Comments

Thank you for your comment, Andrew. Some analysis of the data was undertaken in the early 1980s. Three papers were written in that period, two being for seminars. These presented summary findings and some policy recommendations. The report published in January 2023 provides a more comprehensive analysis of the data, compares the findings to more recent studies, and provides data by household in Excel spreadsheet format for use by other researchers. I agree it would have been better if the more comprehensive analysis had been published earlier. Other commitments, and then a change of career (moving out of academia into the public service) meant I was not available to undertake the larger task. As I mention in the report, I had always hoped I would be able to come back to the project, but I didn’t have the time until after I had retired.

Thanks for an interesting post. One minor comment. The introduction to that AEJ special issue with the microfinance RCTs is now a little outdated---and, at best, a limited frame to think about the role of credit---so I wanted to flag this recent review which gives a slightly different overall picture: https://voxdev.org/sites/default/files/MicroFinance_Issue_1.pdf This paper by Breza and Kinnan in the QJE is particularly important: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/136/3/1447/6266467

Just to elaborate on my earlier comment as it relates to NGOs (from local CBOs to NGOs to INGOs): it seems that when they repeatedly unite and patiently collaborate together around the same goals as citizenries articulate and come to share (which are also enabled/enableable processes), evidence points to their increased and at times, critical importance as interlocutors (in solidarity with others sharing these goals - eg media; officials , traditional & religious leaders ..) in fostering synergies between government and citizenries to which I referred. (eg see also evidence from IDS, ISS/Alan Fowler's and mine) As already emphasised, this process of enabling & giving collective voice to citizenries is (or need not be) aid-intensive and in strengthening governance (eg of health systems) and its fruits, tends to have democratising outcomes . Part of such voice needs to have an objective basis, such as institutional 'inputs'. Part needs to be subjective (drawing on and translating lived experiences of failed/failing institutions) and through deliberation/dialogue part needs to be intersubjective, with local citizenries triangulating all three. Such synergies can be scaled up. The point is NOT that media etc automatically share the shared goals of citizenries (they dont necessarily do so), but that within them (as within governments, starting locally) are often allies willing to increase such goal-sharing. Rather that it is possible to create more inclusionary 'virtuous cycles' of change where local institutions important to local citizenries are blocked, or worse (eg 'zombie' or 'ghost' institutions) - which collective counter vicious cycles of poor governance, into which external donors, whether INGOs or official donors, otherwise (eg if unaware of these cycles or complacent about them) are locked and have become complicit. (eg collectively their funding of or towards services allows governments at all levels to free-ride, when it is disconnected from accountability to local citizenries; who, unsurprisingly, are reluctant to pay taxes for 'blocked institutions' (examples of these are public schools, clinics, water supply systems, child protection systems, social protection systems, systems for PLWD, with low levels of accessibility, availability, acceptability and quality)

Angel was a great man with unique personality. He was my manager when I was working in Afghanistan with GRM/Palladium 10 years ago. He had good sense of humour, very passionate about what he was doing. Very supportive, encouraging and caring. May his soul rest in peace.

Practical implications of several of Angus Deaton's key arguments - about the importance of government responsiveness/accountability to their own citizenries, so citizenries become the pipers who call the tune - and what facilitates citizenries in response being to pay increased taxes for what they can monitor seem, surprisingly to me, to have been left underexplored. While not suggesting these are panaceas, there is some evidence suggests that enabling them (alongside other factors which close the gap and facilitate better, more trusting citizen-government) help contribute to better governance. Importantly, compared to traditional kinds of aid, this kind of aid is often relatively inexpensive. If this is so, perhaps we need less of a binary discussion about aid/no aid, and more which asks what evidence shows about the conditions under which modest amounts of aid contribute not merely to better governance but more especially, over time, to a) mutual trust arising between governments and their citizenries, from the bottom up and b) this facilitates them paying increased taxes as they 'see' and 'believe' government is becoming more responsive and accountable to them which then helps not only close gaps between them but even foster collaboration (and other kinds of positive-sum power).

Hello Terence, I find Nik Soni’s comments with respect to delineation of NGOs by size and master to be spot on. His observation that I-NGOs cannot be genuine agents for advocacy when they take their money and instructions from Canberra or its equivalent is mostly correct. The wash up is they are by almost any measure completely ineffective outside government-to-government at central agency level and even then their impact is arguable. Take Australian bilateral aid to PNG since independence. I suggest you would be hard-pressed to find one example of lasting impact beyond the odd infrastructure project. Certainly nothing of substance or sustainability in the health or education space where it counts: beyond the halls of Waigani. Take the myriad of local NGOs. By that I refer to the non-official church and non-political groups that exist at community level almost everywhere. Almost none are registered with the Investment Promotion Authority or Internal Revenue Commission and this effectively makes them ineligible for funding by I-NGOs. In many cases they have good ideas and represent the voice of their communities. If the development assistance dots could be connected more readily to them, I would suggest it could have real impact. To give you an example of how the system works, I am aware as I write of a PNG health professional who works for a Port Moresby based I-NGO and wishes to deliver valuable health awareness messaging to communities in a maritime setting. To do this she needs to hire a local dinghy operator but can’t because none have IPA registration. This is the kind of nonsense that cruels progress. In my view the development assistance effort suffers from a gaping disconnect between the reality for people on the ground and what managing partners based in POM or HON are expected to do. And I suggest this is a genuine impediment to achieving longer term impact where it matters. In Australia our governments wish to “close the gap” with respect to indigenous disadvantage. In more recent times there has been a recognition that greater community consultation and genuine partnerships towards mutually agreed solutions is an essential part of the pathway forward. In PNG and the Solomon Islands we should look to adopt the same strategy for the same reasons that apply in Australia. Customary land ownership equates to deep time occupancy of place, culture and language equates to identity in that place and how these factors play out in decision making and the uptake of new ideas at community level. As an independent community empowerment facilitator, with thirty-five years in PNG and time in the Solomon Islands, much of it with a community focus I cannot think of a better time for a step change in our approach to international assistance in Melanesia. In a region with burgeoning populations, increasing pressure on land, freshwater resources and fisheries, faltering services, increasingly dissatisfied youth and where human capital development indicators have long been in retreat, it is of strategic importance to do something better than pour money in at the top and glad hand the idea of the Pacific Family. In partnership with people where they live and within the resources at their disposal, we have to do better at empowering them to achieve the outcomes that are important to them. In my view, one that takes in collapsed school buildings and abandoned clinics, it is past time to direct a concerted focus on identifying and working with communities through effective local NGOs to assist them become part and parcel of the solutions that government alone cannot solve.

40 years must be some kind of record for a delay between fieldwork and analysis/publication. I'm wondering what the reason was.

Expanding on the "magic concept", it sometimes felt like innovation labs were setup as a solution in search of a problem. From there it's easy to produce shiny apps that don't serve a clear purpose. Technology is just a tool, which applied to the right problems can be a very effective one. Putting tech as an end is bad for aid outcomes, and bad for tech, as it fuels scepticism.

Recent failed fads - labs, blockchain, cash transfer. Previous fads - a laptop for every child, tablets for remote health workers, tele-medicine, RCTs - remember those? Many fads rely on technology for which the underlying infrastructure does not exist or institutions to be created in countries with pre-existing institutional deficiencies. But they tick boxes for Development Partners and the Pacific is "pilot project" central for every cooky "innovation" good or bad in development. Long term institutional strengthening and building the underlying human and physical capital needed for development long term fell out of fashion decades ago.

Interesting, one issue is the lack of clarification of what constitutes an NGO. In the past they were synonymous with charity. In the Pacific most I-NGO's are now primarily managing contractors for Development Partners - so essentially not for profit private entities. However, most I-NGOs still see themselves as charities - so you will here them say things like "their role is to advocate" but you cannot be a genuine advocacy agency if your income source defines what you do and you are paid to deliver a certain output. So, here the sceptics have a point. Then their are local NGO's who in the Pacific often are more like charities but so small in scale they could never meet the fiduciary requirements of almost any authority. So the mere term NGO is quite problematic. In the Pacific I-NGO's are technically not for profit private companies and local NGOs are more like charities. If seen in this light then the arguments for who to give private charitable donations to and the risks involved become a lot clearer. Then to add confusion there are churches - who act like charities but fall under a different set of regulations again. This also does not cover the plethora of CSO's especially state funded CSO's that we see in Asia and Africa who also often come with "interesting non developmental" agenda. However, any attempt to actually clarify and define this - no matter how genuine - is often met my cries of "Government interference" which is why it remains such a murky space to the detriment of everybody in the development industry. The regulation of charities, churches and not for profits in the Pacific still relies on legislation drafted in the 70's that has not been updated to meet the requirements of the twenty first century.

Great tribute to a great man. Angel had a wonderful sense of humour and was always so warm to work with. He was so good to me when I was just starting out in Port Moresby. Vale.

I think this is plausible and the self-reported nature was my first thought. But the little evidence I could find after a brief look around suggests the opposite: more educated women being less likely to report for a given level of prevalence, suggesting these differences may be more likely to be attenuated than overestimated. Check out this very interesting write-up of an interesting approach used in Peru: https://blogs.iadb.org/ideas-matter/en/can-domestic-violence-be-accurately-measured/ Relatedly, this study documents the same effect implicit in Kingtau's blog except holding attitudes, which I would expect to be a mediator of reporting, and other things constant, and education shifting as good as randomly to help isolate its effect. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26528370