Comments

I am trying to understand the policy implications of categorizing kids as normal or inferior goods. What of children are inferior goods, how does it impact the policy making in developed countries?

Hi Elizabeth, Am very encouraged to read your acceptance speech. Highlights the power of community led action yet supported, facilitated and accompanied.

The article explains the period of political and social development well. The challenges Bougainville people will inevitably face as they head towards their increased autonomy vs independence referendum, will be monumental and require even greater levels of skill, knowledge and tenacity to overcome.

Thanks Terence for this nice piece of personal reflection on PNG As a PNGan I see your reflection as a useful critique from an outsider view of development trends over pre and post- PNG independence. I agree with your reflection on limited development impact with external support to PNG. In fact, PNG is a nation of diversity and will take generations for people to appreciate modernity. In the last 43 years of independence, we have witnessed what you have correctly stated. On the other end, it could be a failure by the donors that any form of support are not handle with care- meaning donors themselves anticipated that such and such will improve and modernise PNG soci-economic and political status without understanding the colonialism. That said, many outsiders like your 1977 British Aid Worker friend could view PNG in general as “just leave it and go” place in the world. We take the blame but external supporters should also be responsible. One very fact matter is; PNG got its independence too soon when modern civilisation had never reached our mindset, but when we were still in the Stone Age. Other colonial countries experienced developments before gaining independence. After the independence, citizens adopt easily into modernity and PNG did not go through that feat. PNG got independence when there is no educated population, no countrywide governance system, no infrastructure, no and no…the list goes on. However, PNG stood the test of times for the last 43 years as a vibrant democracy and development gradually taking shape. We the next generation of PNGans will develop this great Pacific country and this is the creed of our fathers in the woods and the dreams of our mothers in labour- we are now standing –the pride of our ancestors. To “stuff it up” is not a creation of our own but it is a test of time in PNG pre- and post-independence history.

Nancy Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, the blog did not allow us to report all of our analysis. In particular, we cite three UN funded surveys of the attitudes of the residents of Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu to climate change and migration, conducted by social scientists from New Zealand. See for example Oakes, Robert, Milan, Andrea and Campbell, Jillian (2016). Kiribati: Climate Change and Migration - Relationships Between Household Vulnerability, Human Mobility and Climate Change. United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security. These surveys found that that more than 70 per cent of households in Kiribati and Tuvalu, and 35 per cent in Nauru believe that migration would be a likely response for them if droughts, sea level rise or floods worsened. However, the same surveys show that only a quarter of households in Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu believe that they will have the financial means to migrate. We concluded from these results and other evidence such as the number of applicants for the 75 places each year for Kiribati and Tuvalu to migrate permanently to New Zealand that there is a large group who want to migrate to live and work overseas. The size of the group will depend on whether they have the resources to do so. We suggest that providing more opportunities and resources to support short, medium and long-term migration Australia or New Zealand will give more residents in these three countries the chance to choose whether to stay or go as a response to climate change.

PNG’s development would be much faster if Australia were to allow Papua New Guineans to live in Australia, just like NZ nationals.

We find that people are discouraged to report cases if agencies fail to take action, but this did not deter those presented with the local scenario. I agree with your concern about anti-corruption agencies reporting their actions/results to the public. That's, in part, why myself and Husnia Hushang have been documenting allocations and spending for PNG's anti-corruption agencies: https://devpolicy.org/anti-corruption-and-the-2019-png-budget-20181219/

Thanks JK. We do limit our study to Port Moresby but, as we outline in the report, we made great efforts to get the views of different socio-demographic groups. I agree with your concern about reporting in PNG, as we note "reporting also relies on the state providing accessible, safe and reliable reporting mechanisms".

Thanks for the questions Oliver. We did ask respondents if they agreed/disagreed reporting corruption was not worthwhile because little would be done about it. Briefly, those presented with the local scenario were significantly less likely to agree with this statement. There's more said about this in the report. In another paper - drawing on survey data from PNG - we examine what impact poor punishment has on reporting different types of corruption. In brief, lack of faith that someone will be punished for corruption reduces people's willingness to report some corruption. We also discuss what impact de-funding PNG's Taskforce Sweep might have on reporting. See: Walton and Peiffer, 2017 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361146.2017.1374346 Email me if you can't download the paper.

Danilo, I will send you the official report. I have just noticed that Bulletin 8 (November 2018) has been published. This more recent bulletin has remittances data on pages 10-11. It can be found at this address: http://www.laohamutuk.org/DVD/2018/LMONov2018en.pdf I will read and analyse the new data on remittances and make comment. Richard

The authors provide figures for projected OUT-migration from these three central island states as they link Them to outsiders’ concerns about Climate Change. But whose concerns are they citing? Are 'opportunities for skilled migrants’ the concern of these populations? Surely the figures/graphs indicate the answer. Home is best. Have the authors considered the historical background to the Tables of percentages of the populations’ out migrations. the early histories of these three nations indicate a strong adherence to their lands in the face of outsider interests. In the case of Nauru during the 20th century their population has been decimated several times by forced out- Migrations, particularly 1941-1945 when one third of their population died during forced exile to Truk/Chuuk by Japanese; later Australian suggestions to relocate Nauruans on islands off Australia were soundly rejected by Hammer de Roburt and his team ( See Pollock 2016 for a History of the effects of Mining Phosphate on Nauru - The Mining Curse, JSO). Nauruans, as well as IKiribati and Tuvaluans are strongly attached to their Lands — and, as in the case of many other Pacific Island studies, see no need to leave their Homelands. Out migration Is not an attractive proposition. In Nauru’s case their small land area, 21 sq km., was drastically reduced by 80 percent by Australian and New Zealand phosphate mining activities during 20th century; Nauruans have been reduced to living on the small perimeter of their island. Why leave their island home? And Australia’s Pacific Solution (2002-2017) has contributed significantly to increased population density adding increasing the 9000 strong population Nauru by some 4000 Asians held in Australian Detention Camps.Sharing their Island makes Nauruans treasure their island even more highly. No emigrant skills are needed. A study of the concerns about climate change by I Kiribati living in New Zealand will reveal reasons for that aspect of their ‘Diaspora’ (Petra Autio 2018).

Did the researchers ask about the perceptions of the consequences of corruption on the offender? If people see that the big shots can get away with corruption won't they be tempted to try it themselves or turn a blind eye? Also when corruption task forces are getting close to the source the initiative may be closed down. How does this impact the reality of reporting corruption?