Comments

I would argue it is time to see the closely regulated Pacific Labour Mobility Scheme for what it is - a means to deliver workers at a price that favours employers. In a global context in which money and goods flow freely, when will all workers be afforded the same rights and respect?

Hi Hiroshi, thanks for your comment and the additional info - that's useful to know how the case has been made for the Nadzab Airport loan/project being climate-related. Better reporting in the data to reflect the level of climate-specificity would definitely help make the picture clearer!

Sharing this excellent review from Guo and co-editors, which does a great job of taking one important aspect of governance from its often hand-wavy, nebulous place to something precise and tractable. https://voxdev.org/voxdevlit/bureaucracy

Hi Alyssa! Thank you for sharing the insightful article. Just out of curiosity, I checked how the redevelopment of Nadzab Airport would contribute to climate change mitigation. It relates to a potential reduction of the emission of CO2, but I am not sure whether we should categorize this project as "climate-related development finance". It is not a main objective at all. According to the report published by JICA, "this project allows international aviation companies to reduce fuel loaded in their aircrafts by selecting Nadzab Airport as an alternative airport to PMIA, thereby improving fuel efficiency and reducing CO2. Since emissions vary according to aviation companies and aircrafts used, calculating the quantitative effects of emission reduction is difficult. However, this project will likely make a significant contribution to mitigating climate change by reducing emissions together with the use of Japanese technologies" You can check the report from: https://www2.jica.go.jp/en/evaluation/pdf/2015_PN-P11_1_f.pdf

I could not agree more. Australia clearly has a role to show leadership globally as it drafts its gender equality strategy. I thank these organisations and many more in and outside Australia for highlighting this issue. You cannot talk of gender equality without access to abortion. Finally! Well done Western Australia for removing all areas restricting access to abortion.

Thank you to everyone who commented, and I look forward to more! All of the comments are useful contributions and I think most don't require a specific response from me. On Lisa's excellent points, I think the examples she provides of where aid can make a useful difference are in line with my overall argument. Aid for governance can be helpful, but in small rather than big ways. I also agree with her that we could spend aid better, but that is true across the board. In summary, I remain sceptical that we should in any sense give priority in our aid program to governance. That was really the point I was trying to make. Or, to develop that conclusion a bit, let's double down on effectiveness rather than governance.

Brilliant piece and I couldn’t agree more - thank you for sharing.

I believe Marina’s opening paragraph sums up very well what is missing from the development assistance equation. However, it must also be acknowledged that Digicel Foundation is home grown and not necessarily bound by constraints associated with bi-lateral agreements. Nonetheless I believe Marina has made a very important point. In such a diverse country as PNG with over 800 languages and possibly the most diverse population on earth, local leadership and input has a major role to play in solutions to issues that affect them. And by association government intervention less. That may sound heretical to Waigani, but not from the perspective of any community I know. If you reflect upon public sector culture since independence one factor stands out. Communities almost never participate in any true sense in decisions that ultimately affect them. As a result most front line public servants I have observed spend their time avoiding meaningful contact with the public they are supposed to serve. A common response from communities is “that person or local member does not represent us.” Which is polite speak for his/her line are our traditional enemies and nothing he/she might say or do is relevant to us. This perception is still widely and deeply held in communities throughout the country and it affects public sector decisions with respect to performance, resource management and governance. While I would suggest there are no quick fixes, I do think Marina has highlighted a truism and potential way forward. If the delivery of public policy, especially services at local level government, ward and community level included greater input, control and ownership for outcomes by the communities themselves, governance, results and sustainability might be greatly improved. How that might work, and the role development assistance might play is a conversation to be had and one I believe that is overdue. In short, I am not surprised by Marina’s findings and support the contention that greater focus upon local input into the design of solutions, implementation and ownership for outcomes is a valuable tool that for too long has been overlooked.

Interesting paper, setting a new kind of development intervention mode. Great achievement on the studies and the work the author initiate in PNG. There are many beneficiaries of the work of the Digicel Foundation here in PNG and it is amazing how this development intervention model is making impacts in our local communities. The philanthropic idea being used by Digicel Foundation, owned by Telstra Telecommunication company is an example of emergence of new kind of organization model known as Social Enterprise. The Social Enterprise idea is new to PNG, but it is a new kind of business model being promoted in countries such as UK. Though Telstra and Digicel Foundation are totally different organization with different objectives, the idea they seem to portray seems to be the same as the social enterprising model, where an enterprise will engage in usual work of making profit, but will also be committed to serving a special social objectives such as poverty alleviation, environmental protection, etc. Along the spectrum of organizational types, far right being purely public entity and far left being purely private entity, the social enterprising seems to strike the balance between the two by encompassing two entity types into one. The results is amazing and seems to show a new way in which many of our development agendas can be accelerated. It is not only government taking ownership of development work, but it is also the community as well rising up to provide solutions to their problems. Particularly, in terms of SDGs targets fast approaching, the need for accelerating development interventions is rising as well, and social enterprising model or "the community philanthropic" should be supported to work alongside public entities to achieve them. Great paper by the author and the idea behind it.

Thanks for taking up the debate Stephen! I do think your argument overlooks the second point I had made (and that Anthony raises above) about how governance is important precisely for sectoral outcomes. Since education, health and water and sanitation programs have integrated better understandings of the governance dimensions of those service delivery problems, development outcomes in those sectors have arguably improved (see all the ‘political economy analysis of [insert sector and country here] in the 2000s and 2010s). I think it’s pretty clear aid can play a role in improving sector outcomes by building in a stronger focus on governance. On your wider point about whether governance can be improved by aid – this is tricky, because of course we don’t want to overclaim the role of aid – we know that change is driven primarily by local leaders. But we also know that external actors can play a role in supporting such leaders: providing resources and technical expertise, convening coalitions and providing platforms for collective action to form. There are good examples of this globally – from the DFID-funded British Council support to running localised political economy analysis training for activists in Sudan, which helped them position better in the overthrow of Bashir. In Vanuatu, former Women’s Affairs Director Dorosday Kenneth-Watson credits the DFAT-funded Pacific Leadership Program for providing useful funding to allow her to build a coalition to get reserved seats for women in Parliament. In the DFAT-funded Coalitions for Change in Philippines, the program supports ‘development entrepreneurs’ to pursue policy changes in a range of areas. All of this is governance support that has made a difference. Sure, aid can’t claim to have been in the driver’s seat, but it is nonetheless pointed to by local leaders as playing an important role in contributing to change. I think we need to be comfortable with that contributing, supporting, backseat role. It might not make for great splashy headlines on the impact of governance, but I think there are plenty of cases where it nudges in more positive directions. And that is what my original DevIntel post meant by aid being able to support principles and values. By supporting marginalised voices, promoting inclusion and equality, valuing contestation, aid itself can demonstrate the kind of governance Australia believes is important to the region. Finally, I would also consider what is meant by ‘doubling down’ on governance. For me – and particularly in light of the economic data you provide – this is less about overall spend and more about the quality of that spend. A good place to start here would be for DFAT to re-establish core governance expertise, which has been significantly eroded. The volume of spending on governance alone is good reason to ensure that DFAT has requisite expertise on the topic to spend it well.

Thanks Stephen. What do senior officials in South East Asian countries think is the most valuable and useful part of the Australian aid program? I asked that very question to such senior officials years ago when I was in AusAID and involved in the drafting of the Australian Government's White Paper review of Australian aid. It was particularly striking to me that almost all of the officials I interviewed quickly nominated Australian scholarships as the most valuable part of Australia's aid program. In their responses, it was almost taken for granted that returning students would have acquired good, up to date, technical skills in relevant fields such as economics, statistics, project management, evaluation, health and education etc. And of course that was a benefit. But what many interviewees emphasised was that the "real value" was that their country was, through Australian and other overseas scholarships, potentially building up its own critical mass of INTERNAL AND DOMESTIC reform minded officials who could analyse and identify better approaches to pressing public problems. The interviewees frequently argued this would be more effective -and often more politically and socially sustainable- in generating reform than short term external consultants or 3 year, stand alone, aid project enclaves. The interviewees didn't use the word "governance" per se. But you can't help but think that having a critical mass of nationals; with up to date technical skills; and who had been exposed to seeing things done differently in Australia and other countries, was a potentially useful and long-lasting investment in initiating and implementing positive reforms. The vast majority of senior officials I interviewed in South East Asia certainly thought so.

Thank you Stephen for naming one of the Australian aid program’s sacred cows. It would be interesting to speculate what other program expenditures also fall into this category. I will suggest one that I have come across on many occasions - poorly designed ‘politically motivated’ programming intended to please local elites.