Comments

Papua New Guinea we are classified under developing nation , yes it true in some sens . however in terms of business i dont think we are developing nation why ? as you can see now the growing of informal SMEs to big organization is much worst at this ages , our growing smes are employing expatriates and are moving on further to overseas and still the informal sector is growing. the suggestion here is that if the government wants more revenue , then it should look in to funding informal sector and marketplaces where the informal markets are taken places because these will be some other ways to earn revenues for it self. Another thing market places should be the priority for the government because the begining of business starts from there and out , more young people who are poor , homeless and starving even a week make alot of crimes and problems all around the country there for i suggest if the government can creates a bigger marketplace that may reduce some crimes and problems faced by our town and cities, because the young ones will participate in some form of activity that earns them living so they will forget about their past . and in that sense our country will live a problem and crime free nation which it should slowly develops our country.........(alphonse kori index student @uot lae 2016)

Very interesting. No doubt about the needs, particularly for capacity building, and the eight sectors are well chosen. As to the third, what capability do we still have (I know the South Australian government has been active). Perhaps we can give the Leyland buses a further lease of life!

Thanks Garth. That would be intriguing to test experimentally.

When World Vision surveyed Australians in 2009 we found that 30% of respondents wanted to be in the top 5 aid donors by volume and a total of 68% in the top 10. 63% agreed that "Australia should be a world leader in reducing global poverty". I took this to mean that a majority of Australians wanted Australia to be amongst the leaders in aid but not necessarily out in front. This suggests to me less interest in competition and more basing our response on our relative wealth in the world.

Thank you Pete, Good comment. One way of thinking about this is that the fact the UK test did have an impact is pretty good evidence that beliefs on efficacy are not the sole constraint on support. Numbers and levels clearly have an effect, though only -- apparently -- in combination with more social/normative factors. That said, we are also planning to test efficacy and the like. Stay tuned. Terence

hi terence, very interesting study - like Weh my mind goes immediately to what is the substance that ppl think of when we talk about aid? just the volume of $ or do they think of the impact that is achieved by aid?if the questions presented impact data, showed progress as well as highlighted further inroads to be made, perhaps the response to too much/too little/just right might produce interesting findings? thanks though for prompting such an interesting discussion

Thanks again Kylie, Two really good points. On the first, researchers in the UK have some provisional findings suggesting that normative communities are very important in shaping attitudes to development, which fits very nicely with what you're saying here. On the second, I like the idea of what we might call 'momentum bias'. i.e. whereas I'd thought the trends would show people what could be done by giving a point of reference to the past, as I take it what you're suggesting is that people see the trend and are affected by it (thinking, I guess, 'there's some good reason for it, so let's keep going'). That said there seems no obvious evidence of "momentum bias" in the UK (aid is trending upwards, but people are still unhappy about this on average) (although of course any effect might be being masked by other effects). Intriguingly, one point I didn't cover in the blog was that the the trend information did quite dramatically decrease the proportion of Coalition voters who think the government gives too much aid. This is a finding I'm still puzzling. Although my guess is that the trend data showed Coalition supporters that the govt. had reversed the Rudd increases and therefore they were somewhat more sated in their desire to cut. Thanks again for great comments. Terence

Hi Terence, Not a problem. I actually had few extra thoughts after I posted: - Changing norm perception isn't just about numbers, but identification and legitimacy as well. A Coalition-voting audience (the most supportive of aid cuts in your opinion poll) might be more convinced by a petition to increase aid signed by 50 Coalition voters, than one signed by 50,000 Labor voters (or 500,000 Greens voters). A petition supported by an influential social referent for the Coalition voters (e.g., a Liberal politician) may add to the effect. - Presenting descriptive information is often ineffective in changing attitudes, as it can appear to normalise the status quo, even more so if it suggests momentum. So I'm not too surprised your condition showing declining aid volume wasn't convincing for participants (it may have actually been counterproductive if participants inferred declining normative support for aid in Australia along with those figures). I'd be really interested to see any followup studies! Cheers, Kylie

Thanks Kylie, That is a great comment, with a really interesting suggestion. Resources permitting I would love to run that test. The article looks excellent too -- thank you. Terence

Hi Terence, Interesting study! The results are in line with a mass of social psychological research that finds norms guide beliefs and behaviour above and beyond attitude persuasion (e.g., aid volume) Norm perception can be derived from individual behaviour, information about the group, and institutional signals. Given that the institutional signaling in Australia is pretty dismal, I wonder if the most effective method of garnering support for increasing aid would be to highlight the number of in-group members (Australians) who support aid increases, rather than emphasising the majority who don't? Your previous opinion poll study showed 43% oppose the cuts- that's (to extrapolate) over 10 million Australians who support aid increases! I wonder how this phrasing would change support compared to a control? Here's a great <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sipr.12022/epdf" rel="nofollow">review article</a> about norms and social change: "Some interventions aimed at influencing norms simply present individuals with new summary information about the group, hoping to replace the individual's personal and subjective representation with this summary information." (p.189). Would be interesting to see this approach applied to perceptions of aid. Cheers, Kylie

Thanks for the clarification, Simon. Yes, I did notice that in the summary of the report but had been given contrary information. Great to have Kate's work acknowledged again.

Solid Waste Management is truly a concern in these two cities and other centers as well. If only we have a good management system with substantive regulations on SWM and strict compliance, then I think we will at least avoid all these problems.