Comments

This is so fantastic Justin! Many, many thanks for pushing this vital agenda forward to generate the first global resolution! There are so many dedicated people worldwide who tire of powerful lifesaving knowledge being repeatedly ignored or fobbed off by national governments. So being United for the first time, now that is a very BIG LOUD VOICE!

Excellent points, David. And nice to hear from you again. 100 percent agree and nice to hear about the shifting demand. Hopefully this also shifts the culture around data-sharing and quantitative research too, which may in turn finally encourage a bit more of it! One further point I would add, salient in pandemic times, is that by opening up these datasets to anyone in the world, great people will come and work for free! Encouraging the best researchers around the world to turn their attention to the region will only increase the calibre of the work done and the policy dialogue and is something we have been behind on for far too long. Further to what you mention on the great work you have been doing on PDH, I'd also flag to readers that the UNICEF MICS surveys are rapidly adding Pacific countries, the PNG 2016-18 DHS is easy to access through the DHS platform, and there is some neat historical census data for some Pacific countries on IPUMS International. As you mention, getting the HIES and other poverty and labour related products up somewhere as easy to access as these websites is a next important frontier, as is getting finer spatial identifiers in these ones.

Thank you David, that is very useful to know. Terence

The only other data that might be of some use is that gathered by RAM (Rotary Against Malaria) I believe they do household surveys in the provinces/districts where they distribute bed nets. I am no statistician but it might be worth having a conversation with them. I live in Western Highlands Province and have seen some of the data for this province.

Whilst I agree with what this morning's authors say about the need for a change in approach to research in the region, it is a shame that they do not give any attention to one of the fundamental weaknesses in the research process - the difficulty of accessing the necessary data. We at SPC have been building the Pacific Data Hub (PDH) (see https://pacificdata.org/) to be a central source of Pacific data for the region, containing a microdata library (accessible through a data licencing process) and a development indicator database for the SDGs and a wide range of other key indicators derived from census, surveys and administrative data (see https://sdd.spc.int/indicators-stat). A key to the success of this endeavour is encouraging national statistical authorities as well as government ministries and other agencies to make their data available through the PDH or their national websites, where necessary in a secure and managed way, to researchers be they national or international, who wish to use it for the greater good. The COVID pandemic has acted as something of a catalyst in this regard as the demand for data has increased substantially, particularly around the need for information for social protection and poverty alleviation, as the economic slowdown in many Pacific countries has impacted livelihoods and families. Without access to a wider range of timely and reliable data Pacific researchers will continue to be hindered whatever approach is followed.

The authors seem to have attempted to take one lone statistic from the PNG national statistical database and inflated it into a pseudo-scientific study that lacks credibility. I am not sure what is behind the motives but from experience there is usually a corporate interest involved. I do not know what that might be in this instance. I guess many people would ask, is there a nutritional problem rather than a hunger problem? Certainly some 48 years ago balanced nutrition was the bigger problem.

Hi Oliver, Thank you for your comment. What you suggest sounds quite plausible. The best approach, if you have a particular interest in any individual donor, would be to go to the source data. Our dataset is online & linked to from the paper. It may be sufficient for your purposes. The raw Lowy data can also be downloaded from their Pacific Aid Map website, although the raw data can be hard to work with. If you have further questions that might be answered with one or other dataset do please feel free to send me an email. Terence

Thanks to Stephen and Richard for pointing out that the tracer survey questions about ease/difficulty in finding a job are asked only of those in employment - a pity that this is not stated in the APTC Tracer Survey Reports. However, this does not affect my main argument that their categorisation and definition of Job Seeker, and who is included/excluded from this category, is arbitrary and inconsistent. They have still not given a satisfactory explanation of why a graduate who seeks a new job at a higher level is treated as a Job Seeker only if he/she finds a job with a new employer. They say that they exclude those who gain a higher level job with the same employer on the grounds that they were already employed. They seem to be assuming that any graduate who gains a job with a new employer must have been unemployed while studying and on graduation - otherwise they would not be a Job Seeker by their definition. And yet, when one looks at the Tracer Survey Reports (e.g. 2019 Report, Table 2, p.9) it states clearly that those who gained employment with a new employer did so in a 'different company ... to the one I was employed by when I studied at APTC'. Unless Stephen and Richard have other information to the contrary there is no basis for treating these graduates as Job Seekers, nor for differentiating them from graduates who gained new, higher positions with the same employer. Unfortunately, neither their blog nor the more detailed Devpolicy Discussion Paper provide the reader with the details of how they arrived at their numbers. The reader is left having to accept their results as an act of faith. Perhaps more useful than assuming a particular basis on which to evaluate APTC's performance, DFAT could be invited indicate what they consider the most important outcomes and criteria on which APTC's performance should be assessed?

Thanks for this very interesting analysis and blog post. I am absolutely not an expert on bilateral aid or aid volatility, so this is only an assumption given that I am based in Germany and do know a little bit about how German ministries and politics preceives the Pacific region more in general: Could the relatively high volatility for German aid in the Pacific be explained by the fact that (from a German perspective) all the Pacific islands are not considered as key receipient countries for German aid (and there is not even a section dealing with the Pacific in particular in the respective German ministry), but all (or nearly all?) German aid given to the Pacific is topical/thematic, I guess in most cases linked to climate change? Furthermore, there may have been an increase in German aid prior to Germany's 2018 election to the UN Security Council, when Germany highly depended on Pacific votes.

Thanks for this review. It seems that the two discreet locations for the studies are conflated however, and it is difficult to distinguish outcomes for each of them. In fact I find it difficult to determine what this publications offers that is not already known, let alone who the expected/intended readership is. There is also terminology that is used but not defined - there are various ways of understanding 'literacy', 'relational' and 'two way learning opportunities' that are considerate of local epistemologies, but discussed in a way that these somehow constitute a 'new' approach to aid delivery?

Thank you very much for taking an ongoing and active interest in this research. We are continuing the research and will submit a new blog post for the consideration of the Devpolicy editors every six months. As we wrote at the end of this post, we will monitor the new entrant’s data pricing options, if it commences operations. Thank you for raising numerous interesting issues. I have read through your comments carefully. You were right to alert readers to the various other costs involved in the provision of internet service by telecommunication companies, aside from the cost of buying the data itself. I recall that Colin Stone, CEO of Digicel PNG, made this point during a panel discussion we both participated in during events in Port Moresby to mark World Telecommunication Day in 2019. As you rightly pointed out, mobile network operators need to pay for rent, electricity, staff and security personnel at retail outlets. They also need to pay for staff to answer telephone calls at their customer care centre, and so on. There are many costs that they need to work out how to recoup when determining the prices that they will charge customers. Thanks again, Dr Amanda H A Watson (on behalf of our team of three researchers)

We can show solidarity by helping the World Food Programme, and its project "Share The Meal", with $1.20 per meal.