Podcast Summary: The CGD Podcast

Episode: A Quarter of Aid is Transparent – What About the Rest?
Host: Rajesh Merchandani (Center for Global Development)
Guest: Rupert Simons (CEO, Publish What You Fund)
Date: April 18, 2016

Overview

This episode dives into the pressing importance of transparency in international aid, inspired by the broader context of global calls for openness following events like the Panama Papers. The central discussion spotlights findings from the 2016 Aid Transparency Index compiled by Publish What You Fund, revealing that only about a quarter of all international aid is fully transparent. Rajesh and Rupert explore what this means, highlight organizations excelling or lagging in transparency, and examine both the benefits and real-world challenges of making aid data truly useful for decision-makers and citizens.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Demand for Transparency in Development (00:00–01:45)

• Transparency in politics and aid: Rajesh frames the topic by referencing the Panama Papers and the critical need for open governance in both public and aid finance.

• Benefits of transparent aid: Enables better resource allocation, empowers local actors to hold authorities accountable, and informs taxpayers in donor countries about spending.

  "Transparency has the potential to transform the effectiveness of aid spending... The challenge for partners in development is for us all to keep on improving our performance on transparency."
  — Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator (01:15)

Aid Transparency Index 2016: Key Findings (02:14–03:33)

• Index scope: 46 organizations, accounting for 98% of official development finance, were assessed.

• Main finding: Only about 25% of global aid is “fully transparent”—meaning activity-level data is available and accessible.

  “A quarter of aid is now fully transparent and five years ago almost none of it was, which obviously means 3/4 is not.”
  — Rupert Simons (02:24)

• Barriers to transparency: Includes concerns over safety in conflict zones, though such cases are a small fraction of total aid.

Who Does Well—and Who Doesn’t? (03:47–05:50)

• Top performers: UNDP leads (90/100), followed by Millennium Challenge Corporation, UNICEF, UK’s DFID, the Global Fund, and regional development banks.

• Proof that transparency is possible: Organizations of diverse size and scope can—and do—achieve high transparency.

  “That undoubtedly proves that full transparency is possible in aid and development.”
  — Rupert Simons (04:55)

• US Agencies performance: USAID and others (State, Treasury, PEPFAR, Defense) are in the middle tier, with USAID scoring only 59/100.

  “USAID unfortunately doesn’t make the top category… That’s absolutely not good enough.”
  — Rupert Simons (05:12, 05:50)

• Reason for low scores: US systems are designed for Congressional reporting, not public or recipient access.

  “To date the US system has been geared to reporting up to Congress. It hasn’t been looking out at the people who are supposed to be using the data...”
  — Rupert Simons (05:53)

What Makes a Leader in Transparency? (07:05–08:03)

• UNDP’s success: Publishes high-quality, granular data compliant with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standard.
• IATI analogy: Simons compares IATI to a “Wikipedia for the global aid industry,” enabling real-time and detailed tracking versus the “encyclopedia” of traditional OECD records.

Is the Data Actually Used? (08:03–10:31)

• Best agencies use their own published data internally: “Publish once, use often.”

• Progress in developing countries: Developing countries like Bangladesh and Myanmar are using aid transparency datasets for their own management systems.

• Main challenge: Getting civil society and governments to actively use the open data for advocacy and budget scrutiny.

  “We don’t see a global movement for data use yet.”
  — Rupert Simons (10:36)

• Need for integration: Suggests combining aid data with budget, contracting, and extractive industry data for holistic citizen access.

Political and Practical Obstacles to Data Use (11:29–14:14)

• Liberia example: Ministers may withhold aid information to retain control or navigate domestic politics, sometimes fearing “diversion” if aid figures are too public.
• Ethiopia example: Maintains an aid management platform, but does not open it for public scrutiny.
• Revelation: Transparency alone does not overcome complex political realities; building a “culture of transparency” is a gradual process.

Historical Perspective & Incentives (14:14–14:58)

• European precedent: The UK published fiscal accounts during the Napoleonic Wars under bond market pressure.

• African countries today: Greater transparency is incentivized as nations tap international capital markets.

  “There is absolutely pressure on the African governments who still haven't opened up their books...to do so for the same reason that the British government opened its own books...”
  — Rupert Simons (14:37)

Transparency and the Panama Papers (14:58–16:23)

• Connection to development: Unlike the secrecy revealed in the Panama Papers, which often centers on the rich and powerful in developed countries, aid is not the primary driver of corruption.

• Key point: Corruption enabled by tax havens is not a result of aid, but a global problem rooted in financial systems.

  “Let’s forget once and for all this notion that aid is somehow causing corruption and that if we just stopped aid, corruption would go away... the problem starts at home.”
  — Rupert Simons (15:22)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Helen Clark on Aid Transparency: “Transparency has the potential to transform the effectiveness of aid spending…” (01:15)
• Rupert Simons on Transparency Progress: "A quarter of aid is now fully transparent and five years ago almost none of it was..." (02:24)
• Explaining the Challenge: “USAID unfortunately only scores 59 out of a possible 100 points... That’s absolutely not good enough.” (05:12, 05:50)
• On Systems-Oriented Secrecy: “To date the US system has been geared to reporting up to Congress. It hasn’t been looking out at the people who are supposed to be using the data...” (05:53)
• On Political Barriers: “We can’t short circuit domestic political processes with transparency. What we can do is contribute to a culture of transparency that grows over time.” (13:54)
• On Corruption and the Panama Papers: “Let’s forget once and for all this notion that aid is somehow causing corruption and that if we just stopped aid, corruption would go away... the problem starts at home.” (15:22)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Rise of Transparency and Its Benefits: 00:00–01:45
• 2016 Aid Transparency Index Findings: 02:14–03:33
• Organizations Leading and Laggards: 03:47–05:50
• Why USAID Falls Short: 05:53–06:50
• UNDP’s Model Approach: 07:05–08:03
• Data Use in Practice and Remaining Challenges: 08:03–10:31
• Political Obstacles to Data Use: 11:29–14:14
• Historical Perspective on Transparency: 14:14–14:58
• Panama Papers and Global Financial Secrecy: 14:58–16:23

Closing Thoughts

The episode concludes with a call to recognize the transformative power of transparency, the complexity of putting open data into productive use, and the parallel necessity for global and domestic reform in financial transparency—not just in aid, but across the board.

For more on the 2016 Aid Transparency Index, visit: ati.publishwhatyoufund.org.

This summary captures the episode’s essential topics and dynamic, making it accessible and insightful for those who haven't listened yet.