problem is the way aid is measured. Currently, the approach assumes that we are in control and that change is predictable. If you do X, Y will follow. Although this approach may be useful for programmes involving mass immunisation campaigns and impregnated bed-nets, in many aid cases change is not predictable or controllable.
In fact, Eyben’s inquiry reveals some effects are simply not reported by development staff because they were not predicted or did not fit the initial logical framework. Eyben points to cases of relationship building on the local level in conflict ridden countries as some of the most effective initiatives. Eyben states that there is no evidence that spending more money with less staff will deliver better results. This observation is due to the fact that achieving impact requires investing in relationships, which requires the support of development organisations.
Staff can understand the specific context in which they are working through investing time in building relationships with different individuals, organisations, and networks. Similarly, the organization’s staff needs to engage with diverse citizen’s groups (in the capital and in the countryside) as well as with government officials, including front-line workers, in order to get a better picture of what is happening and to identify drivers and blockers of change.
Read the full report: Evidence Submission to the APPG Inquiry on Aid Effectiveness
IDS researcher, Rosalind Eyben recently responded to the call from the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Debt, Aid and Trade for evidence on aid effectiveness. Her response focuses on the importance of relationships.
Eyben argues that effective aid requires as much investment in relationships as in managing money. Hence, development organisations need to change the way they work in order to better manage the multiple partnerships that the Accra Agenda for Action recognises as the core of the aid business.
Part of the problem is the way aid is measured. Currently, the approach assumes that we are in control and that change is predictable. If you do X, Y will follow. Although this approach may be useful for programmes involving mass immunisation campaigns and impregnated bed-nets, in many aid cases change is not predictable or controllable.
In fact, Eyben’s inquiry reveals some effects are simply not reported by development staff because they were not predicted or did not fit the initial logical framework. Eyben points to cases of relationship building on the local level in conflict ridden countries as some of the most effective initiatives. Eyben states that there is no evidence that spending more money with less staff will deliver better results. This observation is due to the fact that achieving impact requires investing in relationships, which requires the support of development organisations.
Staff can understand the specific context in which they are working through investing time in building relationships with different individuals, organisations, and networks. Similarly, the organization’s staff needs to engage with diverse citizen’s groups (in the capital and in the countryside) as well as with government officials, including front-line workers, in order to get a better picture of what is happening and to identify drivers and blockers of change.
Read the full report: Evidence Submission to the APPG Inquiry on Aid Effectiveness
Friday, July 17, 2009
Making sense of aid flows
by Emily Kallaur
Through AiDA (the Accessible Information on Development Activities) database we are trying to provide an increasingly comprehensive picture of development assistance flows around the world. I just came across a picture that illustrates how challenging this problem can be—it’s from a 2007 paper entitled “Trends and Issues in Development Aid,” by Homi Kharas of the Brookings Institution.
It’s quite a complex web! In recent months we have added data feeds from more private aid organizations to AiDA, and we are working to capture more. The more information can be reflected in a single repository, using a single format, the better development actors will be able to assess where funds are going and how they are being used.
The paper and diagram above also highlight the relatively small share of development aid that makes it to countries as “programmable aid.” The definition of programmable aid excludes debt relief, humanitarian and food aid, technical assistance, and donors’ administrative costs—not because these are not worthwhile, but in order to zero in on the aid flows that can be used by recipient governments to invest in development. Kharas found that only about $38 billion of the over $100 billion in official development assistance from OECD/DAC member states was channeled to developing countries as “net programmable aid” (as of 2007). For Sub-Saharan Africa, net programmable aid of about $12 billion in 2005 was approximately the same amount (once adjusted for purchasing power) that was delivered in 1985.
This situation underscores the need for detailed, standardized data on aid flows in order to understand what is really happening on the ground, and gauge its impact. Another implication is that recipient governments need aid information that can be easily disaggregated into programmable aid, that they can reflect in the national budget and direct toward development priorities, and other types of aid (such as technical assistance) which do not represent financial flows to the country. Currently this level of detail is not necessarily the case.
Through AiDA (the Accessible Information on Development Activities) database we are trying to provide an increasingly comprehensive picture of development assistance flows around the world. I just came across a picture that illustrates how challenging this problem can be—it’s from a 2007 paper entitled “Trends and Issues in Development Aid,” by Homi Kharas of the Brookings Institution.
It’s quite a complex web! In recent months we have added data feeds from more private aid organizations to AiDA, and we are working to capture more. The more information can be reflected in a single repository, using a single format, the better development actors will be able to assess where funds are going and how they are being used.
The paper and diagram above also highlight the relatively small share of development aid that makes it to countries as “programmable aid.” The definition of programmable aid excludes debt relief, humanitarian and food aid, technical assistance, and donors’ administrative costs—not because these are not worthwhile, but in order to zero in on the aid flows that can be used by recipient governments to invest in development. Kharas found that only about $38 billion of the over $100 billion in official development assistance from OECD/DAC member states was channeled to developing countries as “net programmable aid” (as of 2007). For Sub-Saharan Africa, net programmable aid of about $12 billion in 2005 was approximately the same amount (once adjusted for purchasing power) that was delivered in 1985.
This situation underscores the need for detailed, standardized data on aid flows in order to understand what is really happening on the ground, and gauge its impact. Another implication is that recipient governments need aid information that can be easily disaggregated into programmable aid, that they can reflect in the national budget and direct toward development priorities, and other types of aid (such as technical assistance) which do not represent financial flows to the country. Currently this level of detail is not necessarily the case.
CSO development effectiveness
by Anna Lauridsen
Since its beginning, the international aid effectiveness agenda has primarily focused on the policies of national governments and bi- and multilateral organisations. Fortunately, this policy debate is increasingly trickling down to civil society organisations (CSOs).
In early July, civil society organisations were invited to take part in the consultations of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) in Brussels. Launched in September 2008 at the Accra High Level Forum, the IATI brings together donor countries, developing country governments, non-governmental organisations, and experts in aid information to agree on ways of sharing more and better information about aid.
The IATI CSO consultations in Brussels had the purpose of better understanding the kinds of information about donor aid flows that European CSOs require and to identify recommendations in developing the IATI standards. Similar consultations will be held with CSOs from the developing world.
In June 2009 some 170 representatives from CSOs, donors and governments from nearly 50 countries from around the world gathered in Prague for the conference “Civil Society Organizations Development Effectiveness”. The conference was organised by the Czech NGDO platform “FoRS” in collaboration with CONCORD.
Participants were invited to tackle questions such as: What are the key principles of development effectiveness? What is the specific role of CSOs in development that could best contribute to their full potential? How is effectiveness influenced by external conditions and how to turn these conditions into advantages? The Prague conference concluded with a statement which sets out principles of CSO development effectiveness. Participants committed to deepen discussions of these principles within the Open Forum for CSO effectiveness.
These two CSO gatherings point to two things. Firstly, the gathering momentum of the aid effectiveness agenda (and how to put it into practice) and, secondly, the need for a broad-based, inclusive effort. In other words, the involvement of development experts from various organisations and structures, be it national governments and civil society pulling in the same direction. With these kinds of initiatives, the aid effectiveness agenda stands a chance of succeeding.
Since its beginning, the international aid effectiveness agenda has primarily focused on the policies of national governments and bi- and multilateral organisations. Fortunately, this policy debate is increasingly trickling down to civil society organisations (CSOs).
In early July, civil society organisations were invited to take part in the consultations of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) in Brussels. Launched in September 2008 at the Accra High Level Forum, the IATI brings together donor countries, developing country governments, non-governmental organisations, and experts in aid information to agree on ways of sharing more and better information about aid.
The IATI CSO consultations in Brussels had the purpose of better understanding the kinds of information about donor aid flows that European CSOs require and to identify recommendations in developing the IATI standards. Similar consultations will be held with CSOs from the developing world.
In June 2009 some 170 representatives from CSOs, donors and governments from nearly 50 countries from around the world gathered in Prague for the conference “Civil Society Organizations Development Effectiveness”. The conference was organised by the Czech NGDO platform “FoRS” in collaboration with CONCORD.
Participants were invited to tackle questions such as: What are the key principles of development effectiveness? What is the specific role of CSOs in development that could best contribute to their full potential? How is effectiveness influenced by external conditions and how to turn these conditions into advantages? The Prague conference concluded with a statement which sets out principles of CSO development effectiveness. Participants committed to deepen discussions of these principles within the Open Forum for CSO effectiveness.
These two CSO gatherings point to two things. Firstly, the gathering momentum of the aid effectiveness agenda (and how to put it into practice) and, secondly, the need for a broad-based, inclusive effort. In other words, the involvement of development experts from various organisations and structures, be it national governments and civil society pulling in the same direction. With these kinds of initiatives, the aid effectiveness agenda stands a chance of succeeding.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Communicating the value of open data to donors
by Elizabeth Corley
At last week’s unconference I led a discussion on the topic of communicating the value of open data and standards to donors. Here are some of the key issues we discussed.
1. What is open development? Our definition was an attempt to make information about the development process open and transparent for all those who care about it and deal with it, including donors, recipients, taxpayers, regulators, practitioners, and academics. One desired end result is to create a feedback loop.
2. Data sharing should be part of the planning process. It must be considered at the inception to allow for easy sharing. There is a value in unstructured data, before it is assembled into a written document. Projects could be designed with shorter, smaller reports that include leading and lagging indicators.
3. It is incumbent on the implementers of a project to share data. One example of best practice here is the AMREF project in Katine, Uganda. In partnership with Barclays Bank and the Guardian, AMREF allows public scrutiny of its ongoing project.
After our session, the subject of communicating the value of open data and standards come up in conversation with Owen Barder of aidinfo. How do you show donors the possibility of how the data can be used (when sometimes we don’t even know)? He pointed to an example of a new technology sited in an article titled "Web Squared" by Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle.
Imagine if you had a device that could give you information about what was around you. Let’s say you walk by a school in Cambodia. You point the device at a building and on the screen appears the names of donors who funded the construction of the school or the provision of text books. Nice credit for the donors.
But imagine the school is in ruins and the device tells you how much money has been poured into it. Who would want to be associated with failure? This topic also came up in our session and it is one of culture. In some sectors, such as technology, failed enterprises means you have learned a lot. In development, particularly in Washington, we avoid public exposure and the risk of public failure. Maybe that is why we are willing to release data to the taxpayers—but only after the report has been vetted, polished, and refined for public consumption.
At last week’s unconference I led a discussion on the topic of communicating the value of open data and standards to donors. Here are some of the key issues we discussed.
1. What is open development? Our definition was an attempt to make information about the development process open and transparent for all those who care about it and deal with it, including donors, recipients, taxpayers, regulators, practitioners, and academics. One desired end result is to create a feedback loop.
2. Data sharing should be part of the planning process. It must be considered at the inception to allow for easy sharing. There is a value in unstructured data, before it is assembled into a written document. Projects could be designed with shorter, smaller reports that include leading and lagging indicators.
3. It is incumbent on the implementers of a project to share data. One example of best practice here is the AMREF project in Katine, Uganda. In partnership with Barclays Bank and the Guardian, AMREF allows public scrutiny of its ongoing project.
After our session, the subject of communicating the value of open data and standards come up in conversation with Owen Barder of aidinfo. How do you show donors the possibility of how the data can be used (when sometimes we don’t even know)? He pointed to an example of a new technology sited in an article titled "Web Squared" by Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle.
Imagine if you had a device that could give you information about what was around you. Let’s say you walk by a school in Cambodia. You point the device at a building and on the screen appears the names of donors who funded the construction of the school or the provision of text books. Nice credit for the donors.
But imagine the school is in ruins and the device tells you how much money has been poured into it. Who would want to be associated with failure? This topic also came up in our session and it is one of culture. In some sectors, such as technology, failed enterprises means you have learned a lot. In development, particularly in Washington, we avoid public exposure and the risk of public failure. Maybe that is why we are willing to release data to the taxpayers—but only after the report has been vetted, polished, and refined for public consumption.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Camp brings together those with a passion for development and sharing data
by Elizabeth Corley
It was great to meet so many people working on issues of data and collaboration at the open development camp today. The event showed how much people care about international development and their passion for sharing data. Owen Barder kicked off the event by giving context to the challenge at hand and emphasizing the value of open data and open standards.
The suggestions for topics at the camp ranged from technical issues like maping and crowdsourcing to broader questions on communication and collaboration. You can see here what the grid looked like for session one. Over the course of the day we had sixteen sessions. Notes on each session will be posted on opendev.ning.com.
When asked for his impression of the camp, Matt Gyory, our communications intern, zeroed in on what is next. “Really the core of this day was not so much what was discussed, but the next steps that should be taken. Those that discussed data standards should try to get together to map out what they would like to see in particular and run with their ideas from there. Those that discussed the importance of measuring aid effectiveness should attempt to adopt the strategies offered. Those that discussed open data and development should attempt to add the collection of data and distribution of that data in their projects so it becomes a habit rather than an expensive addition.”
The event was co-sponsored byAidInfo, ForumOne, Global Development Commons, and the World Bank. Special thanks goes to Sameer Vasta, the bank’s social media strategist, who not only secured ample room for breakout sessions, but also delivered on the refreshments.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Innovations in Development Financing
by Emily Kallaur
Recently Development Gateway hosted a brownbag led by Navin Girishankar of the World Bank, who presented his new paper “Innovating Development Finance: From Financing Sources to
Financial Solutions”.
The paper takes stock of creative financing mechanisms for development, from solidarity mechanisms like the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) initiative to risk management tools such as weather indexed insurance for Malawi. In an effort to mobilize resources to support achievement of the MDGs, donors have also turned to new sources of funding for development initiatives, such as proceeds from national lotteries (in the UK and Belgium) or levies on air travel.
Overall, innovative financing still accounts for a fairly small share of total development aid. The paper concludes that innovative financing should be increasingly mainstreamed, but that it is not a substitute for raising the overall volume of development assistance through traditional means (e.g. for concessional financing). According to the analysis, the only major new source of concessional financing in the period studied has been aid from emerging bilateral donors (non-DAC members), who accounted for roughly $3 billion in development assistance in 2006.
The paper also argues that innovations should be studied to determine whether the transaction costs associated with creative mechanisms are justified by the end results. Capturing better data on non-traditional development financing will be important to gauging the value added of these promising tools.
Recently Development Gateway hosted a brownbag led by Navin Girishankar of the World Bank, who presented his new paper “Innovating Development Finance: From Financing Sources to
Financial Solutions”.The paper takes stock of creative financing mechanisms for development, from solidarity mechanisms like the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) initiative to risk management tools such as weather indexed insurance for Malawi. In an effort to mobilize resources to support achievement of the MDGs, donors have also turned to new sources of funding for development initiatives, such as proceeds from national lotteries (in the UK and Belgium) or levies on air travel.
Overall, innovative financing still accounts for a fairly small share of total development aid. The paper concludes that innovative financing should be increasingly mainstreamed, but that it is not a substitute for raising the overall volume of development assistance through traditional means (e.g. for concessional financing). According to the analysis, the only major new source of concessional financing in the period studied has been aid from emerging bilateral donors (non-DAC members), who accounted for roughly $3 billion in development assistance in 2006.
The paper also argues that innovations should be studied to determine whether the transaction costs associated with creative mechanisms are justified by the end results. Capturing better data on non-traditional development financing will be important to gauging the value added of these promising tools.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Demonstrating tools for development at InterAction Forum
by Elizabeth Corley
The InterAction forum starts today, marking the 25th anniversary of that organization which represents 180 international NGOs. With 800 attendees throughout the week, we expect some interesting discussions regarding the future of international assistance efforts. Vanessa Goas will give a brief presentation on the Aid Management Platform on Tuesday, July 7, at 11:05 am. We will have demonstrations of AiDA, our database on aid activities, and AMP at our booth in the exhibitor’s hall.
The InterAction forum starts today, marking the 25th anniversary of that organization which represents 180 international NGOs. With 800 attendees throughout the week, we expect some interesting discussions regarding the future of international assistance efforts. Vanessa Goas will give a brief presentation on the Aid Management Platform on Tuesday, July 7, at 11:05 am. We will have demonstrations of AiDA, our database on aid activities, and AMP at our booth in the exhibitor’s hall.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Sweden begins its EU presidency
by Anna Lauridsen
On July 1 the Czech Republic handed over the EU torch to Sweden.For those not living in Brussels or simply lacking a passion for European politics, this week’s major event must have gone by more or less unnoticed. As I did a quick search on the websites some ofEurope ’s major newspapers, the news was overshadowed by national events, forcing me to scroll down while attentively looking for the key words: “Swedish” “Presidency”.
The Presidency of the Council of the European Union is one of the most important instruments for promoting the interests of EU member states and influencing the activities of the European Union. Accordingly, member states hold the presidency on a rotating basis following a predetermined schedule broken down into six-month terms.
Normally, the presidency is expected to handle at least one major crisis during its time at the steering wheel. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt will be forced to hit the ground running with the current global political and financial climate. In the coming months, a few crucial decision will be made as to whether Mr. Barroso will stay on as the President of the European Commission, who his commissioners will be and if the Lisbon Treaty will be successfully ratified by the Member States.
As for the presidency’s ambitions for international development, we have so far been told that it will work on specific measures to make EU development cooperation more effective and to ensure that different policy areas work together to contribute to sustainable global development, i.e. policy coherence for development. This change is seen in the light of the economic downturn which is affecting the poorest countries hardest.
Undoubtedly, the Presidency’s development agenda will culminate in the European Development Days, Stockholm, 22–24 October. The European Development Days is a three-day get together for the movers and shakers of international development, including development ministers, heads of national aid agencies, international aid organizations, NGOs and the like. The Development Gateway will participate for the second year in a row. Please check our website for our booth number closer to the date. You can also read about Development Gateway’s success in DRC.
On July 1 the Czech Republic handed over the EU torch to Sweden.For those not living in Brussels or simply lacking a passion for European politics, this week’s major event must have gone by more or less unnoticed. As I did a quick search on the websites some of
The Presidency of the Council of the European Union is one of the most important instruments for promoting the interests of EU member states and influencing the activities of the European Union. Accordingly, member states hold the presidency on a rotating basis following a predetermined schedule broken down into six-month terms.
Normally, the presidency is expected to handle at least one major crisis during its time at the steering wheel. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt will be forced to hit the ground running with the current global political and financial climate. In the coming months, a few crucial decision will be made as to whether Mr. Barroso will stay on as the President of the European Commission, who his commissioners will be and if the Lisbon Treaty will be successfully ratified by the Member States.
As for the presidency’s ambitions for international development, we have so far been told that it will work on specific measures to make EU development cooperation more effective and to ensure that different policy areas work together to contribute to sustainable global development, i.e. policy coherence for development. This change is seen in the light of the economic downturn which is affecting the poorest countries hardest.
Undoubtedly, the Presidency’s development agenda will culminate in the European Development Days, Stockholm, 22–24 October. The European Development Days is a three-day get together for the movers and shakers of international development, including development ministers, heads of national aid agencies, international aid organizations, NGOs and the like. The Development Gateway will participate for the second year in a row. Please check our website for our booth number closer to the date. You can also read about Development Gateway’s success in DRC.
World Bank report highlights the importance of ICT for development
by Elizabeth Corley
Yesterday, the World Bank launched its report Information and Communication Technologies for Development 2009: Extending Reach and Increasing Impact. The report looks at how access to ICT effects socio-economic development. Among its findings:
During the discussion at the launch, Christine Qiang, senior economist at the World Bank and manager of the ICT4D reports, noted that behavioral and organizational adjustments must accompany e-government solutions. Business and institutional leadership need to work with technical leadership.
Anand Anandalingam, dean of the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, commented on the need to focus on information, not just the communication part of these technologies. He also underscored the need for skilled labor to meet the demand for sustainable IT solutions and the role government can play in developing the backbone of the network.
As new applications are developed and mobile telephony expands, the potential for ICT to contribute to economic development grows. The evolving nature of this sector requires policy responses and new models for development. The report includes analysis of trends and best practices to maximize the impact of ICT.
Yesterday, the World Bank launched its report Information and Communication Technologies for Development 2009: Extending Reach and Increasing Impact. The report looks at how access to ICT effects socio-economic development. Among its findings:
- A 10-percentage-point increase in broadband penetration results in an increase of 1.3 percentage points in economic growth.
- In India and the Philippines, results show that for every new job in the IT sector, between 2 and four jobs are created in other sectors.
- E-government can reduce corruption. Based on a survey of five e-government projects in India, analysts found that computerization decreased corruption.
During the discussion at the launch, Christine Qiang, senior economist at the World Bank and manager of the ICT4D reports, noted that behavioral and organizational adjustments must accompany e-government solutions. Business and institutional leadership need to work with technical leadership.Anand Anandalingam, dean of the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, commented on the need to focus on information, not just the communication part of these technologies. He also underscored the need for skilled labor to meet the demand for sustainable IT solutions and the role government can play in developing the backbone of the network.
As new applications are developed and mobile telephony expands, the potential for ICT to contribute to economic development grows. The evolving nature of this sector requires policy responses and new models for development. The report includes analysis of trends and best practices to maximize the impact of ICT.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Not if or when but which and how
by Elizabeth CorleyWhen the organizer for Blog Potomac, declared last week that social media was dead, he meant it was alive and well. He explained that it is doing so well that an innovator such as himself had to move on. In terms of technology life cycles, if you don’t have a blog by now, you are behind the curve.
It is not too late to jump on the bandwagon. (Thanks to Matt Hamm for this image.) The challenge is how to make it work for you. It is not a question of if or when to use social media, but which tools and how.
Development Gateway uses a number of social media platforms to communicate with our stakeholders. The enhanced version of dgCommunities, the platform we provide for information on development, is scheduled for launch in the coming weeks. It will make sharing content easier and has been designed with social features. In addition to this blog, we use several other platforms such as Twitter.
We added Twitter to our toolbox because of its speed and flexibility. It is one way we share knowledge on what is going on in international development and inside the organization. It has helped us connect with people who care about aid effectiveness.
Twitter has been mentioned frequently in the news lately. First, as an application that will change the way we live, according to Time. Then, it was examined in light of the Iranian elections. More recently it became the subject of attention when Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, died on June 25, and tweets jumped to 5,000 a minute. (Sounds like a lot, doesn't?)
Our Twitter updates are integrated into a broader communications strategy that puts the Web site at the hub. Our tweets reference the Web site but go beyond our programs to help promote other notable efforts and engage in less formal conversations with our followers. Other tools, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, this blog, and the ning, are vehicles for communication and knowledge sharing. Each one has its own role. The trick is to use them well you need to be driving the wagon, not bouncing around in the back.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Six steps to managing an international team
by Alex Coleman
1. Over Communicate (Provide various channels of communication)
There can never be too much communication with your team horizontally and vertically. Communication is imperative because of the distance and increased probability of a misunderstanding of requirements. It helps foster the team spirit crucial to the success of the program.The various methods of communication are:
- Chat. On a daily basis, we use an internal chat system-AMPCHAT. All the technical team members are required to be available on this chat during work hours. We also use chat systems such as MSN, Skype, and YAHOO as backup options. Encourage developers in different countries to use the chat systems and SIP phones to discuss technical issues.
- Webex. This online tools works well for international calls, demonstrations, and recording of meetings.
- Teleconference. We hold a quarterly teleconference team meeting to outline the management and technical direction for the upcoming months.
- E-mail. Electronic mail, combined with teleconferences and chats organized by technical specialists, is good for smaller teams for the kickoff and development of a new feature. Various daily meetings are held to discuss the feature requirements, project plan, and ongoing updates. These methods are also good for upgrade and installation planning.
- Telephone. Old-fashioned technology still has its place. Phone interviews for new hires are important to encourage direct communication and a team spirit.
- Face-to-face. Upon hire, new team members are paired up with senior developers. This sometimes takes place in another location. Working side by side for a period of two months helps the new hire to understand our software development process.
Until 2015: How can we optimise the implementation of the MDGs?
by Anna Lauridsen
This week, development practitioners, experts and academics gathered in Brussels to discuss the state of play of the Millennium Development Goals at After 2015: Promoting Pro-Poor policy After the MDGs. Co-organised by DFID, ActionAid, the EADI, and the Development Studies Association, the event attracted panelists from across the development field.
The conference set out to tackle two ambitious questions: 1) What has been the impact of the MDG paradigm on poverty reduction to date and what does that mean for an MDG plus agenda? and 2) What are the key meta-processes shaping development over the next 10-15 years and what do they imply for an MDG plus agenda? The conclusions from the conference were meant to feed into the upcoming 10 year review of the MDGs in 2010.
Despite the doom and gloom surrounding the MDGs and how they are not expected to be achieved (especially in the light of the financial, food and fuel crises) a few suggestions were made on turning the situation around, or at least improving it. Some speakers suggested a new paradigm of global sustainable development, including poverty, and others proposed additional millennium goals of social inclusion. However, at this point in time, what is really needed? If the MDGs are failing, would it really be wise to add new ones at this stage? Are we risking an intellectualisation of the MDGs, and of development at large? Perhaps the answer is more practical and straightforward and less high-level and policy oriented.
To date, the MDGs have worked and failed to various degrees in different countries. As most of the developed and developing world has entered the information and communication age it is high time to ask how this change could benefit the poor. Undoubtedly, MDG 5 of improving maternal health, which has been the biggest failure across the board, could have been alleviated by better infrastructure and information, but also by the use of information technology. There is no question that the use of mobile phones and other web based tools to exchange information must be further explored and integrated in all development work.
Finally, to what extent can countries learn from each others' success and failures? How could a system for peer review be set up among countries implementing the MDGs in order for them to monitor each others progress? Is there for the possibility for more locally defined measures and indicators? Louis Kasekende highlighted how the tracking of progress is undermined by the lack of current and reliable data and how poor quality of data makes monitoring difficult. The multiplicity of players also contributes to a lack of coherence, coordination, and duplication of effort. The need for reliable data and targets points to yet another role ICT can play in achieving the international development agenda.
The conference provided the opportunity to discuss the approaching deadline of the MDGs and what can be done to ensure that all of the efforts used to achieve them – regardless of success – was not completely wasted. The questions raised by the participants show clearly that there is a growing need for information and communication technology in the future of development.
Please consult http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/ for further reading
This week, development practitioners, experts and academics gathered in Brussels to discuss the state of play of the Millennium Development Goals at After 2015: Promoting Pro-Poor policy After the MDGs. Co-organised by DFID, ActionAid, the EADI, and the Development Studies Association, the event attracted panelists from across the development field.
The conference set out to tackle two ambitious questions: 1) What has been the impact of the MDG paradigm on poverty reduction to date and what does that mean for an MDG plus agenda? and 2) What are the key meta-processes shaping development over the next 10-15 years and what do they imply for an MDG plus agenda? The conclusions from the conference were meant to feed into the upcoming 10 year review of the MDGs in 2010.
Despite the doom and gloom surrounding the MDGs and how they are not expected to be achieved (especially in the light of the financial, food and fuel crises) a few suggestions were made on turning the situation around, or at least improving it. Some speakers suggested a new paradigm of global sustainable development, including poverty, and others proposed additional millennium goals of social inclusion. However, at this point in time, what is really needed? If the MDGs are failing, would it really be wise to add new ones at this stage? Are we risking an intellectualisation of the MDGs, and of development at large? Perhaps the answer is more practical and straightforward and less high-level and policy oriented.
To date, the MDGs have worked and failed to various degrees in different countries. As most of the developed and developing world has entered the information and communication age it is high time to ask how this change could benefit the poor. Undoubtedly, MDG 5 of improving maternal health, which has been the biggest failure across the board, could have been alleviated by better infrastructure and information, but also by the use of information technology. There is no question that the use of mobile phones and other web based tools to exchange information must be further explored and integrated in all development work.
Finally, to what extent can countries learn from each others' success and failures? How could a system for peer review be set up among countries implementing the MDGs in order for them to monitor each others progress? Is there for the possibility for more locally defined measures and indicators? Louis Kasekende highlighted how the tracking of progress is undermined by the lack of current and reliable data and how poor quality of data makes monitoring difficult. The multiplicity of players also contributes to a lack of coherence, coordination, and duplication of effort. The need for reliable data and targets points to yet another role ICT can play in achieving the international development agenda.
The conference provided the opportunity to discuss the approaching deadline of the MDGs and what can be done to ensure that all of the efforts used to achieve them – regardless of success – was not completely wasted. The questions raised by the participants show clearly that there is a growing need for information and communication technology in the future of development.
Please consult http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/ for further reading
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Holding donors accountable
by Emily KallaurThe ONE Campaign recently released its DATA Report 2009, which tracks the G8 countries’ actual aid delivery against the pledges made at the 2005 Gleneagles summit. This report is a great example of leveraging aid information to hold development actors accountable for their promises. Overall, the analysis finds mixed performance across donor countries; in total, about one third of the aid increases promised by 2010 have been delivered. Clearly progress will have to accelerate if the targets are to be met (although some individual donors are meeting or even exceeding their individual commitments). In addition to increasing the quantity of aid, the report highlights the need to improve the quality of delivery—for example, relying on local country systems rather than donor systems to manage aid flows. But of course, aid is only part of the story. Having made little progress on “making trade work for Africa,” it’s time for the G8 to take some meaningful steps toward facilitating increased trading opportunities.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Five Sites Every Conscious Citizen Should Know About
by Nadia Afrin
Global Voices Online – www.globalvoicesoline.com
Want an alternative to mainstream news media? Want to know what people around the world are really thinking? Global Voices Online can give you the global pulse by aggregating commentaries from 200 bloggers worldwide. Global Voices also runs the Lingua project and translates blog entries in 15 languages.
Global Giving – www.globalgiving.com
Global Giving is the “marketplace that connects people who have community and world-changing ideas with people who can support them”. It compiles a list of credible development projects around the world and ensures that they meet IRS and anti-terrorism regulations. Individuals who are interested in donating to a good cause can find projects by sector and country. We set up a wedding registry on Global Giving when we got married and raised over 1,000 dollars for projects we picked out!
Ammado – www.ammado.com
Ammado is social networking site that brings together non-profts, socially-minded businesses, and conscious citizens around the world. Businesses can use it to promote awareness about their CSR initiatives as well as forge partnerships. Non-profits can communicate information about their activities to people around the world. Individuals can get up-to-date information about their favorite non-profits, create giving circles to fund development projects and connect with like minded people. Since its launch in June 2008 the membership of Ammado has grown substantially. The site is now available in 12 languages.
TED – www.ted.com
TED was created on the notion that ideas have the power to change our world. TED hosts an annual conference that brings together thinkers and leaders in science/technology, business, arts etc. 400 of the best TEDTalks are available on their website with subtitles in various languages.
dgCommunities – www.dgcommunities.com
Last but not the least is our very own dgCommunities. It provides a space for professional learning and knowledge-sharing among those working to reduce poverty worldwide. We are making big improvements to dgCommunities and rebranding it in an effort to better meet your needs. Among other things, we are expanding out coverage from the current 30 topics to a wide range of development issues. Look out for the new and improved dgCommunities!
Global Voices Online – www.globalvoicesoline.com
Want an alternative to mainstream news media? Want to know what people around the world are really thinking? Global Voices Online can give you the global pulse by aggregating commentaries from 200 bloggers worldwide. Global Voices also runs the Lingua project and translates blog entries in 15 languages.
Global Giving – www.globalgiving.com
Global Giving is the “marketplace that connects people who have community and world-changing ideas with people who can support them”. It compiles a list of credible development projects around the world and ensures that they meet IRS and anti-terrorism regulations. Individuals who are interested in donating to a good cause can find projects by sector and country. We set up a wedding registry on Global Giving when we got married and raised over 1,000 dollars for projects we picked out!
Ammado – www.ammado.com
Ammado is social networking site that brings together non-profts, socially-minded businesses, and conscious citizens around the world. Businesses can use it to promote awareness about their CSR initiatives as well as forge partnerships. Non-profits can communicate information about their activities to people around the world. Individuals can get up-to-date information about their favorite non-profits, create giving circles to fund development projects and connect with like minded people. Since its launch in June 2008 the membership of Ammado has grown substantially. The site is now available in 12 languages.
TED – www.ted.com
TED was created on the notion that ideas have the power to change our world. TED hosts an annual conference that brings together thinkers and leaders in science/technology, business, arts etc. 400 of the best TEDTalks are available on their website with subtitles in various languages.
dgCommunities – www.dgcommunities.com
Last but not the least is our very own dgCommunities. It provides a space for professional learning and knowledge-sharing among those working to reduce poverty worldwide. We are making big improvements to dgCommunities and rebranding it in an effort to better meet your needs. Among other things, we are expanding out coverage from the current 30 topics to a wide range of development issues. Look out for the new and improved dgCommunities!
ICT: Is it helping Mexico?
by Steve Markham
I’m from Mexico and I graduated from Georgetown University in 1991 when a BS in computer science was the only available high tech degree. ICT related careers are now available at most universities in the US and most other countries—including Mexico. So what has this cadre of techies in Mexico done to help a country that, according to several UN and World Bank reports, is still haunted by severe income distribution problems, poverty and corruption?
Mexico now offers highly specialized technical degrees and has many capable programmers, web designers, and computer engineers who have been able to garner the momentum of the internet. Mexico has used ICT successfully to compete in the private sector, but this generation of techies is still looking for a way to use ICT to address the social ills mentioned above. Today’s generation is computer savvy and has the potential to use web 2.0, as a first step, to create greater transparency. However I haven’t seen it reach a stage where ICT is helping to deinstitutionalize corruption by creating greater transparency through online social networks. Maybe the success in the private sector has helped with income distribution problems by creating more high paying jobs, but these jobs will not go to the best candidates or create a stable economy as long as the other problems remain deeply entrenched.
Development Gateway supports a country gateway for Mexico.
I’m from Mexico and I graduated from Georgetown University in 1991 when a BS in computer science was the only available high tech degree. ICT related careers are now available at most universities in the US and most other countries—including Mexico. So what has this cadre of techies in Mexico done to help a country that, according to several UN and World Bank reports, is still haunted by severe income distribution problems, poverty and corruption?
Mexico now offers highly specialized technical degrees and has many capable programmers, web designers, and computer engineers who have been able to garner the momentum of the internet. Mexico has used ICT successfully to compete in the private sector, but this generation of techies is still looking for a way to use ICT to address the social ills mentioned above. Today’s generation is computer savvy and has the potential to use web 2.0, as a first step, to create greater transparency. However I haven’t seen it reach a stage where ICT is helping to deinstitutionalize corruption by creating greater transparency through online social networks. Maybe the success in the private sector has helped with income distribution problems by creating more high paying jobs, but these jobs will not go to the best candidates or create a stable economy as long as the other problems remain deeply entrenched.
Development Gateway supports a country gateway for Mexico.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Putting on a human face
by Elizabeth Corley
Last week we met in person with one of the co-hosts of the Open Development camp, Sameer Vasta. He’s been hired as the social media strategist for the World Bank—a man whose job entails putting a human face on a large bureaucratic institution.
One step in his strategy was to start a blog to explore the intersection of the Web and the World Bank. I particularly like his Friday reading list posts.
http://blogs.worldbank.org/insidetheweb/
We’re trying to put a human face on Development Gateway. The task is not so daunting for an organization with fewer than 100 staff. One of our strengths is our diversity; we have an interesting mix of development practitioners and IT programmers. Headquartered in DC, we have a corporate office in Brussels and two satellite offices in Africa. Programmers are based in Argentina, Armenia, Georgia, Romania, and Ukraine. This blog is intended in part to serve as window into the organization, one which allows others to view the many facets of Development Gateway.
Like a Cubist painting, we want to show you various perspectives at the same time. This interdisciplinary approach reflects how we work together as team to provide services to our stakeholders.
Friday, June 5, 2009
To shine a light on aid, standardize the info
by Emily Kallaur
There’s a lot of buzz about open source software these days. This week The Economist declared that open source has “won the argument” and is now well respected as an alternative to proprietary software. Openness, it seems, is victorious.
However, the article points out a new threat to openness—that a lack of common data standards will make it difficult for organizations to migrate their data from one system to another. This brings to mind the discussions around the International Aid Transparency Initiative and the need for a common standard for aid information.
There’s a lot of data out there on aid-funded projects and programs. It resides in many types of systems—global databases like AiDA, country systems like the Aid Management Platform, and plenty of other specialized sites. Without a common language for these systems to talk to each other, it’s not possible to aggregate, disaggregate, and compare the information. And that makes it harder to answer the critical question: in development, which approaches work and which don’t?
Countries interpret the global economic crisis
by Emily Kallaur
Although the effects of the global economic crisis are being felt around the world, it’s interesting to hear how different the impact has been from country to country. A conference I attended recently brought together financial management professionals from the public, private, and non-profit sectors to share country perspectives.
Although the effects of the global economic crisis are being felt around the world, it’s interesting to hear how different the impact has been from country to country. A conference I attended recently brought together financial management professionals from the public, private, and non-profit sectors to share country perspectives.
In the developed world, the crisis has prompted people to question their most basic assumptions about the roles of governments and markets. There is a sense that there has been a fundamental and permanent shift and that capitalism will never be the same again. This has also created a window of opportunity for dramatic policy reform.
Listening to colleagues from developing countries, I had the impression that although the effect of the crisis has been large, its implications have been more mundane. Export revenues have fallen. Some are worried that development assistance could decline. Many countries are anxious to diversify their economies away from dependence on oil, tourism, or a single commodity like tobacco.
But there wasn’t an overwhelming sense that these problems are fundamentally different in nature from problems faced in the past. Reforms have been underway for some time and implementation of those reforms continues to be relevant.
There is, on the other hand, a more skeptical attitude toward policies recommended by the countries that created the crisis.
Enough of aid ineffectiveness
by Anna Lauridsen
In a recent communication, the EC predicts that the cost of not fully implementing the Accra Agenda for Action adopted in 2008 may amount to as much as € 5 to € 7 billion euro a year until 2015. Such a figure is not only mindboggling, but also utterly indefensible. In the current climate of economic and financial downturn, resources are scarce in both the so called developed, as in the developing, world. Subsequently such a loss of the total EU aid budget due to “aid ineffectiveness” is unlikely to go down well with either the European taxpayers or the aid recipient countries.
In a recent communication, the EC predicts that the cost of not fully implementing the Accra Agenda for Action adopted in 2008 may amount to as much as € 5 to € 7 billion euro a year until 2015. Such a figure is not only mindboggling, but also utterly indefensible. In the current climate of economic and financial downturn, resources are scarce in both the so called developed, as in the developing, world. Subsequently such a loss of the total EU aid budget due to “aid ineffectiveness” is unlikely to go down well with either the European taxpayers or the aid recipient countries.
Despite the billions of euro that are potentially lost, the Triple Fs, in other words, the three crises: food, fuel and finance, have resulted in calls for increased levels of development aid from the donors. As most governments were already failing to fulfill the target of committing 0,7% of their countries' GDP to Official Development Assistance, even before these financially sour times washed over the globe as a giant tsunami, it is unlikely that aid levels will increase.
One may even be so bold as to ask whether more money is really the answer or if it would merely be a way of throwing money at the problem. If the financial crisis has taught us anything it must be that good management is key, and something which has been lacking for a long while. Why not take advantage of the current situation to look over the regulations and management tools ruling the aid industry (for it is an industry of proportions) just as we are imposing similar demands on the banking and financial systems? Progress has been made; big summits have been held and declarations signed (for instance, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the AAA, and the IATI. Now is the time to take it one step further and put them into practice. That way, we could avoid wasting taxpayer’s money and make sure it reaches those it was intended for.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Global Health Council Conference Focuses on Tech
by Elizabeth Corley
For many people in the development community, the annual conference of the Global Health Council is the highlight of the year. The conference brings together practitioners from around the world and is a great opportunity to meet up with old friends and colleagues and meet new ones. This year's theme is about new technologies. One that comes to mind is the "call me back" function on mobile phones used to increase awareness and testing for HIV/AIDS as described by Andrew Zolli, curator of the Pop!Tech conference.
The Global Health Councils has done a great job incorporating the new media. Participants are able to send in questions to speakers via Twitter, upload pictures to flickr, and read the conference blog.
For anyone who ever thought that this sector is behind the curve in terms of adopting new technologies, it is time to look again. Lots of creative applications highlighted. My favorite part is the media awards. One of this year's winners was Engle Entertainment, producer of Walk to Beautiful a documentary about women suffering from obstetric fistula. (Development Gateway put together a special collection on this topic in March of this year.) The documentary will be available on DVD the first week in June.
The most entertaining attraction in the exhibition hall at the Global Health Council annual conference is the gambling table at the Gapminder booth. On the table is a grid with average number of children on the y axis and life expectancy on x axis. The croupier selects a developing country at random. A dot appears on the table representing where that country stood for those two indicators in 1950. Players then place their chips on the table to indicate where they think the country is now. More dots appear--magically-- tracking changes in these indicators over time. The movement of the data points vividly illustrates progression, and sometimes regression, of the country.
For many people in the development community, the annual conference of the Global Health Council is the highlight of the year. The conference brings together practitioners from around the world and is a great opportunity to meet up with old friends and colleagues and meet new ones. This year's theme is about new technologies. One that comes to mind is the "call me back" function on mobile phones used to increase awareness and testing for HIV/AIDS as described by Andrew Zolli, curator of the Pop!Tech conference.
The Global Health Councils has done a great job incorporating the new media. Participants are able to send in questions to speakers via Twitter, upload pictures to flickr, and read the conference blog.
For anyone who ever thought that this sector is behind the curve in terms of adopting new technologies, it is time to look again. Lots of creative applications highlighted. My favorite part is the media awards. One of this year's winners was Engle Entertainment, producer of Walk to Beautiful a documentary about women suffering from obstetric fistula. (Development Gateway put together a special collection on this topic in March of this year.) The documentary will be available on DVD the first week in June.
The most entertaining attraction in the exhibition hall at the Global Health Council annual conference is the gambling table at the Gapminder booth. On the table is a grid with average number of children on the y axis and life expectancy on x axis. The croupier selects a developing country at random. A dot appears on the table representing where that country stood for those two indicators in 1950. Players then place their chips on the table to indicate where they think the country is now. More dots appear--magically-- tracking changes in these indicators over time. The movement of the data points vividly illustrates progression, and sometimes regression, of the country.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Starting the team blog
We’re starting this team blog to engage our stakeholders in conversation. It is a way to let you know what we are doing and hear your thoughts about ICT4D and aid effectiveness.
Our programs have a wide audience. Just this week Emily Kallaur is in Miami at the International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management annual conference. Nadia Afrin is giving the keynote address for a Web cast on South Asia and nanotechnology for development. Steve Davenport, Francis Dogo, and Djamila Kerim are conducting a needs assessment in Haiti as part of the aid management program. All of these activities are part of our effort to use information and communications technology to reduce poverty.
The aid management program has been implemented in Africa and Latin America. Here you can see some government staffers in Burkina Faso working with the Aid Management Platform. The photo was taken by Anna who writes on European policy.
As an organization, we have evolved since our founding in 2000. In the coming months, we plan to integrate our programs more. Look here to find out how we go about it and to discuss other issues related to development and aid effectiveness
Our programs have a wide audience. Just this week Emily Kallaur is in Miami at the International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management annual conference. Nadia Afrin is giving the keynote address for a Web cast on South Asia and nanotechnology for development. Steve Davenport, Francis Dogo, and Djamila Kerim are conducting a needs assessment in Haiti as part of the aid management program. All of these activities are part of our effort to use information and communications technology to reduce poverty.
The aid management program has been implemented in Africa and Latin America. Here you can see some government staffers in Burkina Faso working with the Aid Management Platform. The photo was taken by Anna who writes on European policy.
As an organization, we have evolved since our founding in 2000. In the coming months, we plan to integrate our programs more. Look here to find out how we go about it and to discuss other issues related to development and aid effectiveness
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
