Comments

Hi Francis, Thanks for the comments and points raised. I have advanced the argument on possible reasons a to why MPs move over to the government side. I briefly stated towards the end why the other parties are content to remain in the opposition. Response to your questions: 1. Why didn't National Alliance join PNC with it' larger numbers and have the portfolios? NA initially hoped to form the government, that is why it did not join PNC after elections. Patrick Pruaich also fell out of favour with PNC towards the end of last parliament, and after 2017 elections, was joined by the likes of Allan Bird, who are vocal against the government. Why didn't they NA MPs then break away like Pangu members did? NA members did break way from NA: Richard Masere, MP for Ijivitari Open was an NA member, now he's with PNC; Jimmy Ugoro, Usino-Bundi MP, left NA to be with PNC; John Simon, Maprik MP, left NA to be with PNC. Each of these MPs cited relative ease of accessing funds for their electorates as the reason for leaving NA and Opposition. Why were they not given ministry portfolios? They moved to PNC at different times (Masere moved before the two). They didn't have the numbers to negotiate as Pangu did. PNC had to remove one ministry from it's own party to give to Sam Basil, and revived the another dormant portfolio (minister assisting the PM) to give to Basil's deputy. Number does determine portfolios. 2. PNG Party: Again, they were at the Kokopo Camp with NA & Pangu hoping to form the government. That is why they did not join PNC initially. Also, these parties were all anti-PNC during the campaign (in fact they were anti-PNC way before the campaign started). Pangu' movement to the government after they failed to form the government proves my point that access to funds and portfolios determines coalition. When they failed to defeat PNC, they joined PNC to access them. The others will wait for a chance to change the government. They are content to remain on the opposition. Belden Namah's long-standing feud with O'Neil may be another reason why he remains in the Opposition. 3. Why didn't Kantri Party have a portfolio when it had 2 MPs compared to United Party which had one MP but has a portfolio? Loyalty: United Party leader Rmnbink Pato has stuck with O'Neil since 2012, supported him in vote of no confidence in 2016, and moved to PNC-led camp as soon as he won.He is someone O'Neil can trust to support him. That is something Kantri Pati not done.

Thanks for sharing Tess and Yasmine - keep up the good work for all the women of Vanuatu!

This is a good paper however, sever issues with analysis. In your conclusion, you argue that what explains the decisions of political parties in PNG is not policy or ideology but the interest of MPs in attaining cabinet portfolios and gaining access to financial resources (DSIP/PSIP) and that the ruling party (PNC) distributes cabinet portfolios roughly propositional to the number of MPs in each party. This is something I also agree with however, your data and analysis has loopholes that contradicts these arguments. 1. Why didn`t the National Alliance Party join the ruling coalition despite a similar policy take on Autonomy? Clearly it would have comprised of the third largest party after United Resource Party (NA: 11 and URP: 12) and its members would have been given cabinet portfolios or why didn`t it split like Pangu, where three quarters of its members along with their leader moved to the ruling party for greater access to portfolios and finance as per your arguments? 2. Why did PNG Party members remain content with the opposition despite having a similar take on free education policy and having three members? Clearly they would have gotten at least one cabinet portfolio if all three or at least 2 crossed over. This can be justified based on your data since SDP with three members has one member with a cabinet portfolio and United Party with only one member but still managed to get a ministerial portfolio. 3. If the PNC Party acts as a centripetal force distributing portfolios roughly in proposition to the number of MPs each party has and that policy or ideology has little relevance over ministerial portfolios than why didn`t Kantri Party receive a cabinet portfolio despite having two members compared to United Party with just one member? Cheers

Hi Paul, All Australians can be proud of Herb Feith's approach to volunteering. Those volunteering with Palms Australia are prepared to approach it in the same way as you describe. We find that not paying the volunteers more than the equivalent of their local counterparts also assists to make the relationships so much more mutual. I think it helps to create a greater interdependence. We see so many "volunteers" from elsewhere dining out on their well paid allowances. Not many are unwrapping the banana leaves, even where locals still do so, nor are many seen eating with the locals. Locals notice, which can impact the trust and respect that Herb and local counterparts built, as it tends to create a power imbalance. Has AVI or the Australian Volunteer Program ever considered bringing the Volunteer living allowance back into line with local income?

Congratulation, it's a good blog. I didn't read the entire blog but, I noted the issue of MPs deflecting from embracing party policies on basic services such as health and education and pursuing DSIP/PSIP and privileges that accompany portfolios in the government camp. Many of them claim that they moved in the best interest of their people but fail to deliver during their term. The data presented says it all. Keep publishing and exposing these realities. Some day, some body will use this factual data to get things right for PNG.

Hi KC This is a similar comment I have made a number of times in the past. People move from outer islands to the larger island/town of the country much as they do with internal movement from smaller to larger towns in most countries as they 'develop'. Then the next step for small countries is the movement to larger countries/towns in their region and beyond. An interesting opposite movement is older people moving back to their country of origin as they reach retirement age. Some set up business others just live off pensions. This is a reason for small island countries to keep links with their diaspora. There is also some movement of foreigners to small island countries - to "a warmer less complicate place" for their retirement. But these numbers are probably still relatively small. It would be interesting to have some further study on this. A couple of immediate policy issues I can identify: 1. keep close links with your diaspora; 2. encourage Australia, NZ, USA etc to provide full portability and maintenance of pension payments for these people moving. Currently NZ allows it for some countries. Australia is more strict. I am sure others can think of more. Peter Poulsen

Thanks for this piece State building does not necessarily translate or automate into provision of basic public services like education, health, transport or security. It does at the first instances expand and strengthen state functional institutions to have the governance and institutional capability to effectively deliver basic public services. When state building failed to translate functional institutions into effective governance and institutional capability, then state would failed to deliver its basic primary function of providing public services. This is tantamount to fragile state. How aid is directed into state building is a technical calculation. Is it state building at effecting functional state institutions in governance or institutional capability to deliver basic public services (improving poverty) or is it just state building as the expense of aid is a cause for concern and is evident in fragile state. Therefore, the politics of aid is another important calculation that recipient nations and aid donor needs to understand and reflect on the real purpose of aid. Otherwise donor nation only looking to enhance its political agendas while recipient nation embrace the aid without reflecting on the real purpose. In the end, we see fragile state in heavily aid depended nations without a single improvement in the poverty line. Understanding the politics of aid is important than relying on the value of aid itself.

It strikes me that Tonga faces challenges similar to those that many rural/country towns in Australia and elsewhere face - that the young prefer to live in bigger cities.

I believe we can get it down. - The one belt road and the recent interest in Africa by Europe should drive the world economy. - Growth in the world economy from reduced energy costs in solar as well as competition due to merged trans-continental energy distribution and electrical networks. - Expansion of global markets due to online and mobile ecommerce platforms, crypto-currency as well as the improved global logistics for the distribution of goods and services. - Most importantly world changing events such as the creation of new industries such as space exploration. - AI, cheaper more powerful chips, robotics and the blockchain

Apropos my argument above is this article in the Australian press: '$15b European trade deal doomed if Australia dodges Paris pledge' https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/is-this-a-red-line-for-us-15b-european-trade-deal-doomed-if-australia-dodges-paris-pledge-20180831-p50109.html

Thanks Garth - your comment about "saying next to nothing positive" about Australia's aid achievements did remind me. Neither Senator Ferrovanti-Wells nor Ms Bishop ever attempted to persuade that feared "community" that aid is a good thing. And that we get results amongst the poorest of the world's poor. Anyone remember the 2005 International Year of Microcredit, explicitly endorsed by Prime Minister Howard ? Aid can take years to demonstrate its effectiveness. And DFAT has external and internal evaluation capacity to demonstrate that. Their reports never seemed to receive the Ministerial attention they deserve.

Thanks Grant for your blog. Your research is a high value contribution to understanding this public policy challenge for PNG. Like anything, if we don't even understand the disease, how can we hope to find a cure? Your research has illuminated that we may have, in the early years of anticorruption policy in PNG and elsewhere in the developing world, significantly misdiagnosed corruption in PNG. Deeper understanding will allow PNG policymakers and citizens to improve the efficacy of the response. This is an ongoing challenge in all polities - this article about the Malaysian experience is relevant and interesting (https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/cash-handouts-for-malaysias-needy-must-be-stopped-has-elements-of-corruption-minister) Francis Fukuyama has written a recent article about his mixed views of the Huntington legacy. I suspect Fukuyama would agree with the approach that we should focus on ideas, not personalities, and would include himself and his own work record in that. https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/27/huntingtons-legacy/ He says, "Samuel Huntington was not right about everything. Rather, his greatness lay in his ability to conceptualize big ideas in a wide variety of fields."