Comments on: Payment by Results hasn’t produced much in the way of results, but aid donors are doing it anyway. Why?

By: Alan Hudson

Alan Hudson — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:44:41 +0000

Thanks for letting me know Duncan. That’s frustrating. As a work around, I’ve uploaded it on my personal blog. http://alanhudson.info/?p=11749

By: Duncan Green

Duncan Green — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:40:54 +0000

Thanks Alan, I’ve been trying to read your blog, but my computer says no because ‘This site can’t provide a secure connection’ – any idea what the problem is?

By: Alan Hudson

Alan Hudson — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:50:51 +0000

Thanks for kicking off this important conversation, Duncan, and for stimulating such great comments.

I’ve added my two cents here, arguing that taking context and complexity seriously, and making the case for doing development differently, need not imply dismissing Payment by Results, but must involve – as your question suggests – shifting the focus to results that are useful for learning and downward accountability too.

https://www.globalintegrity.org/2016/04/cash-delivery-context/

By: Millie

Millie — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:50:10 +0000

Good one Duncan- one question though, what when the Government is the ‘donor,’ the one paying for results? I’ve had a great chat with Mika Pyyko of Sitra (http://www.sitra.fi/en/news/impact-investing/private-investment-boost-employment-immigrants) about their work with this and absenteeism in public sector project. Still early but seems they are managing to get a lot of the early ducks in order).

By: Russell Webster

Russell Webster — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:52:06 +0000

Perhaps one of the most interesting features of the payment by results phenomenon across a number of different sectors (international aid, worklessness, reoffending, substance misuse) is that PbR is the subject of sustained criticism (quite reasonably) and yet has become increasingly common.
I’m currently involved in a piece of work for the Oak Foundation to develop an interactive tool to help commissioners (and investors as the Social Impact Bond model takes off) and providers to think through whether PbR might be effective for a particular initiative.
The project involved a literature review which is free to download: http://drugscrime.uk/1nAcXjK
The tool itself is at a prototype stage and I would very much welcome readers’ feedback: http://payment-by-results.site-previews.net/

By: MJ

MJ — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:51:16 +0000

Some good points in both your article and the comments. Something that I think is missing, is the potential for PbR to get us to the ‘money question’ (literally) a lot quicker. If a developing country government with a large fungible budget and a stated interest in achieving a laudable goal which a donor wants to support, then my question is why would they not want PbR??? Too many aid programmes waste money funding stuff the government doesn’t really want to to do. E.g. if the whole education ministry budget is mostly one gigantic patronage scheme for useless teachers then the government will shy away from anything results-based in education, and that response should tell you a lot.

But here’s the rub: for the most part I don’t think donors want to hear that message! Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they would prefer to carry on believing that they are making a difference and more money will help them make even more difference. Most donor staff (and indeed their political masters & mistresses – as prodded by the likes of Oxfam) are under pressure to disburse more money not less. In this context big changes that lead to them not disbursing are not terribly helpful. So though many donors may be dipping their toes into the PbR waters, I also hear of occasions where they retreat pretty quickly in the face of recipient government opposition.

So, despite all the problems with PbR, and the fact that it is clearly no silver bullet / panacea, I like the idea that PbR might push a greater proportion of aid funds towards those organisations and governments with a higher interest and greater capacity in actually achieving worthy outcomes with it. And despite the pain that may cause us – including myself and my organisation, of course, in that category of superior performers – I think the rigour of PbR could therefore be worthwhile.

By: MJ

MJ — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:35:29 +0000

That would indeed be nice! However the one instance I’ve seen up close and personal of PbR for NGOs involved the NGOs losing money out of a budget that has been 100% allocated if they miss their targets. This strikes me as a pretty egregious arrangement that only encourages NGOs to hide their actual costs so as to cope with the likelihood of some losses. (Or low ball their targets to the point of ridiculousness if the donor will let them get away with it.)

By: Duncan Green

Duncan Green — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:12:49 +0000

Strikes me as essentially the same thing Monika – NGOs or governments would get a bonus as unrestricted income for achieving the desired results.

By: Oliver Lough

Oliver Lough — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 05:24:03 +0000

Risk there is that aid systems end up succeeding or failing collectively. Even with strong communications and accountability efforts, disaster/conflict-affected populations are not necessarily likely to make the distinction between well-behaved Agency A and miscreant Agency D when giving their assessments (having other things on their plate to worry about). Or is this an unfair assumption?

By: Andrew Mold

Andrew Mold — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:28:11 +0000

Call me a cynic but it always struck me as an idea that was all about the spin, with little practical application. Too many practical problems to actually work in the first place. And, above all, a rather patronising approach to development finance..”you do all the things that we would like to see, and at the end we will reward”. it seems some ‘deep’ development thinkers have a lot of time on their hands to pontificate on these things, but ultimately it hasn’t proved very helpful, has it? The next big idea, please come in!