Comments

Thanks Tobias - great comment. I agree with you when you say almost every country started with clientelist politics. The fact that some now have programmatic politics is in encouraging in that it suggests the trap can be escaped. My belief (I'm not certain) in the necessity of bottom-up change involving sustained collective action stems from: (a) the obvious collective action problem that currently confronts voters and (b) the role bottom up change has played in some other countries' transitions (or partial transitions) from clientelist politics (Brazil is the case I know best, but the progressive era in US politics is another example, and -- I'd argue -- so is the transformation associated with the rise of labour movements in countries like the UK.) However, I agree there are alternative pathways out of clientelist politics. Simply getting wealthier appears to decrease propensity to vote in search of private goods or club goods. This then raises the question, could Sols and PNG find developmental clientelist politics involving more stable elite pacts and the like. It's possible, but it would need a completely different sort of clientelism from that we currently see. Not to mention a dramatic change in the political landscape more broadly. And it's very hard to imagine what would bring such change about. Perhaps a lot of migration, and raised incomes from that? As for the Slater argument, the contextual differences just seem too different for that to be relevant to Western Melanesia, I think. At some point a "Pathways out of clientelist politics" forum would be a great event in which to discuss this more.

Speaking of Tony Hiriasia, his SSGM discussion paper on kin-based voting is a very valuable read on voter choices in Solomon Islands: http://ssgm.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2016-08/dp_2016_4_hiriasia.pdf Also worth reading is Tobias Haque's paper on voter choices in Solomons: http://dpa.bellschool.anu.edu.au/experts-publications/publications/1414/influence-culture-economic-development-solomon-islands

Many thanks for this important piece. Some very insightful comments here about the durability of relations between Australia and the Pacific islands. With regard to climate change I think it's important to emphasise that Australia's failure to legislate Paris Agreement targets and continued promotion of coal is not just at odds with Pacific island countries. There is daylight between Australia's 'political reality' and global political opinion. At last years global climate negotiations for example - hosted by Fiji and Germany - countries like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and New Zealand launched a 'Powering Past Coal' alliance. This is a global diplomatic initiative intended to see a phase out of coal-fired power. Increasingly, that is the way the world is headed. And the reason why is straight forward. If all of the planned and currently operating coal fired power plants worldwide live out their 'lifespan' - emitting for decades to come - we will go beyond dangerous levels of global warming. So few policymakers seriously doubt that we actually need to see a managed phase out of coal fired power. Unfortunately however, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and the coal lobby is extraordinarily powerful in Australian politics. The new Prime Minister has appointed a coalmining lobbyist as his chief of staff, and we can expect to see the Australian government shirking international responsibilities and promoting coal-fired power for some time yet. The longer this goes on, the more damaging it will be for Australia's international reputation, and the harder it will be to pursue Australia's interests in other areas, like trade and security relationships.

Julie Bishop is receiving a lot of praise in the media for her overall role as Foreign Minister. However, as Stephen's blog points out, hardly any of these (often glowing) assessments have taken into account - perhaps have not even noticed - the fact that Australian aid has fallen under her watch to the lowest level in Australia's history using the most common standard ODA / GNI measure. This is strange given that one of the main reasons for abolishing AusAID and making aid part of DFAT was to better align Australia's aid and diplomatic interests. Aid cannot - and should not - ever "buy" diplomatic friendship. But cutting aid so consistently and heavily over the years, including summarily cutting aid to most countries in Asia by 40% and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa by 70% in the May 2015 budget (as reported <a href="https://devpolicy.org/the-same-the-bad-and-the-ugly-country-allocations-in-the-2015-16-budget/">here</a>) cannot help but undermine trust in Australia as a reliable partner in development. This is important because, given our geography, Australia has more to gain by being an active, trusted, partner in development than virtually any other OECD country in the world. It is possible that the aid program may increase, even in real terms, in future years. But it is likely to take longer to regain the critical mass of in-house professional and practical expertise about managing complex development programs that once was a characteristic of Australia's aid program, much of which was lost following the abolition of AusAID. And it may take even longer for countries in the region to regain lost trust in Australia as a reliable development partner given the severity and suddenness of aid cuts to country programs over recent years. Trust and reliability is surely a key part of a country's overall foreign relations. So, yes, as Stephen's blog points out and Ashlee and Bal's comments confirm, it is a mixed legacy when it comes to assessing Ms Bishop's stewardship of the aid program as Foreign Minister.

Thanks James for always sharing greater lights on the issues surrounding us. Very interested to read more from you.

While delivering a Keynote Speech at the Inauguration of Course 21 at the National Defence College, Abuja, Nigeria, Maj. Gen. Idris Inuwa argued that corruption be made an official policy of government, defining its limits and boundaries. He was very serious and unapologetic about it. Then i had sympathy for his views. But now, I hold a slightly different view because corruption is very broad and often misunderstood to be only bribe giving and bribe taking in monetary terms. If taken on its broad context, I think we'll be more circumspect to make a case to "bring back our corruption." For example, it would be unthinkable for a group to argue for the reinstatement of corruption if the group understand that when a Lecturer gives unmerited scores to a student after sleeping with her, or appoints someone into an office because of filial ties even though there are more qualified persons who applied for same job, or when Law enforcement officers (the police or Judges) compromise their duties to unduly favour a party to a dispute at the expense of the other regardless of the facts before them. In this regard, I recommend that the type of corruption that is beneficial to a country be clearly defined. I think it would be a good read. I will download and digest the full work.

Stephen, a fitting tribute to a respectable FM who graced her position with ease and intentionally promoted the Pacific. That is not to overlook some of her representations that were called into question at various points in her career but one understands she was part of a government with clear standing on certain issues. Overall, she had a positive impact on the Australia-Pacific relations. As Ashlee rightly pointed out, she was also an important inspiration to women folks in the Pacific region that are struggling for political leadership.

Thanks Stephen. While I do agree with all you have written above, on thinking a bit more I think she also deserves a bit of credit on some of the softer stuff, for example, like people-to-people links in the Pacific. Through the New Colombo Plan, but also through things like her own demeanour while in the region and her frequent trips, I think she has made more of a contribution to this than previous FMs. While people-to-people links may not lead to direct development outcomes, they will hopefully bode for a greater interest in the development of the region and more partnerships between Australia and the Pacific. Obviously there's still a lot more stepping up to do on the Pacific step-up, but JB has had more of a focus on this engagement it seems than past FMs. There's also just the powerful optics of a woman in a high-level position of power engaging in the region. While of course there could have been a lot more tough-talking with countries like PNG during her tenure, for example, it does send a message on women in leadership when there are very few in the region. Along with a focus on gender in the aid program, the commitment to the bipartisan trips to the region where you saw JB, CFW, Penny Wong and Claire Moore, for example, really did send this message that women leaders from Australia are highly capable and interested in the region (reality of Australians' own perceptions on women leaders perhaps sadly different, but don't get me started on that!). I also understand that she has encouraged some Liberal women, like Sen Linda Reynolds as one example, to become more interested in PNG and to observe elections etc. Again this kind of thing could help in the future. All this is more optics than policy perhaps, and policy speaks louder, but optics do play a part in how people think about the region, and think about Australia. I think it was always positive that she found time for the Pacific when there were so many other 'big' things happening i.e. at the UN, with US and China etc. When you think of the obsessions of past FMs, at least in recent years, I can't really think of any that had the same amount of time for the Pacific.

As a lecturer once said, some forms of corruption practices are good to keep the wheels of a country’s economy moving. It’s certainly not all about the involvement of politicians, elites nor the bearuacrats, but the participation of ordinary citizens. Thanks to Timipere and Tubodenyefa for shedding more lights on the corruption conundrum of Nigeria.

Thank you Dr. Grant. Like you noted, scholars and practitioners tend to dismiss any thoughts about corruption having a functional value. Ignoring how livelihoods of poor citizens may be depending on proceeds from elite corruption could send well-intended anti-anticorruption initiatives tumbling down the hill. For long we have assumed that elites are the only beneficiaries of political corruption. As it appears, the poor also benefit and could pose a danger to anti-corruption efforts that become a threat to their survival.

Apparently, the PNG government can get away with this poor growth performance. When is the urban population facing unaffordable housing and monopoly prices going to react? When is the largely rural and mostly uneducated population going to connect the dots?

Fair point, and I agree there are no winners. PNGUoT and UPNG are big ships, and they take time to turn. Trust me that I pushed hard from the management for transparency in financial administation and restructuring of personnel. For the former, I was somewhat successful, achieving an unqualified audit in 2017 for the 2015. For the latter, not so much. Each turn of the road, we found senior staff not collaborating, and since 2017 Council not supporting management.