thomas davis - research use in australian aid program
TRANSCRIPT
Research Use in the Australian Aid Program
Dr Tom DavisOffice of Development Effectiveness
ODE evaluation of research uptake
To what extent is the Australian aid program managing research investments appropriately and effectively? • Nature and value of research investments?• Enablers of, and barriers to, the uptake of
research in the Australian aid program?• How can the Australian aid program optimise
its broad range of investments in research toward more effective aid?
Evaluation approach
1. Framing: initial interviews & literature review – NB ‘research’ excludes mandatory evaluations
2. Mapping: research database analysis + web-based survey of research commissioners + group interviews of non-commissioners
3. Assessing: elite interviews (including with ‘providers’) + 10 case studies + donor comparison
4. Evaluating: analysis against appropriateness and effectiveness criteria + verification workshop(s) & telephone interviews
Research spend compared with total program spend
2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12$ m
$500 m
$1000 m
$1500 m
$2000 m
$2500 m
$3000 m
$3500 m
$4000 m
$4500 m
Country Programs
Global Programs
Aid program total (excl. de-partmental)
Research total
% change in research v program funding from 2007/8
2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/120%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Australian aid program
Research
Research spend 2007/8-2011/12
2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12$ m
$20 m
$40 m
$60 m
$80 m
$100 m
$120 m
$140 m
Research total
Country Program research
Global Program research
2011/12 country, thematic, global research spends as % of whole
Country programs
65%
Thematic Groups
25%
Global6%
Research Section3%
Top 5 country programs’ research spend
2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12$ m
$5 m
$10 m
$15 m
$20 m
$25 m
IETPNG & SolMPMBSABAFR
Thematic/global branches’ research spend
EDGEB
Fragil
ity &
ConfGSD
HIWRB
HPRBM
DPBODE
Public aff
airs
RESCH
SEDB
$ m
$5 m
$10 m
$15 m
$20 m
$25 m
2007-20082008-20092009-20102010-20112011-2012
Research spend by theme 2007/8-2011/12
Aid Effective
nes
Economics
Education
Environment
Fair D
evelopment
Food Se
curit
y &
Govern
ance HIV
Health
Human Se
curit
y &
Infrastr
ucture
Mining
Researc
h0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
160,000,000
Research spend by recipient type
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-20120
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
AustralianDeveloping CountryInternationalMulti/bilateral
Recipient types per branch 2007/8-2011/12
48%
6,6%
46%
3,7%
80%
11%,23%5,3%29%
1%27%
44%
3,8%
93%
3,1%
22%3,9%
22%23%
29%
85%
2,8%1,2%11%
29%
65%
6,2%3,5%
56%14%6,4%
20%
27%
31%11%12%
20% 1,5%
40%
12%2,7%
43%
1,4%
52%48% 53%45%
,82%1,5%
35%
4,9%45%
15% 2,9%
48%28%
,96%19% 4,9%
71%
5,7%2%16%9,8e-02% 4,9%
54%13%10%
17%,73%
AFG AFR EDGEB Fragility & Conflict Branch
GSDB HIWRB HPRB IET
MPMB PAC PAC Bil PNG&SOL
RESCH SAB SEDB Total
Austr.govern AustralianDeveloping Country International
Multi/bilateral Various
Graphs by Branch
Agreement types
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
Commiss.
Compet. scheme
Grant
Partnership
Agreements by partner type
7%
17%
17%59%
14%
23%
42%
21%
15%
16%
40%
29%
1%3%
47%49%
Australian Developing Country
International Multi/bilateral
Commiss. Compet. scheme
Grant Partnership
Graphs by Partner type (Aust, Int'l, multi, Dev Cntry)
The story from the data
• 2007/8-2011/12 is an unusual period of aid expansion
• Research as % of total program spend over period was 3.1% (DFID is 2.9%) and increased faster than total spend
• Country program research spend is larger and more volatile than global/thematic + individual projects 80% larger in country programs
The story from the data
• Food security/rural development & health the largest research spend; low investment in education research
• Australian recipients receive 3 times the funding developing country recipients receive
• Mix of recipients differs across branches – availability, disciplines, modes
• Australian recipients increasingly link thru’ partnerships
• Competitive funding schemes decreasing + lack of ARC/NHMRC engagement
The story so far from key interviews
Perceptions• Divergent views about what research is & its purpose • General agreement greater use could be made of
research evidence in forming program strategies, designs & initiatives
• Some wary of academic research – uncertain results, limited immediate use, time – others see value for strategy & design
• Uncertain of capacity of development ‘discipline’ in Australia (whereas CGD, Brookings etc have ‘credentials’)
• ‘We don’t have time’• ‘Some people don’t have the capacity to use research’
The story so far from key interviews
Experience• Formal research governance structure relatively
weak, but there are a number of good examples of effective research usage
• Formal & ‘social’ knowledge networks – latter are ‘champion’ based & suffer when champions move
• Aid program knowledge management systems patchy • Programs specialists relationship• Limited time institutional incentives
The story from the survey
• Initial results may be available by 21 November