Comments

Hi Ryan, Good comment, as always. I agree there is considerable scope for greater use of quantitative experimental and quasi experimental methods in evaluating components of governance work (with governance just being one of many examples). My main point of difference would be that -- even when there such methods aren't feasible -- the work may well still be worth doing. All significant work should be evaluated independently and rigourously of course, but at times qualitative approaches may be more helpful. And, at times, even with the full tool kit of quant and qual approaches there will still be some uncertainty. Still - "more and better evaluations" is a slogan I could happily march to. Terence

"For the PICs, PACER Plus represents a squandered opportunity to address the real development needs of the region and a waste of time and significant resources. The focus should be on assisting PIC exporters to meet quarantine standards in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), supporting the emergence of new PIC industries, promoting the diversification of PIC economies and ensuring that the traditional systems and cultural practices in the Pacific aren’t displaced by Western-style investments. None of this requires PACER Plus to be in force." I believe this is what Australian and New Zealand governments are already providing as a commitment to the PACER Plus PICs. Think there is a need for curve out on a commitment towards liberalising industrial sector for the vulnerable PICs, that would pull in PNG and Vanuatu. There is a small margin or zero impact of ANZ exports of like products to the Pacific if PICs imposes high tariffs. It means the agreement allows PICs to retain the right to impose high tariffs to protect local infant industries. Invariable, offer market access to those PICs industries that meet the ANZ standards to export to these two markets. Second, ANZ to offer market access on services sectors to the PICs in areas they may have competitive advantages. In this regard, financial and real estate sectors, for some, they could be allowed to establish branches/agents in ANZ markets. One notable bank in PNG, BSP, could be establishing branches in ANZ noting its positive reputation of rolling out its banks presence in the Pacific countries. This is where PNG could directly benefit from the dollars from ANZ Market. Third, about mobility, there needs to be binding commitments for semi and formal skilled persons to work in ANZ and vice versa.

Hi Lucille and Terence, A recent piece on overheads you might both be interested in: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-karlan-charitable-giving-20141218-story.html I agree with most of your points, as well as Terence's below. But while it is quite clear that not every single use of aid can be subject to experimental or at least quasi-experimental evaluations, at the same time it is clear that much more Australian aid can and should be, crucially including governance aid, labour mobility, and infrastructure. You would be surprised by the list of things that people have found clever ways to experimentally evaluate over the last 20 years, and some of the surprising results they've delivered. Best, Ryan

I thank the three contributors, Adam Wolfenden, Jim Redden and Wesley Morgan for pointing to some of the negative and positive contributions of the PACER Plus agreement. Although aspects of the trade provisions have attracted comment there has been no insightful discussion of the investment provision. In my view the PACER Plus investment provisions (Chapter 9) make no positive contribution to the agreement. No investor will be reassured by Chapter 9. The Chapter does not include investor-state dispute resolution rules. Chapter 9, using the common language of many bilateral investment treaties, describes investment protection standards and requirements in some detail. In the event that a state breaches these international law standards and requirements an investor must seek a remedy in the state’s courts under domestic law. If the legal processes of the host state have been exhausted without such a remedy an investor may then petition its home state to take up its cause under the legal fiction that an injury to a foreign national is an injury to that person’s state. Taking up the investor’s grievance at this diplomatic level is known as ‘espousal’. To advance a claim for espousal an investor must gain the attention, support and advocacy of both politicians and bureaucrats. If a state decides to adopt and espouse the investor’s claim then the issue may be resolved or arbitrated as a state-state dispute, or never resolved. PACER Plus Chapter 14 provides some guidance as to how state-state disputes may be resolved. In the context of the politics of state to state relations such investor claims may be great irritants. Because of this and many other reasons most or all investment treaties that make provision for investor-state dispute settlement explicitly rule out the use of diplomacy (‘espousal’) for resolution of investor-state disputes. Vailala

Hi Lucille, Thank you for a great comment. I agree completely: the last paragraph is the most important. My hope is that, if the noise of the worn-out aid critiques is toned down a little, we (including the public and politicians) might have more productive conversations about aid effectiveness. On the subject of aid effectiveness, once again you make some interesting points. Although here I disagree with you slightly. I think that aid effectiveness is a more complex topic than is sometimes understood. I've explained why overheads are a mistaken preoccupation <a href="https://devpolicy.org/aid-mythbusters-low-overheads20110311/">previously</a>. Also, cash transfers are very popular with some economists, and Give Well has a very heavy tilt towards medical interventions, for a simple reason: these types of work can be assessed with Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). When circumstances are right, I'm a <a href="https://devpolicy.org/the-shocking-truth-about-randomised-control-trials-exposed-20180807/">fan of RCTs</a> as a form of evaluation. They can deliver clear cut evidence of efficacy. However, not everything that matters can be studied this way. For example, DFAT spends a lot of money on governance in Papua New Guinea. Is this a good idea? Possibly not. It may simply be the case that governance almost entirely determined by PNG's domestic political economy, and that aid really cannot change its quality. However, it's possible well-given aid can help, at least over the medium term. If aid does manage to help, given how crucial a well-functioning nation state is to human wellbeing and development, it will be aid very well spent. Unfortunately, it's hard to know aid's efficacy in this area for certain, because the type of work is not easily evaluated, at least with an RCT. I think governance evaluations can and should be improved, but they will never deliver the clear cut evidence you get from an RCT. So, governance work in PNG is something of a gamble. But given the potential development benefits, I think it's a gamble worth taking -- at least if the work is being undertaken as carefully and intelligently as possible. Similarly, some NGOs conduct advocacy trying to get the governments of wealthy countries to do more to tackle climate change. It's the type of work that cannot be evaluated in a manner that will get these NGOs onto Give Well's 'top charity' list. It's also work that may never payoff. But given the risks of climate change, it's well worth trying in my view. Thanks again for a great comment. Terence

Thanks both, Amanda H A Watson and Busa Jeremiah Wenogo, for the insightful article. I do agree with you that SIM deactivation can roll back gains made towards financial inclusion. Coming from Kenya, a country on the East African coast sharing the same Indian ocean with PNG 🙂 I am hopeful that part of the formalization process of financial inclusion is by taking measures like these. We had SIM deregistration here and it went on successfully. Millions of Kenyans had their SIm card registered afresh even those in rural areas. Now phone numbers are linked to people's identities and it has not only brought order but also a sense of security. You can trace people based on the registration details captured in communication gadgets with SIM cards. We can share experiences. As long as it is well organized, it can be a smooth transition. Our M-Pesa mobile money technology here works perfect and has come a long way.

This country is not going anywhere with power struggle each time. Our elected Leaders lack supernatural wisdom, insight and understanding. The struggle is supernatural. Bring back Theo Zurenuoc, he has some supernatural wisdom. Read the Gospel word of God in Ephesians 6:12, the principality will continue its chaos and instability with 100% right to do so because of the SEPIK Spirit Haus Tambaran. We need supernatural help. We can not fight supernatural powers with earthly intellect. So whoever is Prime Minister, get down on your knees and pray in true repentance. Get rid of what's 100% Satan's. Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked! We will reap what we sow. Galatians 6:7

Thanks for the undeniable facts. May Good Lord will give us a good Governance to Govern our beautiful country. May God Bless PNG...

Hi Terence, Your last paragraph is especially important. 
> In particular, while aid can help, not all aid works equally well.
 I think it’s important that we’re careful not to conflate "Aid is effective", with "the aid Australia spends funds on is effective". The studies you cite indicate that money spent on large public health programs is money well spent, which is a conclusion that is further substantiated by organisations such as GiveWell [1]. The evidence also shows that in the right circumstances Unconditional Cash Transfers are also highly effective, though this is quite dependant on the implementing organisation. However, the reality is that the vast majority of DFAT Aid funding does not go towards organisations efficiently implementing public health programs or cash transfers. Rather, it’s spent on UN agencies and development funds such as the ADB, as well as private consultancies and iNGOs. As far as I’m aware, all of these have higher overheads than the top ranked GiveWell charities, and on top of that, less independent evidence of their efficacy, especially on a cost-to-impact basis. [1] https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

Thankyou for this explanation...it can get a little confusing for the laymen at times. So I appreciate it; thanks again!

Thank you very much for this explanation for a lay person like me. Clarifies a lot of doubts

Thank God, the challengers, is coming up, give us good government to role our blessed country PNG...