Comments

Thanks again Kien -- I agree (for the reasons you raise) that subjective well-being is a somewhat problematic tool for assessing welfare (then again, so are the alternatives). On paternalism, that's a somewhat different issue from measuring subjective welfare, and also from the state providing merit or public goods. Here the issue is people making mistakes, which then lead to worse welfare outcomes for them (either objective or subjective). Now the question is should the state intervene, either to prevent or to nudge people away from the mistakes they would otherwise make. I agree - this is an interesting area.

I think you miss one key point made by much of the post-development thinkers, that 'development' is a powerful discourse; a powerful way or seeing and organising the world, to define developed and undeveloped - a completely Western worldview. Post-development thinkers tend to make a distinction between development as a collection of positive programs, and development as a ideology, a discourse. I found it is primarily the latter they were concerned with. But then again, it's been a while since I've read the material.

Philippa's blog echoes the concerns raised in the context of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement. Mike Finger and Philip Schuler in a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2215" rel="nofollow">1999 paper</a> estimated the large costs that selected developing countries had it incur in implementing 'unprecedented obligations' to put in place institutional structures and laws to regulate technical, sanitary and phytosanitary standards and intellectual property law. They pointed out that imposing these obligations had little bearing on the problems those countries were dealing with,and took no account of capacity. On TRIPS, Finger and Schuler said: 'As to diagnosis, its focus is not on encouraging innovation or protecting endogenous technology in developing countries, it is on industrial country enterprises' collecting for intellectual property on which least developed countries now recognize no obligation to pay. And after the Uruguay Round, successive developing and least developed countries have had to take on similar obligations as a condition of joining the WTO, reinforced by requirements of bilateral and regional trade agreements. What Philippa makes clear is that this has been at best only peripherally about delivering benefits to those countries.

"Collective action to improve social outcomes" is a better way of putting this. Also have no difficulty with the idea that while people adapt, their subjective assessment of their own well-being is also influenced by objective considerations. So the adaptation is partial. But I think subjective well-being remains a misleading guide to well-being even if people's subjective well-being are influenced by objective considerations. This might imply that some paternalism is unavoidable, which I realise is not a comfortable concept.

Thanks Kien, If by 'social planning' you mean some sort of collective action to improve on the outcomes we would see from market based mechanisms alone, I definitely agree with you. On the adaptability and subjective utility. As I understand it set point theory is contested, although it's not my area of expertise so I'm open to correction. I would say though that the chart in my post above is, I think, evidence against the 'people adapt' hypothesis. If people adapted, on average, to most circumstances we wouldn't see any correlation between GDP and subjective utility, all countries would score more or less the same. Thanks again for your comment. Terence

Perhaps another way of putting this is that people adapt and so subjective utility is a misleading guide to well-being. If objective measures of well-being (eg life expectancy, infant mortality, unemployment) are accepted, some degree of social planning seems unavoidable.

It is good to inform young doctors that there are various opportunities waiting for them in other countries. They can help poor people and enhance their skills as well.

Jo, In case Philippa doesn't see this, "noodle bowls" are the mess of bilateral rules and regulations which result from a large number of regional or bilateral trade agreements. One of the traditional criticisms of such agreements (and an argument in favour of WTO and multilateralism) is that they create this expensive and distortionary complex set of deals. I read Philippa as saying that there are more serious things to worry about when it comes to free-trade agreements than this. And note her criticisms re the treatment of IP apply to bilateral and multilateral deals alike,

I agree with you Patrick. PNG should not be put down by themselves or by other people. To be clear we are still are developing country. Therefore no man has no right to degrade PNG!!!

Thanks for this Wesley, and also for your paper which I enjoyed reading very much - it's great to be able to expand this conversation. I agree entirely with all that you have said about export potential and blockages arising from Australian quarantine and phyto-sanitary issues. These are less of an impediment (by a very significant margin) when it comes to exporting agri-prducts (e.g. root crops) to New Zealand from the Pacific. Your paper references the work of PT&I in this space and they have certainly done some sterling work with producers, including assistance with labelling, barcodes, etc. This is reflective of the need to work with the entirety of supply chains. I think there are a couple of points to add in relation to supplying domestic markets (see also the forthcoming 'Pacific Conversation' with Astrid Boulekone). In countries such as Vanuatu there is more to be done about linking primary producers with the tourism sector. (I won't bore you again with the 'why tourism is like mining' argument). In all Melanesian countries, urban populations are growing and for reasons of economy and public health (nutrition) there are increasingly strong arguments for ensuring that foodstuffs can move from rural to urban locations and be affordable to people who are not able to produce for themselves because they do not have access to a garden or they do not have time to grow food because they are participating in the wage economy (or a combination of the two). To return to the current 'steer' for the Australian aid program, there have been several mentions of leveraging private sector (and in particular Australian private sector) actors as development partners. Carnival (owner and operator of P&O cruise ships) has been cited as an exemplary 'development partner' (by people other than me). I hope we can see this partnership being 'leveraged' so that Carnival becomes an active (and indeed proactive) purchaser of niche products such as those you have identified here. Their track record in this space is extremely disappointing so there is plenty of opportunity to improve and impress.

Thanks Philippa. Great post on an important issue. What are "noodle bowls"?

Thanks for the post Neil, good to see this publication getting attention a couple of years after it came out. There is a lot to recommend in it, the main attribute being the examination of the way economic policy reforms are actually achieved, as opposed to assumptions of how they're achieved. These case studies have helped extend the growing body of work around the need for aid agencies to understand how "to think and work in a more politically informed way" into quite practical applications. For example the Asia Foundation subsequently developed and ran 'development entrepreneur' training programs, to test the idea that these kinds of actors could be identified, mentored and encouraged in their quest for positive reforms. See <a href="http://asiafoundation.org/publications/pdf/1062" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pdf] for an outline of that. In discussions that flowed from these economic reform case studies with the Asia Foundation I raised the question of whether the same 'basic ingredients' applied for social sector policy reforms. That is obviously of interest to agencies that invest heavily in 'reforms' in education, health, etc. To the credit of the Asia Foundation they took up the challenge to look into that question, and have now completed a second series of case studies examining that question, and the publication (Room for Manuever: Social Sector Policy Reform in the Philippines) will be launched in early March 2014 (full disclosure: these were part funded by Australian Aid Philippines program where I was formerly engaged). And to connect to Chris' comment - Adrian Leftwich, the late Research Director of the DLP Program, was actively involved in these social sector reform case studies and a contributor to the upcoming book. I would think under the new focus of the Australian Aid program since the election there would be more scope for this kind of analysis - i.e. attempts to dig deep into the political reality of how change happens in the countries where Australian aid is directed, and use that information to shape partnerships that allow for flexible support to passionate, connected and committed people who have a particular reform or advocacy goal to focus on. The idea of a 'development entrepreneur' is a catchy one, and hopefully one that gains momentum.