Sir Humphrey wins again
on Jana Gana Mana (India), 14/Mar/2011 05:22, 34 days ago
The heat from the recent debate over the aid package of£1billion from the UK during the next 4 years has been felt as a volunteer. In a country with a space programme, a growing armed force, and more millionaires and billionaires than the UK, does India still need aid? Many of the people I’ve spoken to in India still view the UK as a rich country andhave been taken aback when I’ve talked about the 2-3 years of recession, a deficit of £170 billion and a national debt of approximately £2 trillion.Although it’s the stated aim of the UK Government to increase Development Aid, one may wonder whether it is appropriate to do so at a time of some of the biggest cuts to UK’s services in my lifetime. However, a third of the planet's population who are below the World Bank's extreme poverty line live in India - and a half of all children in the country are malnourished. These are big numbers if you consider the population estimate of 1.4 billion people and so the India does not have the tax base to eliminate poverty though internal wealth redistribution.So although India’s aid package remains intact for now, the Secretary of State has given us volunteers a clear message….. “For too long, we’ve measured our efforts by the money we spent and the food and medicines that we delivered….Let’s move beyond the old, narrow debate over how much money we’re spending, and instead let’s focus on results — whether we’re actually making improvements in people’s lives”“So we’re fundamentally redesigning our aid programs….The focus will be on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs. In these difficult economic times donors have a double duty, a responsibility to achieve maximum value for money: not just results but results at the lowest possible cost.”….said Andrew MitchellHowever, I see that Minouche Shafik, the DFIDs senior civil servant, was hauled before Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee at the end of last year to explain her department’s lack of numbers showing value for money across its programmes.During questioning, one member of the committee asked her:“Instead of answering the questions, you give us an example. Some of the examples are laudable, but when you’re spending £1 billion, answering our questions on value for money by use of anecdotes is insufficient.”The PAC wants numbers and it wants them now. At the end the session, the chairman summed up:“We are extremely concerned at what we feel is a very lax attitude on ensuring that there is value — that you try to achieve value — for the investment of U.K. taxpayers’ money.”So, since then Sir Humphrey has been hard at work. I can imagine now that a new team of civil servants was created to deliver on the politicians’ demands and they’ve produced this....reproduced verbatim....(which could come straight from a script of Yes Minister):"For every programme and intervention there are now 2 requirements:1)   Measure the“bang”2)   Measure the“bucks”Benefit cost =“bang per buck”Cost - benefit =“buck per bang”Cost-effectiveness analysis– What is the cost of specific outcomes arising from different interventions that produce that outcome?Cost-utility analysis– What is the perceived value of the outcomes relative to their costs?Cost-benefit analysis– What is the value of all outcomes in relation to all costs?"And goes on....."this all equates into a new formula of“Social Return on Investment”Some believe it is broadly the same as Cost Benefits Analysis but it is far richer, since as well as assigning a monetary value to each outcome (such as increased self-esteem) and demonstrating the Return on Investment, it also includes a narrative explaining what this means in ways that people can relate to.•     SROI is an approach to understanding and managing the impacts of a project, organisation or policy.•     It is based on stakeholders and puts financial value on the important impacts identified by stakeholders that do not have market values"Sir Humphrey 1, Secretary of State 0!