Comments

I think there is a lack of transparency and accountability at all levels of government systems. Also, there is noncompliance with the relevant governing legislation in the mining industry. Hence there is a big need to amend all the current legislation, especially the Mining Act 1992 and the Mining (Safety) Act 1977 so that there is effective compliance with all the governing legislation, thus helping the mining industry achieve its intended purpose.

Thanks Peter for posting these documents. Evidenced the complexity of the issue. While it may be an accepted fact, some of these Pacific leaders appeared to suggest that the degree of intrusion, especially by their 'trusted' friends, is somewhat troubling. Sil, West Papua continues to be a challenge. Maybe the recent 'observer' status given to them by the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) will lead to some tangible resolution. Iam, Fiji continues to be an important voice in the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

I didn't either (bit surprising that they didn't define it in the report, now that you mention it). Evidently it has to do with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/sep/25/fun-theory-gamification-development" rel="nofollow">using games and game theory</a> to encourage behaviour change. Maybe another reader out there can offer a fuller explanation?

Hi, Having recently returned from nearly 15 years working in health at the provincial level in PNG, I am concerned about the ineffectiveness of aid efforts to date to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity and GBV. Despite significant aid funding over the past decade or so, not much has changed. In my experience, aid is 'top heavy'. Donors and many aid agencies need to work collaboratively with provinces to improve implementation and service delivery i.e., ensure aid is delivered where it is needed most on the ground. This isn't happening.

Agreed. Maybe the skill is not in the top 10! And thanks for sharing the survey. Z

Thanks Camilla. Interesting read. It was good to see 78% of people thought people skills would be the most important set of skills to have, perhaps this includes cross-cultural? I admit to having no idea what 'gamification' is. And to all others who commented earlier, I'm sorry to say your excellent thoughts were lost in the recent blog failure. Feel free to repost.

And here is an excellent New Yorker <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine" rel="nofollow">article</a> debunking the idea of 'disruptive innovation'. Thank you, this is a really good blog and got me thinking about my very strong aversion to the word 'innovation'. I have no problem investing in research and development, particularly in areas where it can really make a difference, such as in health. My issue is that like so many things in development, the latest fad tends to dominate and drive all decisions, even when it might be inappropriate. Technically, the word 'innovate' means to make new or bring something new. And who doesn't like 'new' ideas and putting them into practice? But to emphasise it so heavily in an aid programme (as this government is) implies that only 'new' matters. To my mind, there are a lot of 'old' ideas in development that have a lot of value. Many of them we don't do, but if we did, we'd make a whole lot more positive impact. Like, taking the time to understand context, listening to the people we're working with, having long-term engagements and focusing on relationships. These are (almost) all things you describe as being necessary for successful innovation. We don't do these things well at the moment. What does this mean for innovation? I guess the point is, like all ideas in development, it depends on how it gets implemented. I won't go any further, as talking about implementation brings me to the innovationXchange, and here I risk descending into unhelpful ranting. Thanks again for an excellent, thought-provoking blog.

Thanks Grant and Caryn, this is a really interesting paper. I wonder, based on this, what your thoughts are on where aid donors/the development industry should be investing when it comes to anti-corruption work? If the return on an investment in corruption education is going to be affected by the perceived level of institutional response/effectiveness, then it would seem to suggest that more attention on institution strengthening is the way to go. But surely, and particularly in the PNG case, that would be a politically difficult path to take for donors (...which is perhaps why they are more willing to invest in education). Seems like a really tricky situation in which to be effective?

Related to several of the issues that Ferguson raises, Chris Blattman recently wrote a <a href="http://chrisblattman.com/2015/06/25/dear-governments-and-aid-agencies-please-stop-hurting-poor-people-with-your-skills-training-programs/" rel="nofollow">blog</a> and <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2622220" rel="nofollow">review paper</a> (coauthored with Laura Ralston) on some of the problems with skills training programs and employment generation in the Global South.

What can be grasped from this program that government managed to relocate the community to one place with substandard housing. The problem is: who live there and what they do for their living. This simple question will drag our views on infrastructure provision versus equity. In one part, the government has put an effort to solve the housing problem in some Sucos. However, the plan without any deeper assessment took place. People who lived there might be impoverished class and farmers who subsistence from agricultural cultivation. For them might be difficult to maintain this type of prefabricated housing, and where to keep their pigs, goats and other pastoral products. Meanwhile, there is no spaces and sheds provided to store them. I have been to one of these locations, no water connection there and absent from bitumen roads. This can be claimed as "Palliative Plan", which indicates that the plan is not solving the root of housing problem, instead to help the local more expose to other problems such accessibility, mobility and deprivation. I would suggest, one of the solutions, it might be more plausible to subsidise the communities in the Sucos with some funds for upgrading their existing housing, privies, and provide communal water source (Lavanderia). At the same time promote comparative advantage of the area for it sustainability.

A recent, and excellent, article arguing why the best innovations happen when you don't try: http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/is-the-best-way-to-be-innovative-not-to-try/

Agreed with the article