Comments

Hi Hubert, Thanks for your comment. Both you and Patrick quibble with the claim that aid is a 'dirty' word. And while I agree I may have taken some literary license in my usage of 'dirty', I do see donors deliberately positioning themselves as engaged in a project that goes well 'beyond' aid and rejecting the terminology of aid. Their strategy documents talk about them as 'development actors' and pitches the importance of moving aid away from a charitable model to something that embraces innovation, flexibility and policy coherence. Nonetheless, there are others for whom the business model of aid is perceived as a failed social experiment that needs to end, now (consider Moyo, Easterly and other notable right-of-centre aid sceptics including the editorial board of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper though there is also a notable group on the left-leaning scholars arguing the same thing). If you want to read more check out my article <a href="https://nilimagulrajani.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gulrajani-the-great-aid-debate-online-version2.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Hi Patrick, Thanks for this comment. Agreed, our paper defines 'new donors' in quite a restrictive sense (post-2009 accession to the DAC) and many of these donors have a long history providing aid (see our Table 1 where we acknolwedge this). But we also believe they might be viewed as 'new' to the extent that there is a more forceful and coherent articulation of their identity as aid providers on global and regional platforms. In other words, this donor identity is now projected internationally and with strategic intent that makes these donors 'new' as compared to Northern donors (the latter having exploited this identity for diplomatic advantage for much longer). Our sample didn't look at China per se, mainly due to the data issues you allude to but also because the paper was meant to offer a high-level view of the new donor landscape rather than a detailed exploration of any actor. From what I know, I have no doubt the achievemnets are many and the standards different. But while this may be the case, our argument is there has to be some intrinsic essence to 'being a donor' (or aid provider if you prefer that language) that transcends the various distinctions between Northern and Southern provider, old vs. new, etc. While I know the politics are tricky, this is where we have to get to. Just like the declaration of human rights, I think there are critical core functions that should be the ambition of all bilateral donors if their real aim is to serve the world's poor. This paper attempted to define such a standard from our (admittedly Western-centric) perspective and while not perfect (we are limited in terms of data) it provides an opportunity to kickstart a conversation. Acting like a donor is not meant to be about conforming to either DAC standards or any other donor's standards for that matter but about recognising an essential shared purpose across the entire universe of aid providers and holding donors accountable for achieving it.

I live in the Solomon Islands and can vouch that the GAS are everywhere! However, there is a simple and cheap way of getting rid of them and that is purchasing a few ducks as they love them. Within 2 months of getting 3 ducks I have zero snails in my garden as they have devoured them.

Talofa lava Mitiana, I thank you for this interview. I am Agafili Shem Leo - CEO of the Ministry of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (MPMC). For your information the Seasonal Employment Unit (SEU) handles all seasonal employment matters namely the NZ RSE and Australia's SWP for Samoa. The SEU was housed under the MPMC since its inception in 2007 until this year when it was moved to the Ministry of Commerce Industry and Labour as part of government's labour mobility reform. In essence the MPMC was handling the RSE for 10 years and was at the forefront in developing policy guidelines, plans, operating manuals etc... for the SEU in collaboration with the NZ MBIE and the Australia's DOE. You asked a question on the process one has to go through to become a worker? For clarity purposes the government of Samoa has an established recruitment and selection process for RSE workers. The criteria encompasses; 1. Form that the applicant is required to fill. 2. Confirmation from the village Mayor and village Clergy that the applicant lives in the village and that he/she actively participates in village developmental activities and church 3. A police clearance (nb: no one with a previous criminal record is eligible for consideration for both the RSE and the SWP). This has been the government of Samoa's policy from the genesis of its participation in the RSE and SWP. 4. A medical report including the chest x-ray. 5. Recently this year,the fitness test has been added to our recruitment and selection process. 6. Upon submission of the above documents and passing the fitness test, the SEU runs thorough interviews before the successful workers are selected. Its important to note that the SEU liaises with the employers in undertaking the R & S process. Apropos the workers visas, the government of Samoa does not pay for any visa costs. The workers are responsible for their visa costs. In many cases, the employers make direct arrangements with workers to pay for their visas in advance and the workers are required to reimburse such costs to their employers when they start their contracts. My comment is really to set the record straight on Samoa's R & S process as it is not correctly captured in your respondent's answer. We would appreciate if the SEU could be consulted in future at least for clarity purposes when ever a matter relating to Samoa's participation in the NZ RSE and Australia's SWP is discussed. Faafetai lava Agafili Shem Leo CEO Ministry of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Samoa

Regarding your story concerning Giant African Snails in Solomon Islands. I was recently back in Honiara and saw the damage done by these nasty beasts. However, there seems to be an answer…namely, ducks. I stayed with a friend who had brought some ducks into his garden and they had destroyed every GAS. He told me that ducks pecked into the shells of the GAS and ate the snail flesh. He had not one snail in his garden, neither did his neighbours, who also had ducks roaming in their garden. Is this an environmentally friendly way to defeat these pests? Or was it just coincidence that ducks in the garden meant no GAS in the garden?

Well done. Very good.

I think that it is best the government as well as a corporate house and all of the citizens must work together to implement this design. As our vision 2050 aims to have a healthy population then. However I am interested about the design

Appreciate Dr. F Hukula such information really not going into rural and isolated islands is there anyway that this could be done. From Alotau

Thanks, Ayella - I've just sent you an email with some more information. You can also refer to our submission guidelines here: https://devpolicy.org/join-us/ Camilla

Interesting article and I will make sure to read your book. I should comment though that ExxonMobil did not build a hospital at Komo, rather a hospital building was constructed by a politician using LNG-generated development funds to pay his own construction company at highly inflated prices to construct an empty hospital. To my mind that highlights the responsibilities of corporations that choose to operate in corrupt political environments. At present corporations can too easily distance themselves from the corruption that results from their activities.

I so enjoyed reading this Fiona - thank you for such a thoughtful and informative perspective. PNG needs more of these narratives - narratives which tell a deeper story of change and progress, on the same journey they every other country is still trodding - how do we engage with gender equality in ways that work in our various cultures.

Well done Dr Hukula, hope to catch up with you next week.