Comments

Thanks, Thomas! These are some important notes you've contributed toward the discussion. The idea of "possessive individualism" is driven by neo-liberal logic based around capitalism and market economy. I like the idea that we have a cultural problem, not economic. We've actually abused our culture for all the wrong reasons – moral failing.

I'm working in an NGO in the Philippines and your tips are very helpful. A partnership is a vital element of every NGO. One of my desires is to make every child smile and reach their potential. Thank you!

This is a great contribution to the debate. See below some excerpts from my thesis: In the Pacific Islands (particularly within the Melanesian sub-region), Larmour (2008 & 2012) noted two opposing, but related views about corruption. The first view is that “outsiders’ (West) view culture as an exacerbator of corruption, while the islanders view culture through the traditional moral economy lens. For instance, the act of gift-giving is regarded as a ceremonial gesture by the islanders and does not constitute corruption, while a gift may be seen by an outsider as bribery, and therefore corrupt. This view is associated with the cultural relativism debate where “something regarded as corrupt in one country, or sub-culture might not be regraded as corrupt in another” (Larmour, 2008, p. 227). The second, and perhaps the most common view is the decaying of moral values and conduct (or behaviour) among the Pacific Island leaders after independence. Most PICs gained independence between the 1960s and the 1980s. In my research on government corruption in PNG, I argued that colonialism itself was not a homogenising process (in a highly fragmented and culturally diverse society), and elements of neo-patrimonial rule and clientelism were already shaping modern political governance in PNG. For instance, Australia’s colonial policies failed to prevent indigenous cultural and traditional practices of reciprocity (e.g., the wantok and big man systems) from creeping into the modern administrative system that it helped established in PNG. Ironically, colonialism had created an indigenous elite class, who tended to mimic Western capitalist values by incorporating local customs and cultures into formal or official roles. When colonialism ended, the emerging indigenous elite class “sought to use their newfound political power to reshape state power to extend accumulation [of wealth]” (MacWilliam, 2013, p. 239). By using and personalising this new form of political power, these indigenous elites consolidated their authority as big men – a trait typical of neo-patrimonial rule. Despite the fact that social exchanges, gift-giving, and social and familial connections are important tenets of a strong traditional moral economy, cultural nobility had failed in many PICs because the islanders rely too much on culture to maintain these traditional moral economy values, and therefore were distracted from distinguishing between the moral grey zones. Kanekane (2007) referred to this failure as “moral failing” where traditional morality (kastom and gift-giving) has easily given way to corrupt practices (for instance, bribery) within the modern political and neo-liberal economic institutions. So culture is both a blessing and a curse (for the wrong reasons). Corruption is indeed systemic and systematic. I concur that to curb corruption requires a total behavioural shift - both personal and institutional. Cheers,

Hi Jon, I'm not sure that what you've written is really a "different conclusion" from that offered at the end of the post. Setting that aside though, what you describe is a risk (see, for example, <a href="https://devpolicy.org/awkward-arithmetic-of-australias-climate-finance-promise-20211202/">my post</a> on Australian climate finance). Although the risk is/can be minimised somewhat by: 1. International tools such as the OECD guidelines discussed in the post. (Witness their impact on Australia's gender reporting). 2. Politicians paying careful attention. 3. Transparency. 4. Civil society/academics paying attention. 5. Increasing aid budgets for the specific purpose of X or Y, as is the case with NZ's climate finance (see my post <a href="https://devpolicy.org/new-zealand-climate-finance-conundrums-20220622/">here</a>). Thanks for the comment. Terence

There is a different conclusion you could draw from this excursion into the data underlying aid for 'empowering women' which may indeed likewise apply to aid for climate change or other purposes. This is that, as successive governments change their figurehead priorities, whether those be 'good governance', 'economic liberalization', 'climate change mitigation' or 'women's empowerment', donors and aid recipients adapt by re-configuring various projects so that they fit the new fashions. Thus, a country has long needed a hygienic marketplace in the capital city to sell fresh fish. Put that down as 'empowering women' by also installing decent lighting to reduce the risk of harassment. Another country needs a sea wall to avoid flooding during king tides. Put that down as 'climate change mitigation'. A government donates high-powered guns in order to suppress mounting popular discontent. Put that down as 'strengthening bilateral partnerships'. Another government follows suite by donating trucks with water cannons for the same purposes. Perhaps the most robust classification for a good deal of aid might be 'please the minister'.

"Corruption", if looked at from a traditional cultural perspective as against modern culture of statecraft and public administration, it entails a stark contrast as to how, where, what and when this noble human act is applied. In many respects, the modern definition of corruption prohibits and outlaws traditional cultural norms and practices of the Melanesian society. For example, a gift given to a service provider in appreciation for a job well done would be interpreted as an act of corruption by modern standards. This shows that what is a normal way of social behaviour and conduct will actually be wrong and unlawful in the modern cultural context. To me corruption in Melanesian traditional cultural context is a noble act because the action is peaceful, generous, appreciative, and fosters harmonious coexistence between the server and the served or the service provider and the client. The corrupt or noble action does not constitute terrorism or serious security threats to life and assets. It is just a friendly or positive gesture and recognition in appreciation. However, it is true if such a traditional cultural and social behaviour reaches a whole new level of actions is alarming with dreadful ramifications bound to decay the fabric of society. Like Sir Mekere Morauta had stated, 'corruption has become systematic and systemic.' For one to eradicate corruption, it must go beyond 'change of attitude and behaviour of citizens'. It warrants change of regime from democratic to authoritarian government to instil fear, discipline and rule of law.

Well done Samoa.

Encounters with aggrieved workers (noting those that were courageous enough to speak, the majority aren’t), and some that have left their work, raises some serious human rights issues, under both domestic and international legal frameworks, including questionable contractual terms in an environment that seems out of firm oversight mechanisms. Asylum visa is not an issue, but a result of deeper issues of inequities. Imputations by commentators that Pacific Islanders may have possibly premeditated such strategy is misleading and unfortunately only adds to fueling the patronising views among some quarters. Speeding up the processing time for such visa, yet knowing fully that the expected outcome would be negative, as the article observes to be the case, may serve primarily as deterrent but that would overlook some of the real issues of inequity embedded in the labour scheme. Contrary to the conclusion, the ‘intergrity’ of the scheme should not come at the expense of serious concerns with its operations, even if those complaints are ‘minority’. Victoria Stead makes some good observations: https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-better-conditions-not-shaming-for-pacific-farm-workers-171404 Research into this is ongoing but I hope to properly discuss in an article/blog soon. I think there are ways this scheme can be better improved for both Australia and the Pacific.

Hello Terrence, I think your article of 2 December, 2021 is a classic straight out of “Yes Minister.” I can just picture Hacker trying to follow the logic of your analysis in a discussion between Bernard and Sir Humphrey. “Come, come now Bernard, the government’s change in classification from “Significant” to “Principal” is merely a tautological mechanism to meet our obligations with Brussels and keep everyone happy.” Hacker – But surely Humphrey, that’s cheating isn’t it? Humphrey – Cheating? Why no, no Minister. Merely an innovative way to meet our obligations in accordance with how business is done. I would venture that every bit of your analysis applies equally well to aid directed at governance, health and education. My gripe is that while huge quantities of treasure have been channelled over the years to Waigaini and to a lesser extent to Honiara and Port Vila, there is no escaping the fact that outcomes at the “grass roots” have largely been backwards. And yet we appear happy to keep singing from the same hymn sheet and the name of the game appears more and more to be keep Canberra happy rather than face up to inconvenient truths. I hope the Labor government will make a step change and attach greater importance to initiatives that demonstrate an ability to facilitate measurable and lasting improvements to health, education, gender and economic indicators at community level where impact is needed most – no matter how they want it measured - period.

Thanks Stephen, I agree, what we really want to know about is the outcomes caused by the aid. I'm all in favour of more of that type of data, so long as it's robust and reliable. Absent that, or combined with that, it's still useful to know what the aid program is trying to achieve. On the subject of climate finance and data accuracy, my post on Australia from last year might be of interest: https://devpolicy.org/awkward-arithmetic-of-australias-climate-finance-promise-20211202/ Terence

I take your point that determining what percentage of aid has a gender focus depends on which “yardstick” you use and who is using it. Surely the test of whether aid is gender effective or not is in the measures of women’s health, education, domestic violence and economic indicators. No faffing around. Has an intervention improved access to Gardasil for adolescent girls, are more girls completing grade 12 and entering tertiary institutions, do out-patient records show a decline in presentations as a result of domestic violence, are incomes for women rising in a particular demographic? It’s not rocket science but the gobble de gook served up by agencies worried about their next tranche is misleading and unhelpful. We are again hearing calls at COP27 from those most affected by the climate emergency for less colonialism and more help. In my view the aid “game” can be part of the problem it seeks to solve and more often than not is.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading of the highlighted issues facing the Pacific Islands particularly in the loss of semi-skilled worker and public servants to Australia and New Zealand. I The flow on effect of this to other small Pacific Island countries who may be relying to fill their skills gaps from bigger Pacific Island countries like Fiji may have yet to be explored. Smaller countries such as Nauru have their teaching and nursing skills gap filled mostly from the Fiji labour market and as these bigger PI countries experiences their own brain drain to Australia, it also affects other smaller PI countries too