Very interesting. I have recently been working in a country where the UK NAO was remarking with some apparent satisfaction that the DFID office had cut its staff substantially (can't remember by how much off hand, but more than 50% I think) and was therefore delivering its programme more efficiently. Now call me old fashioned, but there didn't seem to be too much VFM analysis in what I was reading. Whilst it is true that sometimes you can indeed get more with less, it is also true that sometimes you end up getting less with less (and this can sometimes even be proportionately much less with less). I certainly had more than a glimpse of the latter(s). As a UK taxpayer, I am concerned that not only governance but also straightforward good management of taxpayer cash is at risk when country offices are too overstretched. Paris principles are also at stake too when host government officials step into the breach where once strode the DFID advisers and programme managers. None of this shows up in the straightforward numbers of cash delivered against cost of administering cash delivered. I suspect there are some major NAO findings undergoing a slow burn around these issues that will be featured on the Board in years to come once they have had a chance to come properly to light.
