Comments

Hi Edward Social networks are important and underpin our communities. I wanted to clarify that my comment didn't intend any disrespect toward the wantok system. As you've said, it does come down to the context - the context in which a network is operating and how the it's being utilised. Cheers Jen

Hi Grant You're most welcome to use the Robin Hood analogy :). By framing it with a legend familiar to our culture, I think it makes it easier to relate/understand others' perceptions. Cheers Jen

Two points are worth noting with regards to the comments on overheads. 1. Delivering aid well is hard and success requires staff. The best overheads ratio isn't the lowest but rather the ratio the allows time for staff to learn context, engage with evidence and make informed decisions, while not being wasteful. There's no reason to think the current ratio errs on the wasteful side of the line. 2. OCED data on overheads (unless they have changed since I last looked into this) are based on self-reporting and different countries call different things overheads. Something that renders international comparisons largely meaningless.

I wonder what the millions of people who still can't get AIDS or TB treatment because of a shortage of funding think about the quality of the discussions about aid in our Parliament?

Hi Edward, Nice to hear from you. I'm with you on the importance of context. Although there are also many similarities in the way Papua New Guineans and Westerners understand corruption. It's worth remembering that most respondents were unsympathetic to the scenarios. I think that it is important to understand these similarities when seeking to engage citizens in the fight against corruption. Cheers, Grant

Thanks Jen, interesting comments. Some of the responses do suggest a kind of Robin Hood approach to redistributing gains from corruption, although I most condemned all forms of corruption. I might just borrow the Robin Hood concept for upcoming papers though...hope you don't mind...it's rather catchy. Thanks!! Grant

Thanks for your comment Michael, great to get your views. First, I agree that a small-scale studies of corruption is inadequate to understand the complexities of corruption. But, given the difficulties of measuring corruption and understanding its impacts, so are all attempts to research it. The problem with most research into corruption to date is that it has relied on the perceptions of elites (see TI’s Corruption Perception’s Index, Bribe Payers’ Index, the World Bank’s World Governance Indicators, etc). Many researchers assume that we know what corruption is and it is ultimately bad for all involved, so there is no point in understanding it from a citizen’s point of view. As a result, there is a paucity of research into what ‘corruption’ means for poor people. So while small-scale research might be inadequate to capture the totality of a broad concept like corruption, right now it is absolutely necessary. Without this analysis we will continue to come to the problem informed only/mostly by elite views. Moreover, understanding the views of the poor and marginalised should be a key concern for all of us engaged in the practice/study of development. For too long development has overlooked the views of those it is ostensibly meant to help – much to the detriment of people in developing countries. The problem with your assumption that the ‘silent masses’ would think in a particular way is that, given the support for some of the types of practices described in the study across PNG, it is likely that we would find similar results elsewhere. (Although possibly less so with urbanites, who make up a minority of the PNG population). I’m also aware that future generations are likely to suffer from today’s corruption, as are many Papua New Guineans judging by the household survey we conducted. But future generations are also likely to be subject to the same pressures of today’s Papua New Guineans, making it doubly important to understand how poverty and culture influence people’s support/rejection of corruption. Having said this, it is very difficult to speak for future generations; it’s a group whose views are impossible to survey (I’m ruling out time travel). We’ve only got people alive today to participate in our research. Second, the sympathetic respondents (who, it should be noted were a minority) did more than showing us that those who engage in corruption benefit from it. They highlight why corruption can be justified, and the difficulties that anti-corruption agencies face in changing these views. Anti-corruption efforts often focus the blame for corruption on those involved in corrupt acts. This sounds right, but it might be inadequate for garnering popular support against corruption. It also overlooks the structural violence of the state (and, it might be argued, other actors), through failing to provide essential services to the poor and marginalised. Given this, providing a link between acting ‘ethically’ and tangible development might help create better conditions for people to reject corruption. I’m not guaranteeing this will work, but I think it’s an option worth considering/testing. The relevance of such options, I think, only become apparent when garnering the views of local people and believing what they say. Of course, no one wants to encourage ‘corruption’, but we must be mindful about how it is defined across time and space. As James Scott (1972) points out many acts that the west now decries as corrupt were a part of conquering colonial regimes of the past. Likewise, the rules around developers supporting political parties has changed in the past few years in NSW. Was this type of transfer always corrupt, or only when it was legislated against due to public pressure? I think we need to be mindful of these issues if corruption is to be meaningfully addressed with the support of citizenry. Thanks again, Grant

It's more than a little mind-boggling that the PM can suggest that cutting aid is "not at odds with any aspect of foreign policy". The statement: "Redirecting flagged future increases in spending from foreign aid to domestic infrastructure should actually boost our influence in the region when it helps to bring about the stronger economy on which our international standing rests" would seem to suggest that spending on domestic infrastructure should be the primary means of enhancing foreign policy clout. (Leaving to one side, of course, whether the domestic infrastructure that is currently prioritised is the best bang for the buck in terms of domestic growth.) Interesting, too, that while aid has been subject to this fairly ruthless calculus, defence spending (where there is a timetabled target for increase as a proportion of GNI to 2% within a decade) is quarantined.

Wantok affiliation or as most would like to call it "wantok system" has been taking a lot of bashing because of its linkage to acts systematised as corrupt practises. I think there is a reckoned divide on the accepted definition of corruption according to the external 'citadels of the rule' that determine what is corruption and what is not. So another question that could be posed is "What makes corruption or acts perceived to be corrupt sometimes makes sense?" If it makes SENSE...does that mean the attributed sensibility is wrong? The most obvious 'on the fence' response would "Well it depends!" Context, context, context...It's all contextual...What is perceived as wrong in another society might not be in other settings...

Hi Grant You make a good point that corruption is anchored in a cultural, economic and social context that needs to be unpacked to appreciate how people perceive, understand, process and justify corruption. If we’re taking a zero tolerance standpoint on corruption, how can we expect corruption to be effectively addressed without fully considering and understanding the audience that the anti-corruption message needs to go to? I agree with Michael that the participants’ perceptions of corruption are possibly attributable to their proximity and likeness to the person benefiting from the actions. If a wantok got the participant their job, then they would perceive a similar story as a lesser crime. (Its a self-fulfilling prophecy - 'My wantok got my husband a job and we're good people and not corrupt, therefore its true that...'). I find the participants’ perspectives about corruption addressing poverty and as a channel for redistributing resources incredibly interesting. We’ve heard this before haven’t we? … Remember that guy that was perceived favorably in western communities… Robin Hood… This is interesting research. I’m looking forward to reading the article in full. Jen

Thanks Tess - very good point. Good to hear an example of Australia using its influence with regard to increasing engagement in the Pacific. I struggled to think of lots of examples of Australia using its influence in other multilaterals but certainly cutting funding would limit the ability to have any influence (should they choose to exercise it). Garth - yes, multiplying the two scores together might be a bit harsh - but in terms of ranking, averaging the two scores barely changes anything so in a relative sense, the rankings stay largely the same. The good performers are still top of the list and the ones that are struggling are still at the bottom. No reason we should give WHO and others a passing grade just to save their feelings! Joel

Joel, multiplying the two AMA scores together sure makes the total score look bad. I'm glad you weren't writing my school reports when I was at school. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I did think two credits made a credit average. According to your calculations an organisation scoring 6.5 on each dimension has a total score of 42%.