Comments

I agree the Commonwealth Secretariat should have made the book available gratis as a downloadable PDF file, as is now the practice of the World Bank. As it is, even the PDF version will set you back £35. However, you can at least view the whole book page by page online, <a href="http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/commonwealth/social-issues-migration-health/migration-and-development_9781848599239-en#page1" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Hi my name is Tracey . I was online and I googled jobs for economist in PNG and came across this. I think Mr Cornish, my current lecturer got this job. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone behind this scheme and the australian government. I am more than thankful for Mr Cornish I have learnt more than I would probably have if it wasn't for you guys. Thanks again 🙂

Thanks for the review Carmen. Even if the book was amazing (and by the sounds of it, this is perhaps not the right word to use), the price is a major disincentive. Amazon are retailing for $108. I work for a small non-profit and we're currently research a project on migration and development yet this type of barrier to access means I'll never get my hands on a copy. If researchers want their work to be engaged with seriously, they have to do better.

I'm not sure they have been publicly released. If you write to CARE Cambodia - and for CAVAC maybe through DFAT/Aid section at the Embassy - they will send you a copy. At one stage, CARE had the debt report available on their website, but it doesn't seem to be there now.

I just have a comment here that Microbusiness activities dominating the informal sector of PNG means that people are involved in income earning activities just to cope with their daily living. They do buying and selling for their own interests, rather than for the interest of the community/province/nation as a whole. However in fact, entrepreneurial activities are for the benefit and interest of the community as a whole. So more people involved in enterprise means that the benefit of their activities will be seen changing the community as a whole, rather than self-interested activities of the microbusinesses. Hence, if the Provincial and National Governments of PNG allow more entrepreneurial activities than just generalising microbusinesses, I think PNG will show a big improvement in its SME sectors. Entrepreneurial activities are the activities that quite directly contribute to the Provincial and National Budgets in terms of taxation. So more of these activities will benefit the government, hence the government has enough cash to spend on other areas of priority....(Magin Mirem. student @uog. 2015).

Hi Ian, Excellent article. You and others may be interested in DFAT's contribution to a successful effort to raise excise taxes on tobacco in the Philippines. In its first year of implementation (2013), the new law raised about $1 billion in additional revenue for health care. In addition, smoking prevalence dropped for the first time in 15 years. A report on the politics of introducing the reform is available <a href="http://www.odi.org/publications/8455-philippines-aid-political-analysis" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Thanks.

There are so many plans that are filling up the cabinets of the National Planning Department. We have a Capitalist economy which states, people struggle to get up there; and only few are up there and the majority are below; the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. Papua New Guinea is a Melanesian society, based on collectivism rather than indvidualism. I would like to refer to The Melanesian Obligatory Network by Father Clower (UPNG, Civics & Ethics, 2014), that malensian societies, people goals, dreams, efforts, achievements, are reflected in the group dynamics rather than oneself. A man's fortnight pay is for the whole family and relatives, and not just himself. So the Melanesian society obligatory network can be seen a horizontal rather than vertical which is going up. If we can get the plans inclined to our way of doing things, I believe we will see this country move forward. See Malaysia & Japan, they develop developmental planning accroding ot their culture and ways of doing thing, that's why they have changed rapidly compared to us PNG, who are living in a melanesian culture and trying to practice western concepts in development.

Glad you liked this evaluation Joanna. I should clarify that although this evaluation was led by an ODE staff member, the team did also include a consultant, Kate Sutton, whose contribution was invaluable.

Old but evergreen cliche by Lord Palmerston applies here aptly "there are no permanent friends or permanent foes in international relations,only permanent interests".It is a master stroke by the policy makers in UK to join the new bank despite all the opposition of USA because both the pillers of UK foreign policy are crumbling-EU under its own weight and USA under threat by the evolving geostrategic and geoeconomic realities.However I agree with the writer that joining AIIB will not only be beneficial for UK but also for the bank also particularly in ensuring transparency and filling in the capacity deficit of developing countries for project preparation and implementation. Good analysis.

Thanks Bill, That makes sense -- my wife has recommended I read the book '<a href="http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/" rel="nofollow">Portfolios of the Poor</a>' as exemplar study of the complicated financial lives of people living in poverty. Although I haven't read it yet, from speaking to her, I get the sense that this book is a good first effort at obtaining the better understanding you speak of. Do you know if the CAVAC, and CARE and Oxfam studies are online? Beyond that, I share your hope for more sophisticated approaches to development practice, and that one day we become better at avoiding the hammer and nail dilemma. Thanks again. Terence

Terence My last comment on this blog, but I think it was a useful exchange. First, who said anything about there being a ‘conspiracy’ claim in the Duvendack systematic review? I certainly didn’t. Why does this conspiracy charge always arise whenever someone argues that hidden motives behind the declared ones might readily explain a particular issue? To repeat, Duvendack et al essentially said that the evidence supporting microfinance was simply not there, yet the microfinance industry was born nonetheless, which is why they concluded that political scientists need to try to understand “[why] inappropriate optimism towards microfinance became so widespread”. This is why a focus on the motives and actions of the institutions and individuals actually promoting microfinance is desperately required so that we do not repeat the errors the development industry made in supporting microfinance. You also point to the tiny number of studies that were somewhat sceptical of microfinance as if this disqualifies the much larger argument that the bulk of the studies were biased in supporting microfinance when the evidence did not warrant such support. Perhaps I should have used the term ‘virtually all’ on reflection, but its still a very minor point to make regardless. Second, I could have quoted at length the evidence on which consider the conclusions of Roodman and Karlan were, in my opinion, wrong and why this was so. But I provided many references to the work I did on this issue (the RRPE review of Roodman’s book and the blog posting on Governance across borders), so that anyone with an interest can go to these sources and see what I am saying, rather than me repeating it all once more on the blog. Why is this not sufficient? It will take you a few seconds to click on to my articles and minutes to read them, and then you can come back with problems in what I write, or the lack of evidence, etc. Without being at all conspiratorial in any way of course(!), it does seem as though you are very determined to rubbish my opinions without actually knowing anything about the evidence that underpins them. Third, to your claim that microfinance is not ‘true free market economics’. I tend to agree, and those on the extreme fundamentalist right have sometimes attacked microfinance for being subsidised (initially) and anyway simply too interventionist, as <a href="https://mises.org/library/microcredit-or-macrowelfare-myth-grameen" rel="nofollow">here</a>. But the core increasingly commercial principles of microfinance as it emerged after its initial links with non-governmental organisations were abandoned under USAID and World Bank pressure – self-help, individual entrepreneurship, no need for subsidies, no need for state intervention or the exercise of collective capabilities by the poor to escape poverty, etc – were all core free market (neoliberal) principles strongly espoused by the development industry under pressure from the main neoliberal-oriented governments (the USA and UK in particular). This was why microfinance bloomed. There was certainly no real evidence at the time, as Duvendack et all show in retrospect, to underpin the huge belief in microfinance. This is not a conspiracy, but simply the usual deployment of state power to bring about a favoured outcome. Milford

Hi Terence A problem with much of the research on microfinance (and to a certain extent with microfinance itself) is that it is promoted and implemented as a stand alone activity. Unfortunately, microfinance, in any of its myriad forms, is a one-dimensional approach to development. "Getting out of poverty", especially for the very poor and marginalised, is a complex process and requires a much bigger toolkit than just availability of cheaper money. I think this is pretty well understood by people who work with poor rural populations, and the results of the recent research on the poor performance of microfinance comes as a no surprise to most development practitioners. A better understanding of how poor rural households use their money, assets and resources, including loans, is needed. When I worked in this area in Cambodia, it was very hard to find any relevant research. The Australian aid program, through CAVAC, did some preliminary work with poor households on incomes, and CARE and Oxfam commissioned a large study on rural debt in the wake of the 2011 floods. I am hopeful that future programs that target poverty more effectively will emerge. Microfinance may be a part of this, but for the moment, the situation reminds me of the saying that if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.