Comments

You've distilled so much here Graham. I've worked in governance in the region and for multilateral and bi-lateral aid (yes over a shorter timespan than you!). I've tried, in multiple programming contexts, to bring practice informed by proper disciplinary thinking in areas including political economy, historical institutional and political settlements analysis. I've seen brilliant and committed thinkers and doers engaging creatively and passionately, but banging their heads on (or losing their heads to) what has become an increasingly low and jagged ceiling. It's chilling; and the ability to sit back now and say, 'yes, well, that programming outcome was entirely predictable' only adds to the astringent grief. Some of the best work I have seen was done on the inside of organisations, in reviews and program planning that needed to keep the real analysis in the background, but informing real grounded work. Sadly now the evidence of even the best of that work will perhaps not be a part of future assessment of what was gained. But that was a choice we made: to work inside, say what we thought was real and true, and what we needed to learn more about. And somehow- it seems naive now- to trust that in both the bigger picture and in the opps, the information and insight would reach and percolate. And, create an extra loop in the organisations' practical consciousness; and, turn into something smarter and better grounded than what we got. And yes, now that the effective, informed institutional audience for this kind of input has itself been winnowed, and the intention has shifted from generically good governance and grounded engagement to geopolitics, it's hard to see what can emerge, and where. I got out of the academy to do this work: now the academy looks like some kind of temporary refuge and viewpoint.

Thanks, Graham. I appreciate the summary of your work experience. More of us should follow suit. That comment about Claire Short and her goal to transform DFID “from a project factory into a development organisation” truly resonated. While some may now criticise Trump’s America for its complete capitulation to immediate self-interest, particularly regarding aid, they are merely following a path already trodden by Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and many others before them. The scales of development will eventually tip back, but likely only when enough people recognise that selfless service aligns with our long-term self-interest.

Thank you Dr. Thiago. As PNG is celebrating its 50th independence and it's preparing for an election come 2027; I'm sure the PNG Constitutional and Law Reform Commission and The Electoral Boundaries Commission will look into it.

Thanks for spotting this Ray, You're right, the question we asked was about annual averages: "Now consider the last ten years or so. On average, each year, how many migrants do you think: 1. Arrived in Australia; 2. Left Australia"

Are you sure the net overseas migration over the last decade is 229,000? The ABS say net overseas migration in 2024 was 445,600. At https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/jun-2024 the graph shows annual averages of around 200,000 or more apart from the Covid period. Do you mean annual average?

This is one of the best, frank analysis I have read so far in regards to the level of accountability of the Prime Minister and State Ministers in Papua New Guinea in regard what they say in public and in media compared to the feasible outcome of those grandstanding. As far as integrity is concerned, a person(s) who make public statements contrary to their action have no integrity left in them, unless ordinary Papua New Guineans are suffering from long term memory loss. Apparently, our political system of Government can't flush out MPs who keep on making false promises. The Vote of No Confidence was our hope as safety valve , unfortunately that section of the Constitution is being tampered with by Government. Money politics has taken over good Governance . The same people (voters) who complain about poor decisions are the same people who get to vote these MPs once they are promised personal benefits. We observed most of these in the 2022 National General Elections. Of course, the Government hate reading those election reports as it exposed how most of the MPs got into office, some take on Ministries and effect influence on appointments of Department Heads ect. So, what we put in is what we are reaping. If only we have voted in Men and Women with Integrity, we would get good Governance as a consequence. We get talkers in, we all talk all the way till Papua New Guinea experience a promised winter. Thanks Anthon for this thought provoking research and write up.

Robin’s blog outlines the lengthy battles that USAID has been subjected to over many years merely to survive and try to fulfil its role in global statecraft. While it has had many flaws (and past and present USAID officers could recount them at length), it has been the largest source of development aid and the demise of those funding flows will have enormous implications for the millions of people who received support from programs funded through USAID, and the soft-power of the USA throughout many areas of the world. Undoubtedly, many programs were of questionable merit, and many were structured or targeted poorly – the same could be said of DFAT or DFID/FCDO programs and others. That was a huge frustration to the USAID officers. Many of its processes were tedious and, like all bureaucracies, it needed a regular overhaul. That was also a major frustration to those working in it or on projects for it. However, having worked on USAID funded programs across multiple countries in the Asia/Pacific, Africa and the former Soviet Union, I was always impressed by the level of commitment by USAID officers to try to ensure the programs worked for the recipient populations, and worked in ways that were sustainable beyond simply meeting the USA’s geopolitical objectives. Inevitably the levels of experience and insights that individual officers brought to the task varied, but there were always enough skills amongst the country office teams to work creatively to seek the best outcome for the target population and the relevant project as well as meeting US strategic objectives. Senior field staff were very conscious not to repeat past history where USAID had been misused in ways not of benefit to recipient populations. If what is going on now was simply a review of projects to ensure they are effective, or an organizational change such as what occurred with the absorption of AusAID into DFAT, that would be simple enough. But nothing suggests that to be the case. What appears to be occurring is a rejection of the basic tenant of development assistance that those of us who have worked in the field have believed in – that building human and social capital, as well as financial capital, on a widespread basis (recognizing what political economy teaches us of the essential need for equity) was of value, not just to the communities in the target countries, but also to those in other countries. (That was the basis on which JFK set up USAID – that a healthier, more educated and prosperous world was a more secure world.) Moreover, what appears to be occurring is a rejection of the idea that improving the ‘wealth’ (encapsulating human, social and financial capital) of ‘others’ has any value at all – instead, only one’s own wealth has value. Threads of that philosophy against supporting development are, unfortunately, evident in other countries, not just the USA. While there can be argument about the best way to support development, if we believe in the value of improving the ‘wealth’ of others, not just of ourselves, we have a big task ahead.

My name is Murtaza. I belong to Pakistan. I was working as a Red Cross doctor in Pakistan.

In the family planning field the role of USAID was pivotal and lasting. At least until Trump 1.0. Bankrolling the demographic and health surveys meant that policy making had good information for planning and assessing. Now that is gone. The supply of contraceptives around the world relied heavily on the US and from time to time support for research on abortion could be sourced from local USAID offices, though US Legislators had eagle eyes and ready claws to eliminate these. Always bureaucratic, the programs set up by USAID were often made possible by Peace Corps alumni who had learned how to circumvent road blocks. One can only hope. Elon must have a use by date even shorter than Trump’s. 2025 perhaps.

A thoughtful response! My memories of USAID (Laos 1970-1975) were of a well-meaning, hamstrung bureaucracy subject to the whims of the US ambassador and to the CIA. Its huge warehouse at KM9 poured out almost everything that a conflict might need - bulldozers to army rations. It tended to employ almost any Australian or other ‘third country National’ who wandered nearby. Its reach was enormous: AirAmerica or Continental were available at any moment. The Director was genial and competent. He regarded the organisation as an arm of US diplomacy and, as a consequence, was subject to the whims of the US ambassador - G McMurtrie Godley. It also employed some highly competent, dedicated people who undertook real development work, often in extremely dangerous environments. Some were killed in the course of their work.

A much needed to be said perspective amidst the current lamenting.

Very interesting and a little disturbing to see Australia's low rates of refugee intakes, particularly when we are such an affluent country.