Comments

The suggestion that the State should explore innovative ways for increased ownership in companies such as Oil Search" - isn't that exactly what the State did by buying 10.01% of Oil Search? The concluding remarks regarding the State exploring innovative ways for direct participation by people in these companies is inconsistent with the neo-liberal arguments advocated in the article! Oil Search shares are publicly traded on POMSOX and ASX and people can purchase them there; the State purchased the shares through public placement. The perception peddled publicly that SOEs are inefficient has been made but when one considers that the average aggregate rate of returns on equity and assets over the last decade is around 10% and 5%, respectively, then it is not so bad. Any return on equity around 5% is considered conservative.

WhyDev put up a great comment on Twitter on this post, saying that there was another problematic omission in the new strategy: climate change. Since I couldn't think of a 140-character response, I'm responding here. The words 'climate change' do actually feature once, but only once in the strategy. I agree that the topic is, if not omitted, then very much underdone. My only defence of our omission of this almost-complete omission is that the latter unfortunately reflects a problem with the Coalition's lack of commitment to serious action on climate change (both at home and abroad) more broadly rather than with their aid policy per se.

Great blog! Is the new aid policy available online? If so, where can it be accessed? Thanks!

Hi Garth, I 100% agree. Listening to the Minister's words, she mentioned that aid had failed to meet expectations and that we can't continue to spend billions and get no results. But especially in her answers to the questions from the journos, it did start to seem clear that the rationale for the "new paradigm" is largely driven by perceptions of failure in PNG. It's a bit odd - where countries have succeeded, it represents the success of trade and economic growth (aid is irrelevant); where countries have not succeeded, it represents the failure of aid (and not the failure of trade or economic growth). So aid can't really win. So in PNG, it is not that economic growth and trade has failed to take hold or lead to progress but rather that aid has failed. The idea that aid is a panacea is a strawman - I don't think anyone in the aid community actually ever argued that aid alone would solve all development challenges. Joel

I agree with you Stephen that continued incremental reform of the aid program is a good thing and I hope that many of the ideas promoted by the Government are a success. There is room for improvement and we should be open to innovation. However I notice that the minister relies heavily on problems with aid to PNG to explain the need for reform. It is true that PNG may not reach any of the MDGs by 2015 but an analysis of Australia's main developing country partners shows that PNG is not at all typical of their performance. Of the 14 largest aid recipients only PNG and Afghanistan are doing poorly on the MDGs. The other twelve all score 55% or higher when assessed using the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/may/29/millennium-development-goal-progress-data" rel="nofollow">Center for Global Development/DATA MDG Index</a>.

Hi Irene, That is an excellent point. Good development practice implies a long-term partnership over 10 years (or at least 5) where trust is built and innovation and mutual risk-taking is allowed. One year windows to judge success or failure does not mesh well with the realities of projects nor the reality of innovation. Not sure how that will be balanced. I do wonder how many projects will actually be axed after one year. Joel

Great blog, as usual. I'd like to add another aspect, not an omission but just an inconsistency that is at odds with the focus on 'innovation', notably that 'ineffective' projects get axed after one year. This also reeks of ignorance of real world contexts. On what basis would projects get axed? Ineffective defined how? Inability to get project staff at all levels in place quickly enough? This often takes lots of time. Inability to align the implementing partners when there are multiple organisations involved? This also often takes quite some time. Inability to show progress with outputs? How often are activities up and running quickly? Inability to show results? Of course impossible. A one year timeframe effectively annuls any opportunity for project-level innovation, adaptive management and learning. Clearly only willing to take 140 million dollars worth of risk.

Hey there Mel. Good point. But I don't think we need to know more on this one. If the private sector thinks it can do more to contribute to educating the public then it should. My lack of inclusion was simply an oversight, probably based on my experience of not yet seeing involvement from the private sector in public education (and quite possibly limited experience at that). As I see it, the more energy and resources that go into meaningful, quality public education about international development issues, the better. Certainly some space for some creative partnerships, too.

The question this blog (nor the policy) does not address is the buzz phrase of 'women's economic empowerment' (vague code I think for microfinance), included under private sector development. I am sure Mahommed Yunus (of Grameen Bank fame) would think it should be, but do the policy wonks in DFAT think the same, and did Robin and Margaret include it in their calculations? Personally I am not a great fan of MF as it does not live up to a lot of its hype, and can disempower women as much as it can empower them, but it is worth a mention at least under private sector development (SMEs and all that).

Thanks Grant. I think your previous post made a good and succinct observation on the changing dynamic within the country's anti-corruption agencies. My <a href="http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/04/04/A-victory-over-corruption-in-PNG-paul-tiensten.aspx" rel="nofollow">earlier article</a> with the Lowy Institute in light of Tienten's case described this as an "awakening". Lowy's article agrees with your observations that despite the potential hassles OC may face, "it’s good to see the Commission on the prowl"… or "baring their teeth." However, I don't think this post suggest that yours 'unduly' praised the OC, rather it caution against the degree of confidence in the OC appeared to be implied from yours. Similar confidence can be implied from my Lowy article in terms of the Task Force Sweep. While such implication may be correct, this post sees it is necessary to caution, especially in light of the recent events in the last two weeks concerning the Ombudsman. Also, its past record. It is important to identify this in making the point that the OC have always tried to be on the 'prowl' but rarely 'bite.'

Thanks for the interesting post, Bal. Here you suggest I unduly praise the OC in my <a href="https://devpolicy.org/png-anti-corruption-agencies-show-their-teeth-20140404/" rel="nofollow">previous post</a>, however, I don't think that is the case. I certainly am hopeful about the OC finally starting to investigate cases after a long silence, but I write that: "There’s still a long way to go before these investigations are concluded, and it is far from clear as to whether the Commission will secure any convictions or, in the case of Central Lands Limited, cause workers to down tools". My contention is that it is better to have the OC investigating these issues than continued silence. We all hope that the OC will bite; but first it must investigate (go ‘on the prowl’, so to speak), no?

Great thoughts. Your motivations to write this piece are noble and your arguments touch only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you were being careful in your writing, understandably. I have been working in Pakistan for the betterment of the communities for the 11 years of my career and i have seen some very disturbing aspects of how efficiency of Overseas Development Assistance is compromised. Just a recent example. I recently closed a project that focused on child marriages. Of the total cost of the project (that was 5.2 million Euros) more than 45% went on admin costs; 10 times more money was spent on the cost of traveling and staying in Lavish 5 star hotels as compared to the meager cost of the project activity. Although this information could be digested / defended by the school of thought that opposes the jist of your arguments if it were not for the final painful observation which is : Of the 5.2 million Euros for the project LESSER than 1% of the money went to the targeted beneficiaries. I always feel crushed at this knowledge. I have seen people making enough DSA's (from traveling nationally and internationally) that amount to 2-3 months of their salaries. Hence the term "Development Tourism". I can go on and on about my experiences, and yes I totally agree with what you say, and i support your observations passionately. And above all, thank you for choosing such thought provoking title for your piece.