Comments

The future of this country depends on people with positive thinking. People who can translate simple plans into great outcomes and Sir Mekere is such a Leader this national is looking for. Frankly, the track record of our successive governments in implementing real programs for our people is terrible. We in PNG are very good at planning for development. We have an alphabet soup of agencies and committees and councils all devoted to either planning for development, because the way we have been doing development has not been working. But when it comes to actually implementing development we have completely failed and the UN report highlighted the basic issues - we have been terrible at translating economic growth into development for our people. The proof of that is in our performance in the Human Development Index in which PNG has dropped from the 91st in the world in 1990 to 156th in the world. That is the greatest drop of any country in the world. We are not implementing development. We are talking about development, but we are not implementing anything. We create giant projects for a few so the world outside is deceived into thinking we are what they see in Port Moresby, Lae and few other selected towns, but most of the country is ignored.

Beyond Gransci...... The civil society expresses itself through multiplicity of groups or collectivity attaining diverse objectives. Quite often some of them work as pressure group in the governing process. Such groups and organisations are vertically active from local to the international level and horizontally they are issue and sector specific. Whatever their nature and role may be, they important component of the structural and institutional character of the society. Grant Walton has rightly classified as GONGOs, BONGOs, BINGOs, International NGOs and other Socio-Cultural organisations. They may serve educative, advocacy and developmental purpose or motivate for political action. Certainly they are playing an important role around the world but recent trends indicate that suspicion is being raised about their character as civil society as being non-partisan and apolitical. China, Russia and India are raising suspicion particularly about the international NGOs and contemplating to impose some restrictions on their activities or even ban their operation. It may diminish the role of NGOs as civil society and impose limits on the social enterprise. It appears these countries used the civil society organisations to get connected with civil society in the developed world but now resistant when these civil society organisations started generating awareness among the masses through their educational, advocacy and developmental activities. It is likely to adversely affect the interest of the elite section and their domination may be liquidated in the highly structured society in these countries. There is sufficient evidence that the role of civil society is being diminished in these countries and there are concerted efforts to make the civil society subordinate to the State and Market. Such a trend in these countries will have global impact during next two decades. It may compel one to raise skepticism and suspicion about the realisation of SDGs by 2030.

Dear Glen, Thank you for this powerful and critically important first-hand perspective. Your account resonates with what I have heard throughout the region. There is a better model available and I do believe it would be more impactful, better value for money, and could catalyse sustainability in health education. I will be in touch. Joel

Dear Joel I have worked for the past 28 years training doctors at the SMHS-UPNG and before that for 4 years training HEOs and Health Inspectors at the Madang College of Allied Health Sciences. My experience is that there are very few instances when overseas training is useful to us in PNG in the health sector. And in fact many times people go for overseas training and come back with ideas and agendas which are antithetical to the needs of the PNG health service and effective training of health workers in it. So not only a waste of money, but oftentimes we are handicapped by people with overseas training. There are of course exceptions to the above, but recently I have noticed with the experience of the Australian awards scholarships that they are often given to people who are too old (to be be able to come back and make a difference), or to people who really only want the degree to satisfy their own ego and increase their own status in the system when they return. This particularly applies to PhD awardees. And I also see that a number of Australian institutions really help the overseas candidates cross the line, - to the extent in some cases, of theses being almost ghost written, or at least 'supervised' to the point of hand holding. With regards the Cuban model: the model is good, but not good to send Pacific people to Cuba to do their programs. The latest experience where hundreds (and in the case of E Timor - a thousand) students were sent to Cuba for medical training has been a disaster. I hear that all the 'graduates' from the Solomon islands were unable to pass the basic registration exam on return to Honiara, and as you have noted Kiribati and other places are really struggling to now provide suitable intern (practical clinical) training for their graduates. Heaven knows what is going to happen to the E Timorese grads. When I was in E Timor 18 months ago, the first batch of 300 graduates were back - most had been posted to community health posts and had been given motor bikes to facilitate their work. However, many of them were just motoring around Dilli on the bikes. I was also interested to hear that you say that the Burnet Institute is helping to strengthen our Dept of Public Health at the SMHS: I have not seen any evidence of this. And we really do need assistance with strengthening our faculty at SMHS - and not just in the Dept of Public Health. In fact the whole of doctor training in PNG could fall over if 4-5 of us had heart attacks in the next few months - not unlikely as mostly we are over 60. How do we organize ourselves to get thru to dfat about the above.?? So much money being wasted at present. Glen Mola, Professor of Reproductive Health, Obstetrics and Gynecology, SMHS

That might have to be a topic for another day given that the present series is already so long as to try perseverance. You are correct that the 'other recipients' are unspecified countries only and do not include multilateral organisations and funds. The latter receive about one-third of outflows from DAC donors; developing countries receive the rest plus inflows from multilateral organisations and funds, and from other sources. It's certainly interesting that there has been such an increase in the amount of aid that is reported as bilateral but not attributed to specific countries. One driver of this might be the increase in the reporting of onshore asylum seeker costs. A chart showing the 30-year trend can be viewed <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/ittht1vduny9wi6/Unspecified%20bilateral.png?dl=0" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The proportion of of ODA in this category has increased from 15% in 1983 to 37% in 2013.

Perhaps a course in causal analysis is called for? At least for headline writers.

Great post Robin - it's so easy for these statements to become accepted wisdom through unquestioning repetition unless someone takes the time to unpack the actual data. I'd be interested to hear more in a future post about the flow to ‘other recipients’ - which has mirrored the increase to LDCs over the last decade, but certainly outpaced the growth in ODA to transition countries and longstanding MICs - and what the implications of this are. I infer from your comment in footnote 4 that this does not include funding to the Global Fund, Gavi Alliance and the like?

Social issues are a time bomb to PNG. As an individual, families, communities we need to play our part to stop this explosion. Our economy is booming in regards to the natural resources as this will bring much more issues that will directly affect our youths and bring this country into chaos. To fight social issues, every stake holders of this country has to work even harder to achieve a low level or nil social issues. Our Government has to take the upper hand to combat this mighty battle for the well being of this beautiful nation. I really appreciate the work of The Voice and other organization who are spear heading to fight this ugly battle. Thank you !!..

I've a different view on the matter that goes on with regard to the poverty of indigenous people. A study undertaken in Vietnam has shown that in general, the hill-tribes are poor but there are other groups such as Khmer and Hoa that reside in the southern parts of the country, poorer than the ethnic minority people. As revealed using a sample of over 400 households, Khmer and Hoa minority people (not ethnic minorities) are worse than hill-ethnic minorities in respect of most of the indicators tested such as literacy level, schooling, vulnerability, employment, house quality, household assets, income, etc. It is interesting to note that the ethnic minority people in the hilly areas have more income generating assets compared to the main stream Kinh and Khmer and Hoa are. The poverty of Khmer and Hoa are much worse than the mountain ethnic minority people. Visit this site to read the paper: http://www.communityresearch.org.nz/research/comparison-of-ethnic-mimnority-socio-economics-with-main-stream-in-vietnam/

Great post Joy! Obviously I salute any post that references Taylor Swift, Dolly Parton and Billy-Ray Cirus in a single discussion about development. And I agree with what I take as your key point: the SDGs have become something new and different from the MDGs. But just as Swift alienated some of her original fans with her Nashville to New York reinvention, a similar dynamic is potentially at play with the transition to the SDGs. Swift isn't a country singer any more. She's a pop star. Likewise, the SDGs, at least for advocates emphasising their normative function, don't seem to be fundamentally about setting priorities any more. They're about inclusiveness. Terence, yourself and numerous others in the comments (Garth Luke for example) have argued persuasively about why I should just shake it off and move on from my conviction that the SGDs, in addition to their normative function, must also do the hard work of prioritising. I just can't bring myself to do it yet. My Kenny Rogers references probably gave it away that in this case in particular, I'm slow to embrace new things... Thanks again Joy.

Good post Joy. While I see the need for complexity, as a communications person though, I still feel that there is a fundamental challenge in getting the message of the SDGs out there. Just like I know all the lyrics to 'Shake It Off' without ever having tried to learn them, I can also remember all the MDGs without ever having tried. The SDGs, on the other hand, seem more like the time I had a teacher who tried to make our whole class memorise the entirety of Banjo Patterson's 'The Man From Snowy River' and then simultaneously recite it. Very hard to remember, then messy, jumbled, and difficult to comprehend in delivery (only a parent could appreciate that performance...). So while the SDGs may present the complexity of development, they seem like a communications nightmare, which I think will raise some questions and challenges on how to successfully mobilise people around the goals. While cherry-picking particular goals to focus on in particular countries might work at the national level, I think its going to be a challenge to build up the international recognition that was there for the MDGs. Unless Taylor can write some kind of catchy tune about them. I think that is the only way I am going to be able to remember them all before at least 2020!

Thanks Terence. I take your point on data - it is a big challenge and one we will have to grapple with or we may face cherry-picking of the goals on a large scale. BTW, I couldn't help but make the Billy-Ray Cirus link, it was just too easy!