Comments

Thanks for your comments Deborah (I found them!). I have been collecting together some various thoughts about how best Vanuatu can be supported as we move from relief into recovery and rebuilding. You will find them here: www.tncpacificconsulting.com and I would invite you and others to contribute by way of comment and content to what I hope will be a forum where meaningful, practical and appropriate ideas can be canvassed and developed so that they are available to policy makers whether within Vanuatu or elsewhere.

Thank you for enjoying this #DevelopmentAprilFools: Devpolicy for being game, Owen for spreading the joke and Laurence for your generous comments. Alas, there has been no ruling requiring donors to cough up their unpaid aid, nor a ‘reverse HIPC’ to help them with their ‘moral creditworthiness’. Yet the blog does have a serious message--ODA over the last forty years has been just a fraction of the amount promised. As the world reviews progress on the MDGs and steps forwards into the SDG era, it is worth reflecting on what might have been achieved if the 0.7% target had been met, and what could be achieved if it is...

As a friend of Vanuatu over many years, I would like to support and echo your comments about resilience and community capacity to respond. Collectivism is a very deeply held value in Vanuatu (albeit sometimes tested in urban settings) and this enables people to share available resources and support each other in challenging times. It is inspiring to see that the thoughtful disaster preparedness plans made by Vanuatu communities and organisations, albeit highly tested by Pam's impact, are being applied in practice across the country. It is also good to hear hints of humility and respect for local leadership being shown by external contributors to Vanuatu's recovery, in this context, although it strikes me there is always room for more of this. There is clearly space for external support in the critical stages after an event such as Cyclone Pam: lessons learned from other disasters confirm the critical importance of supporting local leadership and other institutional and community capacity rather than supplanting it, even in the early stages. While material resources may well be appropriate in many cases, local networks, leadership and collectivist behaviour can also make big contributions to recovery in the longer term. For external contributors, it will be important to maintain (and perhaps temporarily boost, if requested) existing long-term partnerships, development programs and business-as-usual arrangements during the recovery process, despite the short-term challenges. It will also be strategically important for external players to consider what they can do to help prevent the recurrence of such major weather events which may be an effect of human-caused climate change!

Professor, after reading your above article I can summarise that the said regime and rule unmistakeably resembles "Qualities of a prince" chpt 14-19. (Niccolo Marchiavelli-The Prince).

Hi Rebecca, Great comment thank you. I definitely take your point about the political economy on the donor side of the equation, and it is depressing to see just how quickly learning can be swept away by a change of government, and the arrival of a new Minister who really wants to build runways, or whatever. That being said, I think/hope there is also some space for what we learn to influence policy in a more lingering way, just as you hope that there is still scope for individual aid workers to improve things even when matters political economy go awry at the donor end. And while it's true (as I acknowledge in the post) that some aid workers have been well aware of these issues it didn't seem to me when I started my research as if all the intellectual dots had been connected when it came to understanding Solomons politics and what politics mean for aid. And I still don't think that the facts of the country's political economy are as well connected to the way the aid world thinks about development in Solomons as they could be. Hence my post. On the importance of individual civil servants at the recipient end: I definitely agree, it's not all incentives and the problems of politics, and there is some scope for change, as well as many admirable individuals labouring away under commissions which would have had me give up long ago. And I definitely agree it is worth working with and encouraging such reformers (an argument I'd try and smuggle in, retrospectively, under point 4 above). But I think -- on the basis of the political trajectories of other countries -- that without political change there are still severe constraints on what can be achieved by individual civil servants alone (much as I agree that it is worth still working with reformers). On capacity building - I think you put it well and I agree (although I would say "help", rather than "work"). Thanks again. Terence

Professor Jan Kees van Donge. Your article is full of errors - incorrect statements; not entirely correct statements/incorrect information plus typo's. A copy of your article was shared with our admin team earlier today and I advised a co-admin not to share it on PNG NEWS (PNG's largest social media news forum where we now have more than 102,000 members) because of all the errors. I believe it has already been deleted from The Voice of PNG - another large & popular PNG forum on Fb. Personally I am surprised that any Professor of Political Science could publicly make such errors and I am surprised that the Blogmaster of this site never detected all the errors and went ahead and published it.

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.