2 Responses

  1. Nik Soni
    Nik Soni October 1, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    I would not use the word “dependency”. If there was no aid it could be argued that there would be a corresponding decrease in the balance of trade. It is usually the hordes of foreign advisers who cause a large part of the trade imbalance. Nevertheless, your key point is correct. With the advent of “new development partners” especially from the asian sub continent there is more aid on offer now than ever before.

    So this means that the new challenge is not about the size of aid per se but how strategically it is used. That may be why FA wants to be closer to AusAID.

  2. Tony O'Dowd
    Tony O'Dowd September 24, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Interesting articles, but as in all matters to do with Pacific statistics, proceed with some caution. A lot of this analysis hinges on the commonly promoted idea that what happens in the Forum Island countries is an adequate surrogate for describing the South Pacific as a whole. But which countries are left out? There are a number of “non-independent” countries in the region that receive a lot of “non-ODA” assistance. Recognising that Australia is by far the largest ODA donor in the Pacific probably needs to be balanced by a better appreciation that it is not just ODA that the Pacific has become dependent on. The total quantum of other forms of subsidy from France, the US and the EU into the region is also considerable. But the growth in South Pacific dependence on ODA is certainly worth commenting on, in its own right. As is the substantial decline in per capita aid to PNG over time.

Leave a Reply