Comments

Following publication of the blog, we were actually sent the 2015 NSO sectoral GDP numbers. According to the NSO, resource sector growth in 2015 in constant prices was 39.0% (K15,235 million in 2015 v K10,958 million in 2014), and non-resource growth was -3.1% (K42,764 million in 2015 v K44,122 million in 2014). This is a smaller contraction in the non-resource sector than we had guessed, but still a significant one. According to the NSO, there were major falls in 2015 in manufacturing (-9%), construction (-14.4%) and finance (-14.0). There was positive growth in administrative and support services (+9.7%) and public administration and defence (+5.7%). We hope that the 2016 figures will be released soon. Stephen Howes and Nelson Atip Nema

While Australia has embarked on this political leadership fiasco like most Pacific Island countries esp. Melanesia, yet it is hard to see that the Pacific itself did not get its act together on a number of issues not to say all. With the Fiji co-Presidency of COP23, the Pacific seem not to fully take advantage of that and push for climate change initiatives forward. Fiji has taken all the credit on their co-Presidency (and they have the right to do so) even when announcing at the very beginning of their mandate that they are representing the whole Pacific community. Somehow we seem to have missed it all on this opportunity and I am not sure when we will have another one like this. We have seen how the sub region Melanesia is so divided over the West Papua issue which has other implications on a unified region. All these have great impact on so-called Pacific regionalism, which has been preached for some time now. All in all, while its good to look up to big brother (Australia) it is also important in the Pacific context that we first get our act together on a number of key issues before we look elsewhere. We (Pacific) seem to forget that by working together we are stronger.

One initiative to carry forward is on regional cooperation in Anti Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism. See article by Nathan Lynch https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6440440056590274560/

Thank you JK Domyal, The question of whether the cultures of Sols and PNG cause their clientelism is an interesting one. If you're interested in reading two different perspectives, the papers from Tony and Tobias that I linked to under James Batley's comment make for very interesting reading. Thanks again Terence

Thanks Titus, I agree, if people had better services their electoral choices could be very different. The challenge is how to build better services in the midst of clientelist politics. Thanks again for your comment.

Thanks Albert, I have a paper on how clientelism harms electoral quality (written in 2014) which can be accessed here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2497206

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.