Comments

Amazing article! you explain very well and this infographic is amazing. Blockchain is the new name for the world of technology. Blockchain is used in many sectors like banking, finance, automobile, healthcare or retail or now even IoT and many more.

Sir, you have made a valid point. I do believe in what you have discussed. I'm one of your Ex-Student at St. Xavier's High School back in 1982-85.

Terence - thanks for an interesting piece. The heavy emphasis on governance spending by Australia between 2003 and 2014 presumably reflects the costs of the RAMSI commitment (particularly but not only on the policing side). With the wind down and then conclusion of RAMSI in 2017 we should not be surprised to see a fall off in spending under the broad heading of governance since then, and a return to a more balanced portfolio.

One comment as a postscript to this. I was intending to write solely about aid, but at a colleague's suggestion I included a line on labour mobility, which is important. However, thinking about it now, if I was going to include policy options other than those directly associated with aid I should have also included climate change, obviously. This is crucial for the Pacific -- not just sea level rise but also broader changes in weather patterns. Any donor country government that is failing to take serious action on climate change is failing the people of the Pacific. Climate change will be change, but of the worst possible sort.

Wow! what a nice story. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks Stephen. The point on decentralisation is a key one - confusion around the direction in this area is the key determinant of a failure to convert core reforms (in PFM or in service sectors) and enhanced budgets into sustainable service improvements. It is also - besides resources - one of the main issues shaping the current transition. Perhaps the current energy and broad coalition can drive resolution of the key debates around districts and provinces - whatever the system chosen, successful decentralisation requires clarity above all else.

A useful effort …….. thanks Michael (fatason). Present analysis shows a trend, perhaps you may look at past governments for comparative purpose to develop insights into their role in regional and party politics.

Hi Francis, you’re right. Due to word limit requirement (1000 words or less) I couldn’t go into the motives & reasons behind MPs’ movements. I hope to do it later as a follow up.

Good day Micheal, an interesting piece, indeed. The analysis appears to be a descriptive one. What is missing is the political motive that led to a political outcome. Politics is all about strategically maneuvering the game to achieve power. I hope this could be more clear in this analysis.

Hi Francis, the Southern (Papua) region having lower portfolio allocation under O’Neil era is consistent with the conclusion that regions with lower number of MPs are given proportionally less portfolios. Momase’s case may be explained by what you suggest. Perhaps most of Momase MPs were in the opposition. I didn’t think about that the time of writing. Party numbers and regional considerations plays a big part in portfolio allocations. We know this because O’Neil said on at least two occasions (both after government formations in 2012 and 2017) that they allocated portfolios “fairly”, meaning, they considered regions. Some take that to mean portfolios are/should be equally divided among the 4 regions. Data shows it’s the number of MPs from each region that determines “fair” distributions. Number of party members plays the main role in how many portfolios each party gets. It is possible that, after portfolio distribution is agreed based on party numbers, the actual allocation then is based on the region they represent. For instance PNC had 46 MPs, 20 portfolios were allocated to PNC. The highlands region then gets most of the portfolios allocated to PNC because the region has most number of MPs in these parliament? Worth investigating.

Hello Micheal, This is an interesting piece. I enjoyed reading it since it puts the events and decisions of what had happened over the past few months and PNG politics into better perspective. I have only one question- Since you make the claim that regions with more MPs receive more than those that have less, why were there less ministries given to the MOMASE region and more to the Papuan region during the O’Neil era? Where most of them with the Opposition?

Hi Rohan, are we even sure that the increased dividends from statutory authorities are being paid out of earnings, or is it possible they are being paid out of new borrowing? Cheers Tony