The First Tranche

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Making Open Data Work for the Poor

Shortly after the recent AidData/CCAPS/WBI event, the World Bank’s Shanta Devarajan reviewed four critiques of the open data movement. His summary is insightful and we commend it to readers. Here we would like to push a few of his ideas a bit further. In particular, his third point — “there is limited evidence that information improves outcomes” — deserves further consideration.

The evidence that open data leads to better outcomes is indeed limited and contradictory. For example, one innovative study found that community-level information dramatically improved health outcomes in Uganda, while a concurrent Indonesian study found that an informed public had little effect on perceived government corruption.

Dr. Devarajan writes “the main reason for the paucity of evidence on outcomes is that the underlying service delivery failure is political, and it is difficult to disentangle the effects of information on the political system.”

We agree. In many developing countries, domestic political barriers likely "short-circuit" the relationship between better information and better development outcomes. After all, how can informed citizens get better development outcomes if their demands go unheard?

Two studies are under construction at AidData that will address this issue head-on. These randomized control trials will introduce interventions that (1) solicit citizen feedback on development outcomes and (2) take the feedback directly to the desks of relevant policy-makers.

In the first experiment, we plan to test how well user-level feedback can improve a government’s delivery of needed services. In certain treatment groups, the user-level feedback on service shortages will be sent directly to the government officials in charge of distribution. By comparing outcomes from this group with the control-group results, we will see whether direct information delivery can significantly enhance outcomes. In the second study, user-level feedback on specific projects will be sent directly to the donor-level project managers.

The purpose of these experiments is to learn whether, when, and how user-level information can be used to improve service delivery among both governments and donors. Our hope is that champions of the open data movement will use – and expand on – our results to sharpen their strategies for using user-level aid data.

Information is power, and it may improve development outcomes – if applied correctly. Political barriers are not insurmountable, but innovative approaches to using open development data will be essential. Our latest work will take several steps in this direction. We urge others, especially at the user level, to take on this important question: How can we make open-source data really work for the poor?

This post was written by Dan Nielson, an AidData Principal Investigator and Director of the Political Economy and Development Lab (PEDL) at Brigham Young University, and Dustin Homer, an AidData consultant.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Introducing AidData 2.0

Today, AidData launched its new and improved website, featuring more content and new data and marking an expansion in the program’s mission and scope. What began as a project to build a new kind of development assistance database has evolved into a broader initiative that aims to increase the accessibility and relevance of development finance information for a wide range of stakeholders. The new website highlights innovative projects to find new ways of gathering, managing, and visualizing development finance information, such as geocoding and crowdsourcing. Maps that show the geographical distribution of specific donor-funded activities offer a powerful way to help decision makers and citizens ask the right questions about aid allocation and effectiveness.

AidData Dashboards - coming soon

Those looking for data will find many new resources on the AidData site. AidData Raw is a new repository of stand-alone datasets that have not yet been vetted for inclusion in the main AidData database. It includes geo-location, project evaluation, and non-DAC donor datasets, as well as links to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) registry of aid activities. AidData 2.0 also includes a new collection of replication datasets associated with influential aid allocation and effectiveness studies, and many other new datasets for researchers. Soon, dashboards for key sectors will be added to the site, highlighting key trends and actors, and connecting activity-level data with other relevant resources.

In addition, the main AidData database has been updated to include the latest release of the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System data, and additional data sources, such as:

· African Development Bank (2009-2010)

· African Development Fund (2008-2010)

· Arab Fund for Economic & Social Development (2007-2010)

· India (2005-2010, Ministry of Finance & Ministry of External Affairs)

· Islamic Development Bank (1975-2008)

· Kuwait (2007-2009, Kuwait Fund for Economic Development)

· Latvia (2008-2010)

· Nigerian Trust Fund (2007-2010)

· Poland (2007-2010)

· Saudi Arabia (2005-2009, Saudi Fund for Development)

· United Arab Emirates (2008-2010, Abu Dhabi Fund for Development)

The new website was first previewed at an event on Nov. 4, organized by AidData, the World Bank Institute, and the Robert S. Strauss Center forInternational Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Putting Aid Data to Work: Using Better Information to Get Better Results was a day-long event that brought policymakers, technologists, development practitioners, and researchers together to discuss the open data movement and how it is impacting development work. In his keynote address, Richard Manning—former chair of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee—set the context for the day’s discussions. He noted that the transparency agenda was largely absent from the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness framework, but that then-President of the World Bank James Wolfensohn had emphasized it at the 2003 Rome High Level Forum, and it has since reemerged as a major theme. Mr. Manning argued that "infomediaries," such as AidData, will play a key role in making the deluge of public data more accessible and understandable.

Aleem Walji, World Bank

The discussion continued with a distinguished opening panel, including Catherine Weaver, Associate Professor, University of Texas and CCAPS Program as the moderator; and panelists Aleem Walji, Practice Manager, Innovation, World Bank Institute; Sheila Herrling, Vice President, Department of Policy and Evaluation, Millennium Challenge Corporation; David Wheeler, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development; Lindsay Coates, Executive Vice President, Interaction; and Jean-Louis Sarbib, Chief Executive Officer, Development Gateway.

Mr. Walji talked about the need for “hyper-local” data—and that putting data in the public domain allows outsiders to find uses for it that the original institution may never have considered. Demand for the data may not be obvious ex ante, but following the example of Andrew Carnegie, he argued that “sometimes you have to build the libraries before you build literacy.”

Ms. Herrling and Ms. Coates discussed the broad range of stakeholders involved in making aid information more available, including donor agencies, legislatures, and civil society organizations. Dr. Wheeler gave practical examples of lessons learned from projects that sought to increase transparency, emphasizing that it is difficult to know beforehand who the audience for the information will be, but that demand surfaces during the process, and that project managers learn along the way how to adjust the project to meet the revealed needs of users. Mr. Sarbib concluded the panel discussion by summarizing key challenges facing those who aim to increase aid transparency: information needs to be complete, credible, and relevant, and sustainability is key—institutions must modify their behavior, not simply pursue one-off transparency initiatives.

Panel: Tracking Aid

Sessions throughout the day focused on ways of tracking aid information, monitoring climate change-related finance, and closing the feedback loop between donors and other aid stakeholders. A number of fascinating new initiatives to make aid information more useful as a tool for research, policymaking, and grassroots monitoring were demonstrated, and all presentations are available online, alongside the relevant speaker bios. A recording of the event will be posted online soon.

Steve Davenport and Brad Parks are the new Co-Executive Directors of AidData.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

A fresh look at China as an aid donor

Axel Dreher and Andreas Fuchs recently published an article titled, “Rogue Aid? The Determinants of China’s Aid Allocation,” as part of the “Foreign Aid of Emerging Donors and International Politics” project funded by the German Research Foundation. In their paper, Dreher and Fuchs use econometric methods to test whether China’s reputation as a “rogue donor” is consistent with actual patterns in Chinese aid flows. The dataset used in the paper is a synthesis of several existing sources of Chinese aid information, including AidData’s China dataset, which is a compilation of statistics from The China Commerce Yearbook (中国商务年鉴) and the Almanac of China’s Foreign Economic Relations & Trade (中国对外经济贸易年间).

Apart from sensitivity to political issues regarding Taiwan, the evidence suggests that Chinese aid is not overwhelmingly influenced by the country's commercial or political interests. Chinese aid allocation patterns seem to generally fall in line with the government’s non-interference policy. Dreher and Fuchs conclude that the use of the term “rogue aid”—see, for example, Moisès Naím's 2007 article in Foreign Policy magazine—to describe Chinese foreign aid is probably unwarranted. China, like DAC donors, uses aid to advance its strategic interests; however, it is more forthright about its policy that foreign assistance should benefit both the recipient country and the donor country.

The Dreher and Fuchs study also provides valuable information about trends in Chinese assistance; aid flows are tracked roughly from 1956 to 2006. Yet the authors admit that incomplete data limits the effectiveness of their study. They argue that greater transparency of aid flows (for more discussion of China and aid transparency, see a post from Monday on the Guardian’s Poverty Matters blog) would be beneficial to China, as it would help address concerns that China’s activities in the developing world are harmful.

This post was written by Austin Strange, a Research Assistant at the College of William and Mary.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Publish What You Fund Launches Pilot Aid Transparency Index

Today, Publish What You Fund released its 2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index. The index was developed with the goal of encouraging a higher level of transparency among aid donors. Fifty-eight donor agencies were ranked based on 37 different indicators. To compile the index, Publish What You Fund collected primary data on aid transparency levels, with support from civil society organizations in 34 countries.

The average score is 34%, while no donor scores above 78%, leaving the top quintile vacant. The 5 best performing donors are the World Bank, the Global Fund, the African Development Bank, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the UK’s Department for International Development. Some of the worst performing donors, among others, include Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.S. Treasury, Poland, Cyprus, China and Greece. The index indicates that the accessibility of useful aid information is low. Interestingly, some of the donors that are traditionally considered to be transparency leaders, such as Canada, New Zealand and Norway, received rather low scores.

In its assessment of the pilot index, Publish What You Fund concludes that greater aid transparency is an eminently achievable goal. Increased political commitment to making information accessible and engagement with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standards are listed among the key recommendations. In its press release, Publish What You Fund calls on donors to improve their standing on transparency and accountability and highlights the importance of such efforts for the effective use of aid funds.

On Wednesday, Nov. 16, a launch event will be held at the Overseas Development Institute in the UK (12:30-14:00, GMT+00) and streamed live online. You can also read about the index from the BBC, the Financial Times, and the Guardian.

This post was contributed by Alexey Dorofeev, an intern at Development Gateway.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Watch online – Friday, Nov. 4 – Putting Aid Data to Work: Using better information to get better results

The AidData team has been working with partners at the World Bank Institute and the Climate Change and African Stability (CCAPS) program to put together a great all-day event on open data and development, which will be hosted by the World Bank on Friday, November 4. Richard Manning, former Chair of the OECD-DAC, will give the keynote address by video. Then, a series of panel discussions will examine the aid transparency movement and how it is influencing development research and practice. We’ll hear from officials at donor agencies who are working on making aid information more available, mashable, and relevant. We’ll also hear from researchers who are looking into new ways to use aid information to assess aid effectiveness and allocation, with a special focus on climate change issues. Experts from a range of civil society organizations will also talk about how better information can empower citizens to be more engaged in the development process.

Specific initiatives discussed will include a pilot project by AidData, CCAPS, and the World Bank Institute working with the Government of Malawi to track all active aid within one country using interactive maps. The event will also mark the launch of AidData 2.0, with a sneak preview of the new AidData website and a new direction for the AidData program that focuses on transparency, innovation, and country and donor solutions for aid effectiveness.

For more information, including the full agenda and link to the live webcast, please visit the event website. We’ll be tweeting from @aiddata during the event and welcome comments using the #aiddata hashtag.

Newly Released World Bank Dataset a Step Forward for Aid Transparency

The World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group, responsible for monitoring the Bank’s activities, recently released a dataset containing evaluations of almost 10,000 World Bank projects since the early 1960s. This dataset presents a unique opportunity for researchers to examine the determinants of successful project implementation. The dataset includes a measure of the extent to which a project's major objectives were achieved. This indicator is measured on a six point scale, ranging from highly unsatisfactory to highly satisfactory. The dataset also includes measures of the extent to which the World Bank ensured quality at entry of the operation; the extent to which the World Bank supported effective implementation through appropriate supervision; the extent to which the borrower (including the government and implementing agency or agencies) ensured quality of preparation and implementation and complied with covenants and agreements; and the quality of monitoring and evaluation design, implementation, and utilization.

As a first step, we generated some basic descriptive statistics to gain a better understanding of overall trends in the data. We first converted all six point measures to binary variables: we re-categorized all projects as either “successful” (projects rated moderately satisfactory, satisfactory, or highly satisfactory) or “unsuccessful” (projects rated moderately unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, or highly unsatisfactory).

After converting the data, we broke down project success by region. The regional groupings fall into three tiers.

Europe, East Asia, and Central Asia all have around 80% project success rates. Meanwhile, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia all have close to 75% success rates. Africa lags behind, with project success rates just above 60%. Future research might examine the source of this disparity between Africa and other regions. It would also be interesting to explore the linkages between country performance, World Bank monitoring and evaluation, and project success.

After analyzing the data by region, we also disaggregated project outcomes by the decade in which the project was initiated.

The decade with the highest percentage of satisfactory project outcomes was the 1960s, although we note that the sample size for this decade is much smaller. The success rate drops to around 75% in the 1970s and then again to about 67% in the 1980s. It recovers to around 75% in the 1990s, and increases again to near 80% in the 2000s. More sophisticated econometric techniques could shed some light on the causal mechanisms behind these shifts and whether they correspond to changes in World Bank lending practices. In particular, the sudden drop in World Bank lending effectiveness in the 1980s merits further examination.

In the coming weeks, we’ll be releasing some more posts with additional analysis of these data. The World Bank's IEG should be commended for placing these data in the public domain. We are not aware of any other donor that has published such comprehensive project implementation and evaluation data.

This post was contributed by AidData research assistants Ben Buch (William and Mary '12) and Doug Nicholson (William and Mary '12).

Open data for international development

AidData increases aid transparency by providing tools, visualizations, services, and data related to development finance. more...

Twitter

Tags

Blog Archive

Blog Roll

Followers