Comments

Hello Camilla I am also conducting similar research in Uganda. Can we discuss how we can share the findings on Devpolicy blog. Ayella Fred Brown

I think it's very important for people to know that the pacific needs help from all of us.

Thanks Paul, great to receive your feedback. When we conducted the research, on more than one occasion, we observed situations where although formal mechanisms for delivering and monitoring education were absent or failing, informal responses (such as those from parents, the surrounding community and teachers) were thriving. We elaborate more on this in the Discussion Paper, but it does suggest that in some areas, community level linkages and localized civic engagement can help to enhance capacity at subnational level.

I don't think that ODA is dirty word it is just that some donors such as the current US government (and even Australia to some extent) doesn't see it its important role as soft diplomacy which China certainly does. The other problem is the DAC monopoly of the definition of ODA and other foreign debates, which Southern donors roundly reject.

Nice piece Nilima, and nice comment Patrick. I'd tend to agree that there should progressively be no more distinction between old and new actors in terms of donor obligations, the first of which being to report on financial volumes on a standardized way. This is what the DAC has been primarily about from the beginning. Just one point : I'm not very comfortable with the beginning of the article, stating that "many observers worry about the relevance and impact of Official Development Assistance (ODA). This form of aid is increasingly a dirty word, synonymous with lack of innovation, dependency and corruption." Personnally, I put myself in that category of "observers", but I do not share this judgment. Do you ? And what about you Patrick ?

Hooray for Samoa! Psalm 2 says that "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision." He laughs at the nations who seek to defy Him! "Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure: “Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion.”" Praise God that Samoa will "kiss the Son, lest He be angry and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him." And to the author: to "disciple the nations" is indeed to transform a nation in every aspect to a state of conformity to Christ. This means everything from the moral conduct of its citizens to the structure of its law and government. Note that Jesus said: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations… to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20) God does not just want token moralism, but obedience to all of His revealed will in the Scriptures. God will bless the nation that seeks to do His will.

Hi Garth Good questions (as always). As you know (and are getting at in your comment), there is longstanding debate regarding the extent to which Australia’s aid program should be more focused on sub-Saharan Africa. For my part, I see good reasons for focusing on our region: improved aid effectiveness (lower costs, better knowledge of the region, etc), strategic reasons (which like it or not, make it less likely Australia will abandon its aid program due to other priorities), and more opportunity for Australia to enhance its aid with other policy levers (e.g. migration). That’s not to say Australia has no role to play in Africa, but it will never be a primary focus. Our analysis was regional: how did PICs benefit from the international scale up? We didn’t compare PICs to sub-Saharan Africa in a bid to say that the former had been unfairly treated. In fact, we specifically say in our paper that the international focus on Africa is understandable given poverty alleviation objectives behind the scale up. As for your questions: the measures of the Pacific as a whole (which are unweighted country averages) are distorted by countries that receive very high per capita allocations (e.g., Niue and Marshall islands). It's better to focus on the country figures. In a regional context: yes, I think we should be concerned that despite a scale up for the region, we are seeing decreases in per capita aid to PNG and Timor Leste – the two countries that clearly demonstrate most need. I am concerned about that in the same way I am concerned that aid to sub-Saharan Africa has never reached the levels promised by the international community (as Sachs has long pointed out). I'm not so worried about Fiji, given its better development indicators.

Very touching stories and effort committed.... can i have an email address in relate to FSCs policies in Papua New Guinea.... which i can refer to

Matt and Jonathan, Should we be concerned that aid has not increased as quickly as aid to Africa given that average per capita aid to Africans is only one fifth of that to our island neighbours? And should we be concerned about decreases in aid to PNG, Timor Leste and Fiji given that average per capita aid to these three countries is still twice as large as the average per capita aid to Africa? http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/TAB25e.xls

The problem about trying to provide aid in areas where tribal warfare is allowed to happen is nothing new. The real problem is that those who allow tribal warfare to happen are just too unconcerned to prevent this misery because they are either profiting from it or just too disinterested while they persue personal wealth and prestige. The people who are suffering don't have any alternative since the outside world is just too disinterested and won't publically denounce those political leaders who either aren't capable of containing the fighting (they simply don't know how), or just couldn't care less now that they have attained the new pinnacle of PNG wealth creation, a position of MP. The most amazing of all these aspects is the total lack of recognition of this state of affairs by Australian political leaders. It's as if PNG, the next door neighbour, doesn't actually exist. It's not surprising however since the Australian media seem to be myopically blind to what is happening in PNG and therefore the Australian political leaders don't therefore have to care. What would be a far better alternative effort of behalf of the PNG people is that all the aid donors and volunteers should be actually attacking the root cause of this problem. Instead of describing the situation to those few who are already interested, start publically rubbing the collective noses of Australian and PNG governments in this mess. To use the old proverb, 'When attacking a snake, you don't attack the tail of you'll simply get bitten. You must attack the head.' Well intentioned aid donors will keep some basic services going while those who really should be doing the hard yards after the recent general election will be left alone to have a great time as the new age 'big men' for the next five years.

Great fact-based analysis. Many challenges ahead. If the new government is serious about real decentralization, then focusing on school parent/community linkages rather than the district (DIEC) will be important f0r quality education outcomes.

Nilima, this is very interesting and thank your for entering the debate: but of course most of the so called new donors are not new donors at all. Emma Mawdsley notes that in 1977 OPEC provided 30% of all bilateral aid. China has been in the game since 1956, and even earlier if you counted its support to its communist neighbours. The other point is about burden sharing. China is probably the most generous donor which adjusted to per capita GDP, a figure that get lost in the debates. The amount of aid China provides is a research field in itself. China likes to downplay it to avoid a domestic backlash, but when the more or less commercial FDI is washed out, and technical assistance, students, and loan forgiveness factored in and valued it sits around $12-14b per annum. The commitment to development is interesting. South-South donors are very much invested in notions of mutuality as against 'charity', and reject many of the DAC principles on the grounds they are paternalistic among other things. It is hard to argue against China's eight principles of foreign aid from 1964 (which it still more or less follows or claims to), which may have more resonance than the DAC principles of 2004. Southern donors are driven by quite different world views. So on your last point 'the ultimate purpose of becoming a donor is to act like one'. Then does that mean the DAC donors should move to China's eight principles. China (and the South) has roundly rejected the DAC view of the world and how donors should 'act'.