Comments

I think Prime Minister Key's comments are phrased in unfortunate terms. But they are indicative of why a shift (which is actually a return) in approach is required. Both Sir Mekere Morauta during the review of the Pacific Plan and more recently Dame Meg Taylor have stated clearly - what is wanted at the level of the Pacific Islands Forum is political leadership. It is not about who pays for what, it is about the political leadership leading politically. The Pacific Islands Forum was formed largely out of the frustrations of Pacific island leaders who were constrained from discussing issues that were of political importance at the South Pacific Commission, including sovereignty, nuclear testing by the USA and France. Australia & New Zealand were allowed/invited to join in the belief that they shared the political vision of other leaders. In recent years, the political function of the Forum has been diluted and instead replaced with technocratic discussions in which Australia and New Zealand's other role (of principal donors) has been allowed to overtake their role as political partners. This has not been helped by their non-appearance at PIF Leaders' meetings and their sending of AusAID/DFAT officers to regional ministerial meetings. The PIF's requirement that membership be restricted to sovereign states should mean that each member has an equal voice and that each can introduce issues for discussion without worrying that they might be offending someone else with whom they may need to discuss development assistance at a later date. It is true and not surprising that the Fiji position is not one that will receive much support from other Pacific island leaders but that does not equate to an unequivocal approval of the Aus/NZ role within the Forum. If what the leaders of the region are seeking is a political (re)settlement then they need to be talking about many more things than aid.

Hi Grant Thanks for sharing this very interesting research. It's always great to read work that provides local insights into complex social issues - especially issues like corruption, which so often enters into development discussions with the baggage of external judgment. It's helpful to understand the ways in which we can use the same words with very different intended meanings, and to consider the implications of this divide when designing development initiatives. I agree with your introductory observation that much of the literature on corruption focuses on 'abuse of power' definitions, but I was a little surprised at your finding that no policy documentation considers corruption as a form of individual or institutional 'decay'. Although that term may not have been widely used, both individual psychological / values-related corruption and institutional 'culture' are areas in which I think some interesting research has been undertaken. I’ll provide some examples from my limited personal experience. Some years ago I worked with a team developing World Bank source books on corruption in the <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/12/10313572/deterring-corruption-improving-governance-urban-water-supply-sanitation-sector-sourcebook" rel="nofollow">water</a> and <a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTENERGY2/Resources/WBelectricitysourcebookpub.pdf" rel="nofollow">electricity</a> sectors, which attempted to understand why and how whole sectors can 'decay' to the point where corruption is rife (e.g. kick backs in procurement, cost-cutting in infrastructure work, bribe-taking in making connections, extra 'taxes' collected with monthly payments, etc.) - and also how these problems can be avoided through better design and functioning accountability loops. Interested in discussions around the development of a 'culture' of corruption (and mindful not to be labeling any particular culture as inherently corrupt, as has been discussed elsewhere on this blog), I then conducted <a href="http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/06/08/0022022111402344" rel="nofollow">some research</a> into the links between socio-cultural values and corruption, across countries and across time - a little too 'macro' level to really be getting into individual psychology, but still connecting the way individuals act to the prevailing norms (and incentives) in their social context. Importantly, as you point out, this context extends far beyond the boundaries of government—all who have power and access to resources have opportunities to be corrupt. With that said, however, I do feel that care needs to be taken in promoting a view of corruption as (solely) individual decay or failing—which doesn’t mean, of course, that we shouldn’t engage with this view to the extent that it’s already held by communities. I’d be interested in your further thoughts about how to work commonly-held local definitions of corruption into the public debate around how corruption can be effectively and systematically addressed. Perhaps one starting consideration is that, as has been found elsewhere, there’s no point in importing foreign anti-corruption institutions and exhorting people to ‘punish the corrupt’ if they feel powerless to do so, or are genuinely benefitting in other ways from the system being as it is. Seini

PM has at least done something good if you look at it carefully. He needs us all to contribute ideas...

Professor Donge did get several facts wrong. However, his central argument that O'Niell is a skillful politician cannot be dismissed easily. O'Niell's actions has invoked overwhelming criticisms and many failed to see the political genius he appears to be. How has is been possible for him to maintain his government despite controversial decisions and firing close associates? Lack of accuracy in facts should not dismiss the central argument: O'Niell appears to be a clever politician!

Well Prime Minister Key <a href="http://www.fbc.com.fj/fiji/28514/no-forum-without-australia-and-nz-key#sthash.EaRiqoEB.dpuf" rel="nofollow">said that</a>: ‘’When it comes to the Pacific Island Forum its Australia and New Zealand that put in the money and most typically and we there to support our Pacific friends whether its Fiji or Tonga or Samoa or in Melanesia or Solomon Islands or PNG whatever it might be – so a Pacific Forum without Australia and New Zealand would be an interesting thing I suppose and that those leaders would be able to talk about things but exactly where will they get the money to do anything and the answer is nowhere – none of them have that – So I don’t think you want to take him seriously… I am not and I don’t think other people will be either’’.

I have a narrow interpretation of the article, as I am of the view that the underlying idea I gathered from the article is that Peter O'Neill is a skillfull politician. Despite some factual errors regarding names, and chronoolgy of events, the point made is not without basis. He has outmanouvered his opponents. Of course, there is existing allegations against him, and the methods used to win and maintain political support rasies some eyebrows. However, he played his cards well to maintain and remain a prime minister despite all the adversity. That demonstrates that he is a skillfull politician.

Hi Keston, Thank you for the comment. To clarify, by aid I mean official development assistance, which excludes military aid. Australian is the largest donor to Solomons and Australian to Solomons is untied. Australian aid is given via a range of mechanisms including government to government (including SWAps) and via civil society. There are some conditionalities involved. Whether these are always good is a subject for another blog post but for now: it is safe to say that I do not think donors have always given aid to Solomons well, or cognisant of the country's political economy, hence the subject matter of my post. Thank you for your engagement. Terence

The situation with the PIF is simply the outcome of a dubious Australia/NZ policy to isolate Fiji. The whole point of the PIF is to engage, in spite of differences. Instead, the Tasman 2 decided to use the heavy hand, and it backfired. Prior to 2006, one couldn't see a single Chinese symbol in Fiji. Now, it's all over the place, and Fiji has been visited by the Indian PM and the Chinese Premier in quick consecutive fashion. If the Tasman 2 thinks that's a good thing, then god help them. This is their creation. Now from Fiji's perspective, should it side with the 2 biggest emerging economies of the world who helped in its time of need, or should it smile and go back to the Tasman 2, after being sabotaged at every point by them in the last 8 years? It's a no brainer...really! And it's not even personal, it makes smart business sense. Fiji's isolation has forced it to look outside the cocoon that the Tasman 2 has enclosed it in. In 8 years, it's made many friends globally, and realizes the forum doesn't serve the interests of the Pacific. You see, Fiji's diversity has given it the belief in self achievement (with some help of course)...PM Frank wants the country to be the "Singapore of the South Pacific".... PM Frank may have been a military leader, but his ideology and vision is one that the Tasman 2 have never witnessed before. It's a massive miscalculation on the guy and his abilities. They disliked him more for his charisma, ability, and ambitions for his country, and they are fearful of his influence, especially under the democratic banner (which they can't cry about anymore). The difference between Fiji and the other islands is clear. The rest are used to the perks that being obedient to the Tasman 2 comes with, whereas Fiji is willing to get off the welfare and make a prison break for greener pastures. And that doesn't set well with the Tasman 2. If one was to construct a "hall of shame", it would start with Helen Clark, and include a Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and all the other hardline yet ineffective politicians in New Zealand. Poor Mr Abbott is merely paying for the crimes of his predecessors.

Terence, Thank you for clarifying and sharing. I'm not very familiar with the empirical subject but I wonder what is the nature of the aid? Civilian or military or conflict prevention? Through which mechanisms (state; the budget; donor programmes; civil society) is it directed? And what are the associated aspects of such aid? Are there particular conditions that must be met? I would be very surprised if the aid that is provided to the SI is untied, and indeed these have implications for how it is first arises and the manner in which it is used and how actors view it if it does not consider the pre-existing distribution of power and how that power might be shifted based on the benefits that are distributed. Khan's 2014 most recent work on aid and governance comparing Pakistan and Bangladesh is quite insightful in this respect. Best wishes, Keston

O'Neil certainly has been very adroit in maintaining his grip on power and dealing with any attempts at removing him from the leadership. In many ways it is similar to the recent NA hegemony with Somare at the forefront of that leadership group and ruling with a grand coalition.... He has in effect continued the de-parliamentarization started by Somare and his party (check Matthew Shuggarts blog for some discussion on this) No engagement with Parliament is probably critical to such politicians who yearn to such periods of uninterrupted rule. For me as I read this article my gut reaction is who cares... In this day and age and with the requirements for developing and growing our country how does being a skilfully politician "advance the civilisation"? Both Somare and O'Neil had enough opportunity to build this nation up and take us to a different level of freedom and property... However despite the record budgets not much has changed in rural PNG where the bulk of the population lives. It's interesting having this article to read as we think about the leadership style and traits of LKY of Singapore however no comparison is possible.

Hi Vinny Thanks for this and especially for the examples of governments that do purchase insurance.

Dear Keston, Thank you for your comment. While I agree that terms such as good governance can be nebulous, I don't think the problem is one of epistemology, but rather definition. And in the Solomons case the definition implicit in my analysis is not particularly problematic: the country's state is not capable of providing basic public services such as health and eduction which would improve Solomon Islanders' welfare; nor is it doing a good job of promoting economic development (either through some form of industrial policy of the sort that Kahn or Rodrik might approve of, or through a more Washington Consensus type approach). These complaints are not mine alone. As I emphasised in the first blog post in the series, Solomon Islanders themselves freely express their frustrations with the governance the country experiences. I am sorry if my posts on Solomon Islands electoral politics and political economy strike you as negative and paternalistic. In terms of the negativity, it is hard to be too positive given the ongoing challenges the country is facing and the clinetelist trap its politics appear to be stuck in. However, you will note in the final point above that I do emphasise a the encouraging rise of new civil society groups and express my hope that they may hold some of the solutions to the challenges the country faces. I have also in previous posts noted the significant achievement that the country has made in holding relatively good elections. In a similar vein, I am sorry that my blog posts on Solomon Islands seem paternalistic to you. However, I would contend that is not really paternalistic to argue that "aid can’t transform Solomon Islands. Its problems are domestic, born of its own political economy, and ultimately this is where solutions will have to come from too. For the time being though, aid can help: it can hold things together, it can improve people’s lives, and it can enhance, in its own small way, the space for change to grow from within." I would suggest that rather than being paternalistic, I am pointing out that the agency for change here lies foremost with Solomon Islanders themselves, not outside powers. Thank you for your suggestion regarding Mushtaq Kahn. I have learnt a lot from reading his work on political settlements. But I do not think -- as you appear to suggest -- that the problem in Solomons case is that external actors are imposing the wrong ideals of good governance on the country's politics. For what it's worth I think the Solomons case fits in quite well with Kahn's typology as a kind of non-developmental clientelist state. The real issue is what might possibly shift it out of this equilibrium. My guess/hope is that will be the rise of a new form of domestic civil society which allows the country to overcome the collective action problems inherent in trying to move to more programmatic politics. I am open to other suggestions though. Thanks again for your comment. Terence