Comments

Hi Terence, Great post, most of which I agree with! But I have to admit that as I read your post with an overwhelming sense of despair. Your points are all well made and (mostly) spot on. But, without meaning any offence to you, none of it is new. I find it both fascinating and distressing that we are still having to “tell” donors this information. Everything said here has been said to and said by donors in the Solomon Islands before. So while I totally agree that understanding and learning to work with the political economy in Solomon Islands is critical, I think we also need to understand the political economy of donors - and why there is such an inability to learn and to change the way they work at the operational level, where it counts. Indeed, it feels to me that things have actually gone backwards in terms of the way donors are working in Solomon Islands. My sense is that over the last couple of years, the organisational behaviour of at least some donors and their ability (or willingness) to adapt ways of working to the context in Solomon Islands has deteriorated not improved. Your analysis of the political economy in Solomon Islands could easily be turned onto the donor organisations, and I suspect we might come up with some of the same conclusions! Having said that, I also think it is important not to treat donors as a homogenous group and to diminish the agency of individuals working within donor organisations. Just as it is important not to do the same to public servants in Solomon Islands. And this is where I do disagree with you somewhat, in that I think you under-estimate the ability (and will) of public servants to create positive change, albeit in small ways. Public servants are not entirely powerless under corrupt politicians – just as aid workers are not entirely powerless under (at times) ineffective donor organisations. There is much in the day-to-day work of service delivery that goes on without being captured by the whims of corrupt politicians or other elites. I agree that pushing through large-scale reform is unlikely to be achieved by public servants without the support of political elites and they do face repeated barriers even in just getting simple things done, But I do think there is potential to do more than just ‘holding together’ and there are effective, committed, energetic public servants within the system trying to create change – and sometimes succeeding. Also while I agree with you that donors focus on training and ‘capacity building’, as its typically delivered by donors, is probably not that helpful, I disagree that donors should therefore focus more on providing TA to hold things together. In my experience I would argue that at times donors default reaction of dumping a TA or inline staff into a department actually creates barriers to progress and is counterproductive. Instead, finding ways to support the emergent strengths within particular departments, whether that be particular individuals who are demonstrating will and ability for progressive change, or new mechanisms or processes that are evolving from within, taking advantage of windows for change that might open up. For me, this is what capacity development is actually about – not just training and TA – and it can work. This is backed by numerous studies and evaluations that have come out of Solomon Islands over the last decade or more. But just as you argue, it needs to also be based on a good understanding of the political economy of the situation as well as a really good understanding of the cultural and personal dynamics involved; something donors are spectacularly bad at as they rotate their staff every couple of years, rely on short term (and yes, even 3 years is short term) advisers, and value technical expertise over understanding of the cultural/social context. Hem no moa.

Is it a coincidence that this article is being published on 1 April?

Brilliant.

In noting that Aeras, a non-profit biotech working to develop TB vaccines, was not funded by the Australian government as it was two years ago, the author questions what may be the reason for this change. Aeras has been advised by DFAT that its decision does not relate to performance concerns. Rather, priority has been given to "products that will get to market quickly" and have a shorter "interval to impact" than vaccines. Researchers and organisations devoted to developing urgently needed TB vaccines should be concerned about this shortsighted approach. There are over 15 TB vaccine candidates in the global pipeline. Although vaccines take longer than drugs and diagnostics to develop, the final product can deliver far greater potential to end deadly epidemics, as we saw with smallpox and polio. The World Health Organization’s new End TB Strategy plans for the introduction of a new TB vaccine by 2025, which, along with new drugs and diagnostic tools, could result in virtual elimination by 2035. These are realistic targets – provided that donors step up. Aeras was reassured to receive notice from DFAT that "the Australian Government recognizes that TB vaccine development remains important in the longer term." Aeras is hopeful that Australia will very soon rejoin donors such as the U.K., the Netherlands and Japan who are supporting Aeras in the acceleration of vaccine development to reach WHO's global goals. John Godwin Aeras, Australia Representative

I Koni Poiye from Simbu would like to say that Peter O'Niell is the most influential figure in the political system of our country, who has the nature of changing position of the "BIG BOYS" whenever he feel that something will go wrong. He did this just for the good of the people of this country, but some of his actions are good and affect others positively and some are bad and affect others negatively. But I think he must follow the will of God to lead the country forward, because when the righteous rule the people rejoice. The welfare of the people and future of the country is very important, and therefore must be guarded well through critical thinking and evaluated decision making. KONI POIYE DWU SRS1 (Press) Simbu Stone.

I Koni Poiye from Simbu province, Sinesine doing my first year in Divine Word University would like to thank the O"Niel-Namah government for the implementation of free education in our country. It brings relief to the low income earners, increase the literacy rate in our country and boosts the economy of our country through producing a quality labor force. The free education policy must be here and not be removed.

Greetings Peter, You may benefit from reading my blog again. I argue that after the elections of 2012 there was a restoration of old forces in PNG politics that had been under attack in 2011-2012. So, you agree with me when you say that "The faces around the table making the decisions are mostly those that were in past governments. Jan Kees Dear Mark Davis, Again, I think that some rereading of my blog would be good. I write about O'Neill being a controversial politician, I write about accusations of predatory behaviour. I do therefore not gloss over these. However, the reason that I wrote this blog is that there is too much emotional condemnation at the expense of observation. Jan Kees. Dear Lawrence, I differ in opinion with you on the tribal nature of O'Neill's dominance. He has managed to become more of a national politician than any other in his generation. I agree with you that the country needs an aggressive anti corruption/misgovernance culture. However, I do think that any leadership that emerges will have to operate in an environment that compromises have to be made in this field: there is no group or movement that can take over. Jan Kees,

The conceptional framework of the PNGDSP sounds very interesting as it is the way forward for all Papua New Guineans. The executive government of the day is now in effort to stream line its strategic vision 2030 to transform Papua New Guinea from the poverty line to a medium income standard. However I wish to point out that every successive government keep on fabricating strategic development policies but noting of substance are being materialize to the district, LLGs and ward areas. It is always the case that only quarter of the policy segment is deliver and where it the entire benefits? People are still dying for curable disease and are still drinking drum water constantly. It all boils down to the so call public servants in the provinces, districts and LLGs areas. They are the implementing agencies of the government services but they fail to deliver the government policies to a maximum effort as it is there mandated duties and obligations. For the PNGDSP to be realistic the onus is now with the national government to revisit the public servants at the three levels and coordinate their duties in an impartial and objective manner. If it means to re constitutionalized the existing policies governing the department of public service and personal management with the focus to eradicate maladministration and zero tolerance of corrupt practices than do so for the good of all. Otherwise PNGDSP the path to vision 2030 & 2050 will be unrealistic.

It should be self-evident that achieving gender equality in the aid program is more than a set of principles, but requires targeted interventions matched to the contextual specifics. Yet it would seem that, whatever the well-meaning intent, evidence supports Lee Rhiannon’s premise that the “Coalition’s assumption that simply increasing economic activity will benefit women and children in low income countries fails to recognise the specific historical and cultural bases for gender inequality.” For example, the DFAT draft sub-Saharan Africa Aid Investment Plan says: “Our investments will all have robust gender strategies in place in order to contribute to positive gender equality outcomes and women’s economic empowerment … We are transitioning out of major investments in maternal and child health in East Africa, WASH and cross-boundary water management in Southern Africa, and agricultural productivity in West Africa … In light of the new aid policy and budget context the Africa program will tightly focus our investments both geographically, in Eastern and Southern Africa, and sectorally, in the extractives and agriculture sectors.” This means that the health of mother and child is no longer on the agenda, as is reducing the array of water borne diseases and the provision of safe water in Southern Africa, or the nutritional health of West Africans – the implication being that interventions that save lives and improve family health is no longer relevant. It is not just in African society that reducing women’s labour role in the home (which includes changing male attitudes) is a pre-requisite for creating the space required to enable women to engage in economic activity, and to take steps towards gender equality. Certainly investments in agriculture and extractives can have a pro-poor orientation, if consciously designed so and linked to support programs. Yet removing the programs that increase the ability for women to participate, while making a key measurement of success national economic growth indices, inevitably favours the elites with investment capital to take risk (predominantly men). DFAT aid personnel may have sought to broaden the approach but aid cuts have stifled planned innovations. The consequence easily becomes perpetration of existing inequalities, leaving women subordinate, and negating the expressed intent. It is almost as if rather than progressing concepts of good development, aid-thought has just jumped back a few decades.

Indeed the government needs to make tough decisions. It really needs to consult the senior bureaucrats and the advisers to obtain valuable higher level advice and be willing to work within the parameter of the advice they provide. If it has been paying no attention to their advice in the previous years decisions then it's time now that they rethink this strategy and capture the advice and comments to make better decisions for the nation.

Ok. If bribery and bullying are the way to go in demonstrating political mastery. Then I guess you’re right. It is well known that the price of Political Mastery is K10-K15 million in DSIP and related funds per year, per pollie and … yes … if you sit in the opposition your chances are somewhat diminished in getting anything at all with which to help along your re-election. So, yes again, not a popular seat. Politics without Principle was one of the deadly sins leading to downfall for a nation according to Ghandi. Not to mention Wealth without Work and Commerce without Ethics. I guess things have changed and now these outcomes are worthy of respect in PNG, even by academia. Bribing the pollies with the parallel govt. system of DSIP and the populous with handouts and confusing and badly thought out free education and health policies is not too hard if you have your hands on the public purse and feel like throwing out lollies. No-one (who counts) will argue. Ensuring the political appointment of heads of the public service, I guess, is another recent stroke of mastery. That potential source of free and fair advice and leadership is now also no threat to political agendas. Disbanding Task Force Sweep and the steady weakening of the “justice” system also brilliant, I suppose. There are very few checks and balances left. Rumours in the media suggest the existence of the Ombudsman Commission is even threatened. Unbelievable. I wonder how the economic and social dynamics of seeds that have being planted in recent years will pan out in future years. Cartels and cronyism are the name of the game and will be a bigger problem than blatant corruption. It would be an interesting social exercise to trace the connections between the “successful” businesses around the country, the boards of statutory bodies (from the Bank of PNG down) and their relationships to political personalities. Businesses are not thriving through innovation, competitiveness, quality and value for money. They are growing through political patronage, being in the in-crowd and their growing wealth and emerging family dynasties a la Indonesia and the Philippines are funded through public funds. Even through overseas development funds in many instances. Projects to award, materials for schools and health facilities, scholarships for higher education students … the funds for these are now often in the hands or under the influence of the pollies and their “executive officers” instead of strong public systems. So those who care about social justice are not only challenged to ensure the “poor” have the same opportunity as “the rich” … we have the added complication of the politically marginalised. Happy days for the cronies, their families and employees - but not a recipe for a healthy economy or society. At least, not when I went to school. One thing observers, commentators and even the politicians themselves seem to forget is that this current government is not a new government. The faces around the table making the decisions are mostly those that were in past governments. It’s just a game of musical chairs. I guess I’ll go now and start teaching my kids how to really get ahead in this world. Thanks for the lesson.

Thanks Tess, that's a good point. And, to be clear, I'm not being critical of established NGOs or donors, but rather what appears to be an influx of well-intended new arrivals who are making everyone else's job more difficult.