Comments

Thanks Ian. Fascinating blog. Get moving people! Are those numbers for Tongan and Nauruan school children low compared to other countries, including Australia?

Terry, while I agree with you that the SDGs are a first step, I don't think that they offer too vague a prescription. Of course there is plenty of room for interpretation and much is to be worked out through implementation, but I would be very happy to live in the world of 2030 if it has substantially achieved the 17 goals and 169 specific internationally agreed targets.

This is an article that needed to be written. Thank you, Grant. I will share this on social media.

Dear Grant, what a refreshing (and long overdue) piece. It is quite clear that the whole anti-corruption "industry" is fixated on a Developed World understanding of corruption as only consisting of bribery, as Brown and Cloke state - "The common “Western” conception of corruption, including that used by the Bank, depends on the existence of a public domain which is recognisably separate from a private sphere, with different codes of acceptable conduct in each. While in the private sector, firms and individuals are expected to seek personal profit and enrichment, organisations and individuals in the public sector are expected selflessly to fulfil a duty to a greater public good. A corrupt action is one which contravenes this model. Akhil Gupta argues from an anthropological perspective that this distinction between public and private is far from universal and is predicated on a particular European cultural and historical experience." As William Lazonick <a href="https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity" rel="nofollow">wrote in the HBR</a> most of the top 500 companies in the USA used dividends and share buy-backs to prop up shares mainly because CEO remuneration is based on share prices. This, in my view, is corrupt behavior which is not reflected in the literature and conference papers. Most Australian corporations have rules about gifts and entertainment, which would appear are not enforced, for if they were corporate boxes at the football, cricket, horse racing and other similar events would be quite empty. Instead of focusing on people in developing countries accepting bribes, I would suggest that organisations should look inwardly and attend to those behaviors that corrupt within. Well done casting a critical eye on this subject

poverty is becoming serious to pacific islands

poverty is becoming a serious concern in the society

Jake - we read the same article! We responded differently to you - simple as that - Port Moresby is far from a nightmare as we all noted - and that was exactly the point Carmen was making. Not sure whether you live there or whether it's your home - but it was mine for 7 years and I have ongoing short term visits. Yes there are constraints and yes we can leave. But some of us really love Port Moresby despite the constraints. And for the record - Victoria alone has had over 170 car jackings in the past 12 months and many armed robberies. Violent crime happens in my home city every day. And I'm afraid I disagree strongly with you - to pretend that my country (or the US - with massive and repeated death tolls from domestic gun violence) is without risks to personal safety is dishonest, to constantly denigrate someone else's home city is neither helpful nor respectful. That post was written 2 years ago - Port Moresby is even more vibrant now - in my view. You may see it differently and that's fine. It may be your home and you may have very good reasons for being outraged. Or you may be judging something quite wrongly.

building a new world economy is well outside the scope of providing development aid as a way of reaching the long held goal of "the end of poverty". that we would so corrupt a poverty eradication effort may mean that having failed to end poverty we have given up on meeting the needs of the poor and are ready to use this program for our own needs. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2812034

Did you people read the same story that I did? Are you intentionally being obtuse to defend the place where you work (but have the luxury to eventually leave). Carmen wrote: "We have received a range of security devices that we carry around and keep in the car, we have adjusted our driving style, we use an armed escort for trips in the dark or into unknown areas, and we do not walk in public areas. In addition, we avoid certain areas within Port Moresby altogether and on the few occasions that we have travelled out of town, we have done so in a convoy of many cars. Our house also has several security features, in addition to its location in a secure compound." This sounds like an absolute nightmare and to compare this situation to ANYTHING encountered in the U.S. or Australia, as many of you did, is intellectually and otherwise dishonest.

Grant’s challenge is an important one. It cuts both ways, of course. Politics and politicians can and do undermine project plans but equally their strong support and leadership can make profound differences to impact, dissemination and sustainability. I think Sheldon’s first point about grounding reform in local institutional cultures covers Grant’s concerns, however, completely protecting plans from politicians seems a bleak prospect - just ask an Australian about education funding, the NBN or superannuation, for example. Nevertheless, the issue Grant raises also points to both the complexity and the importance of giving thorough and very careful attention to such matters at every step in the planning and design of development support.

Hi Sheldon, It is strange that you don't mention the importance of politics and political will in this blog. So often the best laid plans of bureaucrats and aid officials are undermined by politicians. And frequently education reform is driven more by politicians than anyone else - PNG's Tuition Fee Free policy, and subsequent ban on project fees, is one example of this. This omission makes this well intentioned advice fall a little flat. Cheers, Grant

Thanks Vinny, That's a great comment. I'll be brief here because I'd already tried writing a longer reply. And my computer keeled over as I was doing it. In general I agree: reducing volatility is not the only thing we should aim for in our aid giving. If volatility is the price we pay for delivering certain types of aid, assuming the aid we're giving is the right type of aid, then it is a price worth paying if we believe the benefits of the particular type of aid we are giving outweigh the costs of volatility. I also agree we can minimise the negative effects of volatility through careful planning with recipient countries. That said, I think we would agree that unnecessary volatility is still bad. As such our central difference is, I think, that you believe the volatility seen at present is an unavoidable part of the job, while I think it could be reduced (more staff, an easier domestic climate). Also, I haven't seen evidence that, in the NZ case, the cost of reducing volatility is being reduced by good planning. (As far as I can tell the partner country planning documents are not available publicly. If they were and planning matched spending I would happily concede the point on this.) What is more, I don't think all the volatility in spending is simply a function of the fact that we're now doing more dams, roads and runways. If you look at the two charts below, you will see (via CRS, imperfect but all I have) NZ aid (current USD, calendar year) to Samoa and Kiribati that *went via the public sector*. Still a lot of variation. Obviously, one can funnel aid for large projects via partner governments, but I'm not confident this is what's going on here. <img src="https://devpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Kiribati-CRS-Public-Sector.jpg" alt="" /> . <img src="https://devpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Samoa-CRS-Public-Sector.jpg" alt="" /> You've done a great job of arguing that volatility is part of life for an aid programme. And I am happy to concede aid programmes should be given leeway in their annual budgets etc. Nevertheless, I still think that when an aid budget as to increase year on year by 12% if an aid programme is to have any chance of meeting its triennial budget there are probably additional issues afoot. Nevertheless, I've learnt a lot from the exchange and am very grateful for it.