1. Research Use in the Australian
Aid Program
Dr Tom Davis
Office of Development Effectiveness
Thomas.Davis@dfat.gov.au

2. 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?

3. 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

4. Research spend compared with total
program spend
$4500 m
Country
Programs
$4000 m
$3500 m
Global Programs
$3000 m
$2500 m
$2000 m
Aid program
total (excl.
departmental)
Research total
$1500 m
$1000 m
$500 m
$m
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12

5. % change in research v program funding
from 2007/8
140%
120%
100%
Australian aid
program
80%
60%
Research
40%
20%
0%
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

6. Research spend 2007/8-2011/12
$140 m
$120 m
$100 m
Research total
$80 m
$60 m
Country Program
research
$40 m
Global Program
research
$20 m
$m
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

8. Top 5 country programs’ research spend
$25 m
$20 m
IET
$15 m
PNG & Sol
MPMB
$10 m
SAB
AFR
$5 m
$m
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12

9. Thematic/global branches’ research spend
$25 m
$20 m
$15 m
2007-2008
$10 m
2008-2009
2009-2010
$5 m
$m
2010-2011
2011-2012

10. Research spend by theme 2007/8-2011/12
160,000,000
140,000,000
120,000,000
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0

11. Research spend by recipient type
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
Australian
40,000,000
Developing Country
International
30,000,000
Multi/bilateral
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

12. Recipient types per branch 2007/82011/12
AFG
AFR
EDGEB
5,3%
3,7%
,23%
11%
46%
44%
48%
80%
6,6%
GSDB
29% 22%
3,9%
23% 22%
MPMB
20% 27%
12%
11% 31%
RESCH
15%
35%
45% 4,9%
HIWRB
11%
1,2%
2,8%
85%
PAC
1,4%
1,5%
40%
43%
3,1%
3,8%
29%
1%
27%
93%
HPRB
IET
65%
3,5%
20%
6,4%
14% 56%
PAC Bil
PNG&SOL
6,2%
29%
,82%
1,5%
48%
45%
52%
53%
2,7%
12%
SAB
2,9%
19%
,96%
48%
28%
Austr.govern
Developing Country
Multi/bilateral
Graphs by Branch
Fragility & Conflict Branch
SEDB
Total
9,8e-02%
4,9%
16%
2%
5,7%
,73%
4,9%
17%
10%
13% 54%
71%
Australian
International
Various

13. Agreement types
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
Commiss.
50,000,000
40,000,000
Compet. scheme
30,000,000
20,000,000
Grant
10,000,000
0
Partnership

14. Agreements by partner type
Australian
Developing Country
7%
17%
21%
14%
23%
59%
17%
42%
International
Multi/bilateral
3%
1%
15%
29%
16%
49%
40%
Commiss.
Grant
Graphs by Partner type (Aust, Int'l, multi, Dev Cntry)
Compet. scheme
Partnership
47%

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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’

18. 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

19. The story from the survey
• Initial results may be available by 21 November