More bang for the buck in aid for health AUSTRALIA truly is the lucky country. With 21 years of uninterrupted economic growth, you have been able to increase your development aid by 50 per cent since 2006. You have increased the share of your giving from 0.3 per cent to 0.36 per cent, with plans for hitting 0.5 per cent in 2016. Yet, when spending $5.2 billion, increasing to $7.7bn in 2015-16, with a looming government deficit of $18bn added to the existing $272bn in debt, it is imperative that the aid money is well spent. The central purpose of AusAID, "to help people overcome poverty," is right on target. But the crucial question is how to do that. AusAID proudly proclaims that "education is the flagship of Australia's aid program." This sounds great, and most people love the idea of better education helping the poor to help themselves. The problem is that we generally don't know how. Over the past 50 years we have managed the easy problem, to get most children into school. In 1961, only 59 per cent of Third World children were in school; - today that number is 90 per cent. The hard problem is making them learn - after completing primary school, 30 per cent to 50 per cent are neither literate nor numerate. On any given day, 11 per cent to 44 per cent of teachers simply don't show up. A recent analysis of 9000 educational studies showed we have very little knowledge of what to do to improve learning. The Copenhagen Consensus asked more than 60 of the world's top economists: where can you get the biggest bang for your development buck? Perhaps, instead of trying to tackle a specific issue such as education with little knowledge of how to, we should try to tackle the problems where we know we can do the most good. The experts found that the very best investment is in nutrition for very young kids. Spending $3bn annually could help avoid malnutrition for 100 million children over four years. This would increase early physical and mental development, which would make the children stay longer in school and learn more. This roundabout way may be the best way to improve schooling, because we know it is cheap and it works. The long-run impact is phenomenal. Studies show that children who avoid malnutrition get smarter, live better and have three times the lifetime income. Overall, an aid dollar spent on this strategy does $59 worth of good. Immunisation since 1974 has probably saved three million lives each year. However, an expansion of immunisation and inclusion of more antigens (Hib, hepatitis B, rotavirus and streptococcus) could save another million lives a year. For $1bn a year, the benefits would be at least $20 for each dollar spent. The 1970s green revolution avoided big hunger catastrophes in India and elsewhere. If we could revamp a green revolution 2.0 with $2bn in annual agricultural research and development, we could speed up yield increases, reduce food prices, avoid 200 million starving by mid-century - and through less malnutrition again have a great impact on education. Moreover, higher agricultural productivity would mean fewer forests converted to agriculture, preserving biodiversity and storing carbon, combating climate change. In total, each dollar spent would do $30-$40 of good. Finally, one of AusAID's five strategic goals is disaster response. But even better payback is in avoiding disasters. For less than $1bn a year, the establishment of effective early warning systems for natural disasters in developing countries could alleviate disaster damage and avoid long-term economic damage resulting from catastrophes. Each dollar spent could do up to $35 worth of good. What do you want to do? Where do you want to spend Australia's aid budget? Vote online at facebook.com/bjornlomborg. Bjorn Lomborg, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, ranking the smartest solutions to the world's biggest problems by cost-benefit.