ABSTRACT
A common response to the Jackson Report has been that while the scope and detail of its analysis will contribute usefully to the evolution of Australian aid policy, it is flawed by serious inconsistencies in its assessments of goals and priorities. This chapter presents a few examples illustrating the way in which the report persistently fudges the key concepts that are offered in relation to education and aid administration, followed by some canvassing of issues relating to geographical distribution of aid. Criticisms of Jackson focuses on the interpretation of ‘growth with equity’ in ways which give inadequate weight to the poor majority in recipient countries; parallel downgrading of poverty criteria in selection of countries; frequent setting aside of the committee’s own stated developmental criteria in favour of diplomatic, trade and other considerations; failure to define basic objectives, resulting in inadequate identification of the major causes of administrative confusion and ineffectiveness.
