Comments

Thank you Anna for a very thought-provoking comment. I agree with much of what you say, I'll just note two points of potential disagreement for discussion's sake. Point 1: You're certainly correct that politics in a country like the US (or Australia or NZ) often involves people or organisations acting for the sake of advancing their own interests (usually financial interests). The crucial difference between the US, Aus, or NZ, and countries where clientelism is prevalent though, is that in the US, Aus & NZ, engagement usually occurs with a view to changing national policy. For example, wealthy people striving to have tax rates lowered. Or, to give an example from New Zealand, farmers trying to stay out of our emissions trading scheme. This differs from clientelist countries. In clientelist countries politics usually hinge around actors trying to gain personal or very localised benefits. Point 2: The question of proximity is very interesting. Jack Corbett has a paper on it in which he argues that proximity makes Pacific politics very different. Interestingly though, in larger Pacific countries, like Solomon Islands (which I know best), MPs actually often end up surprisingly remote, and their connections to communities are mediated through one or two sets of intermediaries. It's a common complaint in Solomons that people can't get access to their MPs. It would be fascinating to survey Pacific countries and see where proximity between politicians and voters really is strong, and where MPs are actually less accessible. I do definitely agree that OECD countries have only limited lessons relevant for most Pacific countries though. Thanks again for an excellent comment. Terence

Thank you for the analysis Terence. Two key points emerge for me: (i) the homogeneity of a state (one language, one culture) makes national cohesion a somewhat simpler exercise than highly multicultural, multilingual states …. both Samoa and Vanuatu have key high-level customary institutions but as the article states, one has more influence over politics blurring the separation of state, (church) and custom governance, while the other has a more pronounced separation similar to other democratic systems around the world. (ii) Political patronage (which is common globally, see for example the USA where political patronage is institutionalized and even encouraged through political financing) at the expense of platform-based, programmatic electoral politics has been a persistent trend, most likely due to scale. Comparisons with larger, more populous states are possibly redundant given the greater proximity of political leaders to people in smaller states like those we have here in the Pacific. Is it a simple equation of political proximity + patronage = clientelist politics + less national cohesion? I would argue that for small island states like ours, OECD lessons in electoral politics are interesting to know, but fundamentally we should be aiming to reframe democratic/political practice to our realities. I would aim for systems that foster political proximity + strategic issues-based politics + public accountability to build national cohesion.

The design of the proposed Ag Visa will "consider permanent residency pathways and regional settlement", something that both the PLS and SWP strictly disallow. It may be time to consider the creation of a single temporary worker visa, or better still to use the existing Temporary Skilled Shortage (TSS) visa, with the same conditions for workers regardless of their nationality. The above could then be complemented with national quotas as is being practiced with WHMs now.

The visa has been targeted at ASEAN countries since its announcement in June. See https://devpolicy.org/asean-ag-visa-makes-no-sense-20210617/.

My immediate impression was that the visa is intended for UK citizens (a post-Brexit trade matter) and citizens of other countries as they sign up. I didn’t hear “Asian” in the news snippet.

The question is raised about DFAT being involved with this given that DHA is responsible for visas is not an issue really. After all, the SWP program operates under DESE/DHA and the PLS is currently through DFAT. So if it works there it can also work here. With the frustrating shenannigans of SWP and PLS workers, quite a number of current Approved Employers are sure to consider switching to the new scheme and perhaps look to Asian countries as their preference. Cheaper Aisan flights and a more skilled population would make it more attractive. The ability to recruit a worker that has a pathway to residency and beyond, and given a much longer length to the visa is another huge attaction. The maximum 9 month SWP visa simply wont cut it. The new visa may also have less restrictions and hoops for employers than the current arrangements, especially those of the SWP. So given those realities, I agree with the author that the SWP and PLS schemes are threatened. Where I disagree is that the SWP will be equally impacted. In my opinion, for the SWP and PLS to survive it will need to become more flexible and 'smarter,' while still maintaining a high level of worker welfare AND let's not forget employer welfare. Perhaps providing a pathway for permanent residency? The alternative is to keep these two schemes at status quo but hamstring the Ag Visa with a small quota. At least at the start.

Ultimately the bigger picture is being missed here. As a colonised state, the people have been historically oppressed and it is written within their culture to hold the coloniser in a position of power. The fact they come and continue to ‘save’ them only depends that feeling of oppression. It excels the feeling that Eurocentric culture and behaviour are superior and to be looked up to, and ignores the confidence needed by the colonised to help themselves again. Only people of the land know what’s best for it, sadly colonisation sent most countries back hundreds of years in this regard. The problem with the colonisers is that deep down they often think their actions have benefitted the country they colonised in some way. Sadly their behaviour sent every place on earth that they invaded back by hundreds of years, actively contributing to the ruination of our planet and climate change. To think that the same people can return to these countries and impose views again under the guise of aid, shows how little everyone has learnt. Please think more deeply about what on earth a white man is doing in an African country and what right he has to do that, considering the legacy of his peoples in that country.

Interesting thank u

Thank you very much for your take on family violence, very pleased reading the causes and consequences and plans to combat family violence. Thanks

Yes, I agree that they are self-evident and non-controversial, but nevertheless need to be stated. Thanks for doing that so clearly and concisely. I am tempted to provide one initial answer to your question of how the sector can improve: while acknowledging that all the principles outlined are important, numbers 1 and 9 are the foundations, don't you think? Most of the others are either difficult to implement or somewhat compromised without these 2 foundational elements - and thus the research outcomes and impact will undoubtedly be compromised. Indeed, the questions you pose in number 10 are far easier to answer if this foundation is in place, in my experience: the learning, application and engagement with key findings extends far beyond the completion date when the research is designed in collaboration with local in-country actors - particularly those who have a long-term commitment and investment in sharing and taking up findings to achieve their policy and change goals. One thing that I think deserves somewhat more emphasis in your list is the contribution that local actors can make to the later phases of the research process: interpretation of the findings. I have found that locals engaged in the process of implementing social change agendas can bring very different perspectives to the interpretation of findings. I know you are highlighting the importance of diversity and grounding - but I do think this point needs to be more explicit. These people can often provide key insights into the missing links between the macro and the micro.

Is there re-validation of accreditation going on and how often?

Thanks Albert and sorry I missed your comment earlier. The fundamental issues with aid that you raise are of course real and I suspect you know more about the in-country operational realities (e.g. in PNG). Evaluations have shown that SWAps can be useful tools for increasing accountability and transparency of health aid funding allocations, both of recipients and donors alike. Our research supports this, showing that health SWAps have on average, improved the efficiency of development partnerships. We’ve found that even with mixed levels of donor engagement, SWAps have had impact. With effort and engagement, this evidence provides compelling evidence that can work again. Kind Regards, Rohan.