Comments

Great piece, Alice. Thanks for sharing!

Dear Paul McPhun Thank you very much for this timely article on the Rohingya issue in this global platform — The DEVPOLICYBLOG. The government of Bangladesh has sheltered the Rohingyas for years. In the post-pandemic period, low remittance income and huge import payments indicate that our foreign reserves are in dire condition. Latest available data from the IMF, Bangladesh’s total international reserves are around $27.5 billion (based on International Statistical Definitions) — this is the lowest figure in the last few years, which can meet our import expenses for only three months. Recently, Russia’s war in Ukraine has harmed our food and energy products. Already the increase in commodity prices is having a fatal effect on the life and livelihood of the country’s common people. Our economy as a whole is very troubled. FAO and WFP fear Bangladesh as one of the possible famine-stricken countries in 2023. Though our government got approved for IMF loans of; US$ 1.3 billion under the resilience and sustainability facility and US$ 3.2 billion under the extended fund facility, at the end of the day— our hardworking people have to pay the price. On the other hand, some fundamentalist groups are engaged in attempts to use the Rohingya group to carry out subversive activities across the country. All in all, the Rohingya issue is like the poison that boils on our bodies, which made our people even angrier against them. Despite having many limitations, we, the Bengali nation have taken responsibility for a long time, so, how many more days will share their burden? Now is the demand of time to resettle the Rohingyas in several other suitable places outside Bangladesh. Regards from Bangladesh.

Hi Mark, As we mention in the report (https://rdinetwork.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Ethics-Requirements-for-Research-Publication-FINAL.pdf) you can get ethics approval usually through Universities or there are a couple of private companies, but it is an expensive and time consuming process! It may be enough to go through an ethical review and ethical risk assessment within your organisation or get together a consultative group for a peer review, the RDI Network has also developed an ethical practice training module and Starter Kit, which could help you frame how you do a ethical review, which you can find on the website (https://rdinetwork.org.au/resources/research-ethics-practice/)

Thanks my sister if anything else let me know coz I really need a job like that....

Thank you for this. I have heard about Ethics approval here and there and like it. This article of yours tried to answer a question I was trying to ask if it would be best to get approval from an Ethics committee to do a social mapping exercise which I was requested by a neighboring village group. Experiences in involvement with community forestry for more than 20 years enable me to conduct a social mapping for them with a report. Please share your thoughts by replying if I can get approval as an independent guy? Where and how?

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.