Comments

MDB's are important component of the global financial system. They might not be significant in bridging the 'funding gap' but politico-strategically very important in determining the world order. It is generally believed that US hegemony and dominance has been sustained by Britton Woods Institutions. China is aspiring and have potential to provide world leadership in the 'Asian Century' . The establishment of AIIB and BDB (BRICS Development Bank) are steps in this direction on the pretext of the 'community of shared interest' . China is most likely to replace the US in providing world leadership and thus US concerns are important. China's economic strength and strategic culture may play an important role in restructuring UN agencies. China is aspiring that the international institutional structure and financial system must commensurate with its potentials of world leadership. AIIB is a strategic move in this direction......

Very good presentation of trends of ODA to LDCs and Transition Countries, Robin. However, it is difficult to generalise the impact of ODA because the performance of each country are different. ODA or any other financial assistance alone can not ensure development. In fact ODA can be a facilitator for development but actual performance and achievements are determined by policies, institutions, legislations and culture of particular country. I personally feel ODA or any international assistance future must be tagged with national policies, institutions, legislations environmental conservation and cultural orientation. Sometime these have been proved as an obstruction in development. I understand, if ODA is tagged with these, the national elite will resist on the pretext of 'sovereignty' or manipulate the utilisation of the aid but it shall have to be monitored by a credible international agency so as to ensure both poverty eradication and economic growth in these countries...... Moreover, precaution must be taken that the countries which have 'graduated' should not fall back in the earlier position. Thus, there must be two pronged strategy in ODA, i.e. Preventive and Accelerative. The graduated countries must also shoulder some responsibility to help the LDCs. In any case ODA is must for sustainable development, the decline in ODA will be really disappointing....

The Foreign Affairs part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) is all about people to people. The people of Australia and Papua New Guinea have shared a solid relationship for 50,000 years. Let’s hope that this latest change doesn't mean that the ‘people’ part of this $477 million p.a. relationship is diminished or replaced by the easy option of steel, plastic and concrete. DFAT has got a bit of work to do here.

Thanks for this, the adviser model does set people up to fail in many instances, trying to effect change through advising others – often in the face of active or passive resistance to that change and compounded by a dysfunctional operating environment. But one aspect of your piece might be an assumption - that those inline positions will go to overseas experts. Some of the PM’s recent comments seem to suggest that he believes PNGeans can do the work, that there is sufficient in-country expertise available and hints that overseas personnel here for a limited time do not leave any sustainable change behind and are, “taking Papua New Guinean jobs.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-03/papua-new-guinea-plans-rethink-of-development-support-delivery/6667642 Obviously the best person for the job would be most people's wish but I wonder how in a highly politicised and nationalistic public service this can happen these days.

Given that the Australian Government has recently cut its funding to the Overseas Development Institute Fellowship Scheme (which places high-caliber junior economists into in-line positions within GoPNG ministries and is highly valued by all participating ministries) due to the fact the fellows were not accountable to Australia's Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade, it would be surprising to see them move towards an in-line approach. That said, perhaps pressure from GoPNG will be enough to force a move away from the excessively costly and relatively ineffective (though not without value) TA program.

it's effectively what was in place prior to the increase in project and then program assistance which progressively replaced budget aid in the early 1990s. In those days there were many overseas contract officers who were in inline positions on salaries well below the subsequent consulting rates, and who had direct responsibilities within the system, just like their PNG counterpart staff. At the time is was strongly suggested by some that the shift to project/program assistance, with all its associated program planning and oversight overheads, shuold take a different form. The Australians were increasingly concerned about weak accountability over budget aid by the Government of PNG, so introduced the programs partly as a way to increase accountability to the Australian (and PNG) public, but the programs greatly increased demands on the relatively weak capacity of the PNG government, especially with many staff being taken out of central agencies also to help manage the program from the AIDAB/AusAID/DFAT side. The suggestion was for a more compromise arrangement, which would still leave the PNG Government with some continued flexibility where to allocated funds and staff - and between overseas and local staff (as occurred under the previous Budget support), but to establish chains of oversight and accountability over those components of funding provided for specific activity, including the capacity to provide some shorter term support staff for specific functions, where needed (ie advisers) to complement funding inputs for PNG and longer term contract inline staff....training and advisory functions can be very useful for various specific functions, but one needs the flexibility, to be able to include a range of human and other resources to implement service provision by government..Of course, it also requires a clear understanding of what GoPNG shuold be funding and what the development partners should fund. Core functions shuold be undertaken by GoPNG, adn should be properly budgeted and accounted for, which also requires Govt avoids putting its money into status projects etc, and leaving core services often to be funded by donors (sometimes through church services etc)...the role of development partners should particularly be to assist in developing training and capacity building of the PNG institutions (and some physical infrastructure..so long as GoPNG commits to its maintenance); but human and institutional development by its nature does involve a fair amount of human input, without development partners being unduly burdened with funding routine staffing; but this input shuold be able to be provided from a range of PNG and overseas sources -including overseas volunteers, e.g. for teacher/teacher training etc, as required and as most cost effective.... But the shift needs to be well thought out and in close consultation..none of this silly business of announcing in November that one education system would replace another, before the successor curriculum has been prepared or teachers trained etc...!

Amanda, you have done well on using this method of data collection, it may work well for quantitative research methods. In quantitative research you are only collecting numerical data, and short answers that can be easily analysed. However, on the other hand, data as we know in PNG is not easily accessible because data is scattered and not easily stored in one particular place. For example, in the case of farm produce sold to supermarkets. The supermarkets receive supplies from farmers at random basis and from suppliers and not ant fixed amounts. that is an example of where researchers from outside PNG cannot understand and work out ways to analysis this kinds of data. Kind Regards Kuriya

I agree with much of what's been said. In my experience over nearly 15 years (2000-2014) at provincial level in PNG health as a Project Manager and TA, TA, PNG needs TA. Again, in my experience, this is both recognised and highly valued by local counterparts. With regard to 'accountability', the issue is not that TAs are 'unaccountable'. Papuan New Guineans are rightly concerned that Advisers work for and are accountable to donors etc not Papua New Guinea. They don't 'own' TAs and often talk of being sidelined, bypassed, ignored and reduced to 'spectators'. The current model for providing TA and other forms of aid is also not cost-effective. I'm not sure we've learnt the lessons of the past decade or so - or that we're even listening - and I'm disappointed more Papua New Guineans, especially from provinces, who are responsible for service delivery, are not contributing to the discussion and speaking out.

I am in agreement with Stephen Howes' analysis of strengthening governance and law and justice in PNG. I was one of the former civil servants in PNG right after independence (1980s-90s) and the process of training and capacity building for PNG public servants (succession planning) at that time was at its peak. I felt I was properly trained as I was well monitored and groomed. The preparation was to train as Assistant Secretary (AS) in all Divisions, and as I gained confidence I was moved to another Divisions in succession every three months or so to prepare me to move into the next level as First Assistant Secretary (FAS). At that time contracted civil servants were not only Australians but a mixture of expatriates from various countries. There were professions from New Zealand, Canada, USA, India, Singapore and so on who mingled with PNG nationals as colleagues rather than advisors. In-house training was on-going and the public service was thriving. There was enthusiasm in what we did - we were motivated despite the little salaries that I received for my efforts I was happy. I have visited PNG recently (from April - June 2015) and found the civil service had become stagnant; it lacked motivation and purpose - that is to serve the communities. Where I originate two three government funded projects had failed (the time I was there) as civil servants were unable to deliver; partly because of the rampant corruption in the procurement process, and partly because politicians kept stealing the show of service delivery, practically replacing civil servants. Clearly, civil servants in PNG have little purpose in service delivery which could be the impetus for their lack of motivation and enthusiasm. In other words, politicians in their quest to gain electoral voting support have perpetuated the demise of the PNG civil service. As long as corruption and the politicisation of the civil service exist, the Australian taxpayers money (AUD450m) will be wasted.

Thanks Kjetil for a very good comment. I agree, if the word innovation helps sell externally internal processes such as "more quality improvement, more experimentation" (and I would add more learning) then, so long as we don't end up captured by the term that's fine. Unfortunately in aid work (at least in this neck of the woods) I don't think innovation is being used as a means of selling better practice. However, like you, I am all for creating learning organisations. Thanks again. Terence

Good post Terence! I agree with your critique of the term neoliberalism. I find that the term is used in a similar way in development the way New Public Management (NPM) is thrown about in discussions of public administration in the North. It is has become too wide a term that is used to describe a plethora of interventions or reforms that are often not directly connected, except temporally. Subsequently, they are dismissed in a ritualistic fashion. Much better to be precise about what exactly you are critiquing and what can be improved. When it comes to innovation, it is another buzzword, and the precise content of varies according to the context. It may be used in an inclusive fashion as a way to build capacity and time for creative problem solving and using new methods and approaches within development organisations. Usually, if it is the fundraising and institutional partnerships arm of an organization that is promoting the term innovation, it becomes heavily tilted towards the private sector and often technological silver bullet solutions, often as a part of a larger branding strategy externally to find more private sector partners. However, there is an innovation "movement" within public administration. Within the public sector innovation movement, connected with the proliferation of government innovation labs, it is often said that the word innovation should not be used as much in internal communications. Innovations teams promote specific methodologies and approaches such as user-centered design and/or behavioural approaches and should promote those specific approaches rather than an unspecific innovation agenda. In the National Health Service in England, promotion of new approaches and new service delivery models are communicated as quality improvement, because the term innovation within healthcare is almost exclusively applied to the development of new drugs and medical devices. The innovation agenda in development is about taking more calculated risks, experimenting with new approaches and investing in the organizational capability to adapt and evolve. Learning is a key component of this but it cannot be reduced to it. Yes, more quality improvement, more experimentation and if need be, use the word innovation to promote it externally.

Thank you very much, Terence ! I wish SDGs will do the greater good to marginalised humanity around the world. Plz keep on promoting impact assessment and the discourse alive. All the Best. Karori