Comments on: Delivering better health services needs longer term, more predictable financing http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/2008/11/delivering-better-health-services-needs-longer-term-more-predictable-financing/ Tales from the front line of our work to eradicate poverty worldwide. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:54:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Neil Squires http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/2008/11/delivering-better-health-services-needs-longer-term-more-predictable-financing/comment-page-1/#comment-7517 Neil Squires Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:08:50 +0000 http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/?p=666#comment-7517 Hi Halima Just a quick response on funding by results. I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea of rewarding good performance, but as you say, we also need to ensure that we fund for performance not just by results. One of the challenges in Mozambique has been to perform well in the health sector when funds needed for programme implmenetation may not arrive until the closing months of the financial year. We really need to achieve in year predictability of funding to allow a country to perform effectively against its annual plan. There is a real danger that late disbursement of funds and resulting poor implementation of plans is mistaken for lack of absorptive capacity, with knock on effects on future financing. We need to make sure that we judge performance on the basis of what is possible, given the timeliness or otherwise of available funding. It looks like this lesson is well understood in Nepal, lets hope it is also well understood by Washington based think tanks! Hi Halima
Just a quick response on funding by results. I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea of rewarding good performance, but as you say, we also need to ensure that we fund for performance not just by results. One of the challenges in Mozambique has been to perform well in the health sector when funds needed for programme implmenetation may not arrive until the closing months of the financial year. We really need to achieve in year predictability of funding to allow a country to perform effectively against its annual plan. There is a real danger that late disbursement of funds and resulting poor implementation of plans is mistaken for lack of absorptive capacity, with knock on effects on future financing. We need to make sure that we judge performance on the basis of what is possible, given the timeliness or otherwise of available funding. It looks like this lesson is well understood in Nepal, lets hope it is also well understood by Washington based think tanks!

]]> By: Halima http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/2008/11/delivering-better-health-services-needs-longer-term-more-predictable-financing/comment-page-1/#comment-7461 Halima Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:08:56 +0000 http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/?p=666#comment-7461 Hi Neil Hope everything is well in Mozambique! Greetings from the ‘Du’ as we refer to the capital Kathmandu here. Interesting to read on how development partners in Mozambique are working with government to improve the efficiency and predictability of aid. I guess predictability has even more resonance now with the global economic crisis looming large. While browsing today I (again) came across that concept from the Centre for Global Development (Washington DC based think-tank on development) where they are piloting and advocating for an approach called ‘Cash on Delivery Aid’ [closely linked to what we might call ‘Out-Put Based Aid’] which has lots of advantages – including giving recipient countries the flexibility to use funds innovatively. In its support, CGD argue ‘donors and recipients would develop an open contract in which donors agree to pay eligible countries for progress, such as the number of students who complete primary school and take a competency test’. But it made me think again about the need for predictable funding per se without which health or education systems overall cannot function well. I appreciate, where possible, we should always be pushing hard for more value for our money and finding innovative ways to encourage performance is desirable. However unless there is a minimum degree of predictability (taking the analogy back to a poor family choosing to send their kids to school) there’s no way a parent will want to invest in annual cost of education if she is unsure where the money will come from the next day. The same applies to an individual choosing to spend on any long investments and governments when they finance health and education systems which are long-term investments with recurring costs. The jury is still out on this, I guess. The approach is being piloted mainly in education, but it actually speaks to a bigger debate about the impact of aid so really one for aid pundits everywhere. http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/codaid/faq?print=1 Halima Begum Hi Neil

Hope everything is well in Mozambique! Greetings from the ‘Du’ as we refer to the capital Kathmandu here.

Interesting to read on how development partners in Mozambique are working with government to improve the efficiency and predictability of aid. I guess predictability has even more resonance now with the global economic crisis looming large.

While browsing today I (again) came across that concept from the Centre for Global Development (Washington DC based think-tank on development) where they are piloting and advocating for an approach called ‘Cash on Delivery Aid’ [closely linked to what we might call ‘Out-Put Based Aid’] which has lots of advantages – including giving recipient countries the flexibility to use funds innovatively. In its support, CGD argue ‘donors and recipients would develop an open contract in which donors agree to pay eligible countries for progress, such as the number of students who complete primary school and take a competency test’.

But it made me think again about the need for predictable funding per se without which health or education systems overall cannot function well. I appreciate, where possible, we should always be pushing hard for more value for our money and finding innovative ways to encourage performance is desirable. However unless there is a minimum degree of predictability (taking the analogy back to a poor family choosing to send their kids to school) there’s no way a parent will want to invest in annual cost of education if she is unsure where the money will come from the next day. The same applies to an individual choosing to spend on any long investments and governments when they finance health and education systems which are long-term investments with recurring costs.

The jury is still out on this, I guess. The approach is being piloted mainly in education, but it actually speaks to a bigger debate about the impact of aid so really one for aid pundits everywhere.

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/codaid/faq?print=1

Halima Begum

]]>