Comments

Those sounds like great practical suggestions. This topic always makes me think of the big-picture question of what may be the "optimal" level of risk for an aid program. A few thoughts of mine are below. "Optimal" risk is probably different depending on whether you're considering the objectives of donors or beneficiaries. My impression is that donors, due to political constraints, prefer less risk than would be optimal for beneficiaries. If so, that's bad news; aid impact won't be maximised. For example, a portfolio approach makes perfect sense for optimising the impact on beneficiaries. But donors might still be nervous about the potential for public gaze upon the worst part of the portfolio, and thus limit the risk taken by any individual project. However, if the two perspectives of risk are not the same, there should be some high-impact risks to which donors aren't very sensitive. For example, some risks might offer potentially very high actual impact (which beneficiaries care about) without really damaging the ostensible impact (which donors care about). Is that naughty to suggest? Are there other ways to exploit the less-than-perfect correlation between the risks that donors versus beneficiaries are exposed to?

The description of Gobe land ownership issues as given here is somewhat misleading. It’s a fact that a proportionate division of benefits was agreed by Gobe landowners many years ago and benefit payments have been made on this basis. That some landowners have continued to pursue landownership issues through the courts is a separate issue. It’s a fact that in many jurisdictions around the world land-related disputes may sometimes be pursued by the protagonists for decades, even centuries. When courts are called on to make a decision there are winners and losers. Courtroom losers may well nurse a sense of grievance and look for legal avenues of challenge. All of this was no doubt well-known to and understood by those who drafted the custom law and custom land law legislation in PNG. Not only were the many and baffling common law rules on property discarded but also the ‘framing of the agon’ was designed in such a way that primary consideration is given to issues that are grounded in the present rather than encouraging a contestation of historical memories. It’s also a fact that many ‘PNG social groups exercise flexibility in their kin reckonings, group incorporation and inclusion, and partibility of land use. Hence the legislative preference for the living reality of contemporary ground truth as the basis for landowner determinations It’s a fact that a huge number of PNG groups have histories of migration and former land use that may date back for centuries. Different groups may have followed identical migration paths at widely separated points in time. Hence the legislative preference for contemporary ground truth. A primary role and duty of the PNG Land Court is to push back onto the protagonists the task of finding a solution to their dispute. In the context of the LNG Project this is made quite easy because the money benefit is both moveable and divisible. It’s worth noting that ADR was used to good effect in the Moran field dispute many years ago. Once the money division question is settled a contest between groups over their exact land boundaries, rights and usages may continue, perhaps for ever. One view is that the primary role of PNG courts when considering customary landownership matters is to not come to a decision. Conciliated and mediated settlements are greatly preferred over judicial decisions for many classes of disputes. When assessing PNG petroleum project landownership issues it has to be taken into consideration that the anthropologists’ SMLIS reports have not only failed to provide the needed information but may have also produced a negative effect. The petroleum projects’ SMLIS reports produced from 1998 and ending with the P’nyang Case courtroom fiasco of 2016 promoted the view that all Hela landowners have a landownership interest in all Hela-owned land and much land owned by non-Hela (the ‘genealogical footprint’ principle). It seems reasonable to conclude that this view served to stoke the fires of the political struggle waged by many individuals and groups to gain access to petroleum project landowner royalty benefits. A most inappropriate ‘framing of the agon’. Vailala

Thanks for keeping me abreast with the issues affecting Pacific Women. Pacific women, if we can not get in the parliament, we should be given the chance to be in the forefront to lead social and economic development projects. I think female managers do better remittances for aid donor projects than would a male. citing Timor Leste model.

Truly the O'Neil Government lacks basics of economic growth and revenue raising. This Government lacks wisdom. The good this Government has done is rob the people and pay parliamentarians to keep this government in power.

I am not sure that the Devpolicy Discussion Paper (Mansur et al) can make the claim that "beneficiaries were more likely to have recovered from the shocks they faced, relative to comparable households that did not receive the additional assistance." The regression analysis of the Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) seems missing from the paper, as the results are reported very quickly on page 28. The RDD is also not a good method for computing the average treatment effect.

I've heard about INOVASI, but that only now I've come across this thought-provoking article (forwarded by my previous doctoral thesis supervisor) about what INOVASI actually does. I hope that there are opportunities for me to be involved in this wonderful project in the near future. I'm pretty sure, there are lots of remote and disadvantaged contexts across the country that have been facing similar issues. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks for the comment. I didn't actually refer to Malaysia though. I specifically referenced Japan, which is a rich country and which has a notoriously strict anti-refugee policy. I also mentioned China. China is a developing country, and it's not a democracy, but it is a safe place, and, just as it is now providing aid, should also be taking asylum seekers. South Korea and New Zealand are two other countries that could and should do a lot more. Perhaps Taiwan as well. The analogy with climate change is a good one, and I agree with you that inaction by some shouldn't be an excuse for inaction by others. It is also the case that some developing countries that are doing more than any others - look at Jordan and Lebanon. Perhaps we can agree that China and a number of Asia-Pacific developed countries could and should do more.

Thank you, Busa for the interesting and thoughts-provoking contribution. It outlines several key-areas to focus on. The one on a series of user-friendly consultations should deserve a big praise! The issues surrounding betel nut saga are much larger and wider. Some additional issues are briefed below for further deliberation, discussion and consultation. - Any type of "ban" on betel nut industry are very harmful to the nation given the tens and thousands of people involved in this and associated industries. Women are particularly affected as the production and sale of lime, betel nuts and mustard are largely in their hands. The impacts on women and their livelihoods resulting from such a ban are obviously huge and over several years - A ban without providing an alternative solution (for chewers, service providers and sellers) is not only harmful but also is not going to be effective - What would be the fate of thousands of women (in particular) involved in lime production, sale, mustard production and sale and, betel nut production, sale if this informal sector was banned? Visit to coastal villages such as in Morobe (lime), Oro and Buka (betel nut) and Central (mustard) amplify the hard-work of women in this trade as their primary source of livelihoods - A considerable land area is already under betel nuts. What alternative land use we can think of resulting from measures to reduce sale in betel nuts? Are there other uses for land under betel nuts? - Government should encourage more research on this sector. Among issues for further research are other ways to utilize betel nut and lime, collect statistics on children consumption of betel nuts, contribution of the trade to livelihoods especially women, alternative use of land currently nut into betel nuts. Collaboration with global research entities is very useful - As mentioned above, all recommendations should target NOT only betel nuts but also lime and mustard -Any future program on this matter should be inclusive of schools, churches and other social networks. History tells us one successful way to discourage future consumers of betel chew is to educate school children. For instance, Maori children smoking in New Zealand was as high as 35% in the past has come down to 5% now. If we educate children, the future is in safe hands! - The value of betel nut and associated informal industries should be worth more than Kina 100,000.

This is an excellent article illustrating the direction that educational development needs to focus on, that is, collaboratively addressing local needs and problems in context, rather than imposing solutions developed elsewhere. The limited evidence we have on the important place of 'ownership' in the sustainability of benefits from donor-supported education programs suggests that the authors' hope that the outcomes will be sustainable will be realised.

A good application of social well being uplifted by the common provider.

Malaysia hosts many legal and illigal migrants. I think we can view that as Malaysia’s contribution to an alleviation of the refugee problem, even if the refugees do not enjoy the same status as Malaysian nationals. (At least Malaysia generally does not expel refugees like Australia.) Each country can contribute to helping refugees in proportion to their capacity to help. I would have thought that wealthier countries have greater capacity to contribute, and lightly populated countries have even more capacity to take in migrants. As in climate change, the wealthy countries want to spread the burden in proportion to population. The emerging countries (legitimately in my view) would call on the wealth countries to bear most of the burden. Pointing to China’s or Malaysia’s “inadequate contribution” ought not be an excuse for inaction among wealthy countries. It’s an argument that ultimately leads to inaction, as we have seen in relation to climate change.

Great quality article! Thank you 😉