Comments

On the stinginess point, yes, I agree the floor levels, especially for LDCs, are very unlikely to be adequate if treated literally as targets, even if one assumes maximum efficiency in delivery and a totally rational allocation of dollars to purposes. However, I think the aid volume risks are on the downside even if their realisation has been prematurely pronounced. A commitment to at least maintain per-capita aid at, or a bit above, current levels for these two groups of countries would have real bite, while not being so unrealistic that donors would find it necessary to post-date it to the year 3000. And it would not be incompatible with more traditional, medium- to long-term ODA/GNI target setting. Part of what makes the aid floors idea relatively realistic is that it does not bind individual donors but only the collective. As you say, this might be thought to reduce its immediate motivational force for the average individual donor. But, by the same token, the collective nature of the commitment makes it easier to swallow, and it can subsequently be used to assess individual performance in terms of the contribution that a given donor is making to the satisfaction of the collective commitment. Also, there's no reason why all contributions should be exactly equal, or rather proportional to GNI, because donors have different partner sets, and will sometimes be genuinely hard-up for a few years. The idea is similar to that underlying the commitment to mobilise $100 billion per annum annually for climate change financing from 2020 on, except that in this case we are talking only about public money. A smaller example is the G20 commitment to maintain aid-for-trade funding at no less than 2011 levels.

I wouldn't venture a guess as to election timing, though several commentators seem to think Turnbull would rather cement his authority for a while rather than immediately questioning his own legitimacy by calling an early poll. That aside, it's clear that an change of Coalition policy on aid volume -- to avoid the 'captain's call' problem -- will have to be achieved through the 2016-17 budget process, which means slowly and non-publicly. Turnbull's response to Plibersek's recent question in parliament (which she described as an instance of 'mansplaining') confirms this. That doesn't mean that policy can't and won't be changed, though. A start would be the cancellation of the planned further reduction of $350 million in 2016-17, on top of the $1 billion cut in 2015-16. It would also be desirable to place a reasonable cap on the amount of money to be taken from the aid program to meet costs associated with the acceptance of 12,000 refugees from Syria and Iraq, given that a substantial proportion of these costs (totalling $700 million over four years) will be ODA-elgible. Australia's decision to pay a high price for membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will already place some pressure on a pulverised aid budget. By the way, Plibersek's question might have carried more force if Labor itself were able to say something about its policy on aid volume. I assume that, if pressed, their line would be, 'we'll have to look at the books after we're elected'. Some kind of a commitment on the Labor side would perhaps strengthen Julie Bishop's hand in arguing for stabilisation or restoration of the aid budget.

No, not such a bad project after all - see the <a href="http://www.forda-mof.org/index.php/content/publikasi/post/391" rel="nofollow">socio-economic impact assessment</a> I authored. Just one that ended prematurely - by about 5 years. Yes, it took them a long time to get off the ground because they sought full consensus. Yes, it was never perfect - but then who ever said that social engineering is simple? Yes, it failed to block canals, and even the small tatas that it did block are not blocked durably - see one of the photos in my report. But it profoundly changed the mindset of many of the people in the 14 villages in its operational area, such that forest conservation and antipathy to fire are now dominant themes. Lessons were being learned throughout. They could not be implemented because the project was killed. Which is more than just "too bad" - it's a missed opportunity of colossal proportions. In the end, KFCP was demonstrating how things SHOULD be done, if done properly, and that it takes much, much longer to achieve goals than the short timeframes conceived by the architects of most development project. As for the NGO opposition - it's risible. As an example, YPD fomented unrest in the villages through dissimulation - the mantir adat signatures on an anti-KFCP document were total fabrications, for example. In a reasonable response, the mantirs should have taken the head of YPD to court - but to avoid conflict, they opted not to, instead keeping their anger against him purely internal. This head of YPD subsequently used his notoriety to run for election in the local parliament - I'm happy to report that he hoodwinked few people, ultimately, and lost. Take-home message to you: don't accept anything in Indonesia at face value; spend time on-the-ground locally, and speak to those involved.

This article provides an interesting analogy. Our soccer fans may think otherwise. So, when we watch the world cup for the next two months do so from a Development perspective.

Ye it is very true. Gulf really went back in the 1990s, I use to be a teacher in Kaintiba are, we had all teachers from PNG. Pay is to e deleivered by pay run charters to small airstrips. and we would be there to collect them. then back to our schools. during the hoildays we floold in to kerema town show of strenght, of who were serving in the bush of gulf. Service delivery since, we realised were begining to cease, when Bosses in Kerema Began making their bases in Port moresby. Most of us transferd out, and made our way to positions of importance. if we were in Kerema we wouldn't. But now we are more than prepared to work with teams in Kerema, just open your doors. The province is in better positions to make it work. Just get the plans in order.,

Hi Robin, I'm all for getting rid of funding targets for 2030 but: 1. How would you see a collective target such as $50 pc working to motivate individual donors? 2. Also isn't $50 pc a pretty stingy target, even as a floor? I know it is a slight step up from current total pc funding but what can be achieved with $50 pc total assistance especially after Western beneficiaries and administration have taken their cut and the $s have been spread across every donor's favourite sector? It seems to me that stepping stone targets at 5 year intervals and individual country accountability are both necessities for an effective donor target model.

Hi It is indeed a nice read! Pictures of the bird and natural beauty of Hela could have enhanced the beauty even more. May I know how the women group came into being? Specially as they are from clashing clans. Good luck to them and you also!

We need to reform our LAWS. Our laws are precolonial and inherited from the Colonists after independence. A lot of our laws are geared towards the benefit of the colonists. We need to reform our laws to benefit Papua New Guineans on the social front, political front and the economical front. Most of our laws are outdated. when lawyers interpret these laws, they bring us back to the way things were done before independence during the colonial era and make their verdicts. We are all governed by these outdated precolonial laws and they do not reflect the constitution of our country. These outdated laws do not reflect todays situations nor the future trends in our developing nation. Our people will continue to suffer while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We have a Law Reform Committee but what has transpired out of this committee. The reform of laws to be geared towards the benefit of all Papua New Guineans as captured in our constitution is a mammoth task and very cumbersome. The processes that it has the run these reforms through is immense and takes years to accomplish. from the formative stage of the Law Reform Committee to this date, I personally have not heard much from this party.

I agree with these comments. However well-designed and well-tested social accountability interventions are not merely iterative but already address multiple contextual factors - they don't start from scratch. The iterations by being already embedded in large numbers of cycles of practice and learning emerge in different settings more readily (and, as Patrick Kilby will tell you social accountability is very old). Some macro factors are less amenable to this, but localised ones (like inequalities creating inequitable power relations) are addressed in designs. The evidence about interventions 'going with the grain' of culture - recognising that culture contains important enablers of public action and is not just a hindrance - can also be relevant. I suspect we underestimate the extent to which local people under conducive conditions can do their own 'social and political analysis' which despite being less sophisticated than PEA is better informed about and more finely attuned to local politics. Naturally that may deter action, but it can facilitate locally-informed iterative action by actors working collaboratively at their own pace - this can reduce risks and address fears associated with public action.This combination of considerations makes long lists of contextual factors (others being those we found evidence for in our 2014 3ie realist review for DFID) less scary for those wanting to put research into practice. For those who aren't aware of our review, Prof Patricia Rogers led the research and <a href="http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Output/196522/" rel="nofollow">here is the link</a>. Bill

Here's another: some fabulous photos from the first Independence Day ceremonies and reflections from Caroline Tiriman <a href="http://australiaplus.com/international/2015-09-14/i-was-there-when-png-became-an-independent-nation/1491460" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and more photos <a href="https://vkpeek.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/celebrating-independence-day-38-years-ago/#sthash.2hLQegyx.dpuf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Robin, what do you think about the chances of an early election? Some pundits have been throwing around the possibility of Turnbull calling an election as early as November this year. It would seem that if that happens, there should really already be concerted effort from campaigners to get some kind of commitment on aid from both sides of the political fence. At the moment, it seems like we have a bipartisan commitment to not commit on aid volume, which doesn't bode that well if we do go to election soon.

Thank you to the voice inc for the job well done to keep younger generation on the right trek for the betterment of our country PNG. As we all know social problems is becoming a norm in this country and one way or the other we as the responsible citizen of this country must work together side by side to do away with it andit all starts within the family. it is without a doubt that family is the cornerstone of human existence and thus hold the key to the realization of peaceful and harmonious world, it also have the power to influence and change the society thank you and happy 40th independence celebration