Comments

Thanks Caryn and Grant for this piece of article on corruption. I agree with you that corruption is contextual and context specific to socio political, cultural and economic trends in a society and more specifically to personal needs and wants and position in society or a system I agree that what you noted in your Jakarta survey is not applicable to other society in PNG or elsewhere. The corruption and anti-corruption understanding you have on PNG is an interesting case. The cultural context in which corruption is brewed is an interesting one unlike other corruption or anti-corruption cases elsewhere in the region or the world. Your survey in Port Moresby on corruption and anti-corruption messaging seems to be social specific-meaning targeting one particular group. Just like you going into a classroom and asking students, what they see in the real world and how they prefer to face it. You could rather target persons of mix social standing in the society or in the system, (I understand it is not that easy to do). A survey that can include views and opinions of people in different social standing-that is people at the community and those in the position of authority in the system will give us a balance understanding on corruption and anti-corruption messaging in PNG. One question in PNG context that makes corruption and anti-corruption unique is. Reporting corruption to people in authority or system who have access to corruption and in a position of influencing anti-corruption is a nightmare. That is why a well-known statesman and current MP once coined the term “corruption is systemic and systematic in PNG”.

Thanks Philippa and Tricia. Your articles have been useful for us working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research as well. I referred it onto an Indigenous NGO today, to help them navigate the ethics of some work they are doing.

Hi Richard, great read and interesting findings. Would I be able to get a copy of the report above please also and wondering where the BNU and Western Union data came from and if they have been published? Many thanks, Danilo danilohenr@gmail.com

On the other hand, people will be discouraged to report cases if the agencies they are reporting to fails to take any actions. However, the agencies that are taking actions must also report the results back to the citizens to increase citizen participation and trust.

The arguments in this blog make excellent sense, but the subject can be approached from a different angle. Is it legitimate for the Government to be able to direct Efic to finance specific infrastructure or resource projects which it sees as being in the national interest? If so, is this an acceptable enlargement of that power, and preferable to having the aid program finance such projects? From this angle, if the “Efic reform” and the AIFFP both endure under the next Government, it will be important whether they remain distinct, in the sense that use of AIFFP begins with assessing what infrastructure projects, done in what way, will be in the interests of the people of Pacific countries.

An Environmental Social Feasibility Study needs to be conducted before, during, and after the money or ceases production. Proper social feasibility study needs to be done and Gender Programming Analysis allow all partners to address the needs of women, man, boys and girls.

Nice post Stephen. George Santayana's observation about failures to remember the past come to mind. It took a long time to knock off the Development Import Finance Facility, which was a terrific boondoggle for Australian contractors at significant costs to Australian taxpayers. The AIFFP has lots of similarities to the DIFF. Those who are interested in the economics - and costs - of the DIFF should have a look at the 1996 Agenda article by Ross McLeod and Sandy Cuthbertson- The DIFF: An Obituary - http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p83111/pdf/non_agenda01.pdf

Hi Richard and Matthew, I really appreciate your recent study on migration as a pressure release valve - I couldn't agree more, it is adaptation with human rights and development at the stroke of a pen. It'd be great if that would become policy, but I fear we are a long way form that right now. Another reason why this is a good idea is because if displacement ever arises social networks in and familiarity with the places people may have to move to reduces the economic and psychosocial impacts on people who are displaced.

Can I also point out a major error in Minister Coulton's second reading speech (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Ff45cf053-d00c-473b-88ab-ac7ccd4b00ec%2F0073%22). The Minister said: "When projects have strong commercial prospects they should be funded commercially. Efic has a track record of supporting infrastructure projects on its commercial account, like the US$19 billion PNG LNG Project, which is the largest ever private sector investment in PNG and will bring significant economic benefit to PNG and provincial governments via tax and royalties, local landholders and local businesses." But the PNG LNG project was supported on the national interest account not the commercial account. (These are two separate accounts.) That means Efic was told to fund it, rather than deciding to fund it for its own commercial reasons. It's an odd mistake. Look at the Efic latest annaul report and you'll see that the PNG LNG is Efic's "largest exposure" under the national interest account, comprising almost half of its national interest account in total (see the infographic on p.26). It's also not an infrastructure project, but a resource one.

Great post Stephen, really useful. I'm curious about safeguarding and infra projects run through Efic or AIFFP. The multilateral development banks and the Australian aid program have learned (or should have learned) hard lessons on negative community impacts from big infra projects when there isn't sufficient consultation/planning/risk mitigation. It seems these risks are even higher if there is the potential for elite capture of projects through political advocacy, as you mention above. Will these orgs have adequate environmental and community safeguard policies to ensure there aren't actually negative development outcomes from projects? That's one of my concerns.

Was there LO identification for the UBSA? If so who conducted it - Govt or PNG LNG?

Hi Maho, thanks for sharing your observations. Very interesting. I've been thinking out the various correlates between crime and settlements, mainly in the Solomon Islands' context. I think a number of factors are at play, including longevity of place: newer settlements seem more prone to violence ... at least in Solomon Islands. But this alone is not determinative. On the link between relative inequality and violence, one PNG-related study which you might find of interest is: Ivaschenko et al, 2017. ‘Can public works programs reduce youth crime? Evidence from Papua New Guinea’s Urban Youth Employment Project’. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs40176-017-0101-7.pdf This study had mixed results, finding that those involved in a Moresby-based donor-funded youth employment program (UYEP) were less likely to associate with others involved in criminal activities but that decreases in participants’ involvement in property damage and alcohol-related crime were statistically insignificant. Declines in the incidences of assault and theft/stealing amongst UYEP participants were comparable to those of the control group. I guess also problematising a neat association between unemployment and crime in PNG is past research which has suggested that people may leave formal employment to partake in criminal activity or undertake both simultaneously. The burning cars trend seems more acute in PNG than Solomons, although it's not unheard of in Honiara. I don't however get the sense that in Solomons it's wholly linked to relative inequality ... opportunism seems to be an important explanation.