Comments

I was in the Solomon Islands in March/April 1986 working on a rice project at SolRice. My wife and I were given a pick-up truck for getting around. We went one weekend to the Vilu War Museum. In those less troubled times I had no problem following signs and finding the museum. I have beautiful memories of this museum set in the middle of nowhere. The fact that Mags and I were the only visitors added to the atmosphere. For some reason we had the whole place to ourselves. We didn't see another living soul, still less the curators. Some years later I settled in Thailand and have visited the Bridge on the River Kwai and its associated war museums many times. With the throngs of tourists at the River Kwai I can safely that Vilu was far more poignant and atmospheric in its sad depiction of what the war was about on Guadalcanal.

Dear Tim. I fully agree that in developing Asia SMEs have structural weaknesses with productivity, not being able to pay high wages etc. Most IBs are actually innovative, commercially viable, dynamic medium-sized enterprises where the management is interested in finding solutions for the B40 which also make business sense. There are not so many IBs worldwide and in Asia, in our studies we typically find maybe 20-100 per country. but the number is increasing. Anyway, the number of companies and their sizes (IB can be small companies, medium sized, large, national or international companies) does not matter for the IB discussion, rather their transformative and systemic character of impact. And systemic change needs also some size and some commercial sustainability; in result, most IB are medium-sized firms. I am currently writing a more elaborated reply to the original blog. If you wish a copy let me know through email. Armin BAUER

Dear Ms. Nguyen Phuong and Mr. Alice Behan. A friend of mine sent me your blog, which I found quite interesting. As the former head of ADB's Inclusive Business initiative and having done in the last 3 years various policy studies and strategies on IB (also recently in Viet Nam), I'd like to respond to some of your points. I therefore wrote a more elaborated reply of which my main points are below. I am sure we share most of suggestions, and I would be happy to exchange more with you. Can you share your email address with me so that I can send you the text. Let's keep the exchange floating; the topic is so important. I am happy to share some information on the Viet Nam study I did by the way the company you refer to is an IB and if the government establishes some of the support policies we discussed that company will be included). I am happy to share also more information on Viet Nam. (and other countries). Thanks and best wishes. Dr. Armin BAUER (former head of ADB's inclusive business initiative) 1) IBs not defined by size but by systemic impact on the poor. 2) Smaller companies (and also social enterprises) can be IB. 3) Proposed IB support mechanisms - once set up are for smaller companies also. 4) In agribusiness not the employment size matters but the number of people for whom the company creates income opportunities above the market rate through their value chain. 5) IB accreditation is the best way for government and business association to ensure transparent selection of IB and targeting support mechanism to the private sector. 6) IB promotion must go beyond SME support policies. 7) Only a few incentives are relevant and access to funding is not the main problem. 8) Various countries (and their their governments and business associations) in ASEAN see the triple win opportunities of IB (for the poor, for society, for business) and now come up with IB support strategies. and programs. This needs to be further encouraged. 9) COVID 19 is a window of opportunity not to build back better but to transform some mainstream businesses and NGO-driven social enterprises into IB business models, initiatives and activities that serve in a more relevant way the BoP/B40 income groups. 10) But while more IBs are important for development, IB will not become (and does not need to) the new normal of private sector investments; it is one type of business, and others are also important.

Thank you for giving space to honor a woman leader whose shoulder we Papua New Guinea woman stand on today. Late Mama Nahau as we call her was our trail blazer who inspired and mentored many of us who are trying our best to advocate for gender equality in PNG. I wish to express my sincere condolences to her daughter Michelle who I have worked with in the UN in PNG for 4 years. I am thinking of her and her siblings, children, extended family members and the people of Manus at this difficult time.

Thank you very much for your comments, Tim. I agree that it is important to take systemic approach to address the "root causes" of underperformance in the sector. That's is exactly the approach that the GREAT program is taking. The purpose of the article is to critique the approach to supporting only medium and large businesses and excluding micro and small businesses, which also have great potential for creating jobs and providing better incomes for the poor. As such, we did not mention other partnerships that the GREAT program is doing with NGOs and government agencies to address the issues as you mentioned. FYI, there are 50 partnerships under the GREAT progamme.

Thanks Writers (Chris), Bennie, Debbie, Charles & Priscilla). Firstly, this website is second to none from the perspective of community development. It's very helpful and contains invaluable information for community development workers and associates. The information contained on the site are easily accessible, easy to read and understand, and also practically usable. The piece of writing reading the training at Aiyura is insightful and great! For organizations such as the CIC, who directly works with farmer groups, the Aiyura training was very useful for the extension staff: many thanks to Chris and team CARE for delivering this important training. Confirm with your report that the training really filled in a missing gap between the extension officers normal way of extension (innovation driven) and the farmers (who have specific needs which are often overlooked); hence the gap. In the goings forwards of the CIC, especially in extension and training, under its (CIC) new strategic and business plans (2020 - 2030), obviously the new tools of CDW will be used. Looking forward to getting for updates and possibly make contributions. Especially to Chris, thanks for committing your life for community development in PNG.

I agree that a focus on direct engagement with inclusive businesses may leave others behind - especially SMEs that comprise large segments of the economies we work in, and where many of the poorest are active as suppliers, laborers and customers. However I do not think that a simple switch to working with SMEs provides an efficient, viable, and scalable solution. The example of GREAT more or less proves this: an AUD 34m program that has supported 17 of Vietnam's approximately half a million SMEs does not present a strong case. Rather, the answer lies in a more systemic approach that addresses underlying causes of underperformance in sectors in which SMEs are prevalent - be they policy or weaknesses in supporting functions and services such as finance, R&D, and adopting industry standards etc.

Thank you for this insightful and informative blog post. I appreciate the opportunity to learn about Ms Nahau Rooney, her achievements and her legacy. I wish to express my sincere, warm wishes to her many family members, including our ANU colleague Michelle, at this difficult time. Thank you again to the two authors for this valuable and important piece. Amanda

In recent years, thanks to ODE, program evaluations have regularly been published online (i.e. those commissioned by program areas and posts). For me personally that has meant having a clutch of recent evaluations published online having had none published by the Australian government since 1999! I now wonder if this commitment to publish will evaporate. Indeed I wonder about the fate of program evaluations more generally given that it was ODE that seemed to be able to apply effective pressure on program areas and posts to commission a minimum number of evaluations each year. Will we ever see another annual evaluation plan?

Back in 2013 I attended a seminar in which the Secretary of the Dept of Finance praised ODE as being the best evaluation unit in any Commonwealth department. Abolishing ODE also seems inconsistent with the recommendations of the APS (Thodey) review on the need to strengthen the evaluation function in Commonwealth departments. These recommendations were supported by the Government in their response to the review when they stated “we will keep focussed on what works - building the capacity of the APS to evaluate how policies and programs are going and embedding evaluation into everyday practice in the APS”.

Thanks Stephen. A good summary, and a sad commentary.

Thank you Stephen for an accurate reflection on this sorry state of affairs