Comments

Thanks for reading, Lily. Yes, I agree on that gender equality is integral to women empowerment. I also believe that gender equality is the end goal. However, to answer your question, I think that chickens contribute to gender equity, the 'middle step' towards gender equality and full empowerment. Here I refer to equity as 'fairness of treatment for women and men according to their needs'. Women, in the settings presented in the article, cannot access all types of livestock, land, and machinery which is a clear symptom of the lack of gender equality. Women, however, can own chickens gaining the right to use them, the benefits of having them, the obligations of taking care of them, and the opportunities of engaging in businesses, all these rights that other livestock owners (most of them men) have. As you well said, empowerment involves a process of economic, political and social participation that brings the capacity of making decisions. I think this article, framed by the WELI index, shows clear evidence that chickens contribute to such empowerment. To finalize, I think that If we try to directly adapt the full concept of empowerment and equality in these contexts without acknowledging the local context and processes, we may end up– as someone well pointed out in the New York Times – "abandoning the good by insistence on the great". Empowerment and equality will be a long process that, fortunately, already started. All the best, JP

Looking forward to reading Miranda Forsyth and Sue Farran's book - in particular, keen to read their insights about" thinking beyond the frame that the State is the quintessential solution each and every time" and " blending better – or ‘weaving’ ... state and non-state methods of regulation." This is an approach taken to varying degrees for land legislation around the Pacific, and interesting to learn about other contexts and particularly what approaches will be more lasting for countries.

Almost all parties have some form of policy towards, though it's not stated in terms which would be easy to analyse. For instance, phrases like "improve rural health, promote healthy living, provide critical drugs, improve human resource and capacity building etc." It's the same with most of the policies of these parties. Generic.

The definition, measurable indicators and evidence-based data are important to reckon differing perspectives. Women empowerment (see UN/WB definitions) is defined a process for economic/ political/social participation (genuine not token) together with capacity to make choices ...side by side with gender equality. Accordingly, how does raising chicken fit into the definition? As gender equality is integral to women empowerment, how are they linked? How does chicken raising make for sustainable development, uplift poor women and their families out of the quagmire of cyclical poverty?

Very interesting blog. How about health policy(ies)? It looks obvious our leaders are concerned too much on power grabbing than addressing or having less consideration into public health.

Great article. There are various online platform to <a href="https://indonesian-online.com/learn-indonesian-language/" rel="nofollow">Learn Indonesian Language</a> which saves your time and money also. Keep sharing.

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