Comments

Max, Thanks for your comment. These are exactly the sort of questions that the PNG Govt has been grappling with in its design of the IDA. We've outlined our position in the blog, and are proposing a more ambitious role for the IDA than what is likely to eventuate. Neither of us, and I'm speaking for Tony who is currently in PNG, is under the illusion that the IDA will be a panacea for the infrastructure woes of PNG. But we do think substantial reform is needed to avoid a repeat of the past. The original intention of the NRA, to operate outside of the government bureacracy and funding cycle, was sound (and is similar in many respects to the IDA that we envisage). But unfortunately implementation to date has not matched this intention. The NRA is forced to operate much like a government department and has not received the funding that was promised (and, indeed, gazetted). It goes to show that design and legislation is only half the battle - it is in the implementation stage where things so often go wrong.

The following comment is not correct as regards the makeup of the government after the 1999 election: `This is reminiscent of provisions in the 1997 Constitution for cabinet to include members of opposition parties (a provision that was ignored for many years)'. The provision was not ignored in May 1999 and for much of the following year. Prior to the election of that year the then PM and leader of the majority ethnic Fijian party, Sitiveni Rabuka said he and his party would not accept being a member of the governing coalition if his party was in the minority. That is, he would not accept the entitlement under the 1997 Constitutional Provision intended to have all parties represented in the government. When the SVT was decimated at the poll but retained a small number of seats Rabuka stuck to his pre-election statement. This lead to a fiery meeting of the SVT, with MPs led by now Foreign Minister Ratu Inoke Kubuabola arguing against Rabuka's stance. (My source for this account was a student in a class I taught at USP, who was present at the meeting and holds a substantial position in the current regime.) Rabuka was then kicked out of the party to a position in the Great Council of Chiefs. Kubuabola and others spent much of the next year - until early 2000 at least - trying to join the government and obtain key ministerial positions. Why their efforts did not succeed and when this continuing marginalisation became a factor which led to the takeover of parliament in May 2000 remains one of the most intriguing and under-examined matters of Fiji's recent political history. Thus far from the provision being ignored it played a major part in what occurred before and after May 1999, and arguably affected what now exists in Fiji. The moral of the story is that no matter how well drafted what constitutions intend to happen often does not do so. .

What is the objective in establishing the IDA? Is it to circumvent the Central Supply and Tenders Board/State Soliciters Office which remain a major obstacle to timely contract award? Key questions are what functions and type of infrastructure should the IDA cover. Should it include planning as well as implementation? What type of infrastructure should it be involved in? In the transport sector a lot of work has been done to develop institutions to own and operate maritime, aviation and road infrastructure. Who will maintain the asset to be developed? The establishment of the IDA would increase the separation between development and operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. The organisation that is responsible for operation and maintenance should be involved in the design and implementation because they best understand how to build in sustainability. To me the IDA is another simplistic approach to a complex issue. There is no getting away from the fact that developing sector based institutions with responsibility for designing, operating and maintaining infrastructure is the way to go. On the surface the IDA idea seems to be a response to the weak procurement capacity in PNG. The preferred approach is what is happening in the road sector where the NRA is responsible for maintenance. The NRA approach gives all stakeholders, especially users, some input in planning and implementation and provides the start of transparent funding models for infrastructure maintenance.

Thanks Colum, I was wondering, do we know if Queensland is a net recipient of federal transfers? Interesting to see that the results are almost identical when it comes to: 1. opposing asylum seekers 2. doing anything about climate change Queensland is clearly not a particularly internationalist state...

A very reasonable constitution. Lets road test it first during the 2014 Election. Minor adjustments could be made through new government of the day as the country progresses. All the best, love Fiji my beloved country.

The answer to your first question, of course, is "no", tools on their own can't transform democracy, just like a hammer on its own can't build a house. It's people using tools productively that do any of those things. It's not clear what you're suggesting here - are you saying we should in some way try to restrain Myanmar from gaining access to the tools many of the rest of us use to improve our lives? Other countries can handle tech, but not Myanmar? Naturally, some people say nasty things online. Some people also use the tools for good. Since in Myanmar, some people stir up ethnic hatred in online forums, are you arguing that we should make sure the rest of the country doesn't get access to these tools, because they might do the same thing? Maybe I just wasn't getting what your argument was, but what you present seems to be an argument for a more open discussion about the internet and more coordinated efforts to help people learn information literacy. Of course, everyone shares concerns about the internet's role in everything these days. Of course it can be a tool for destructiveness. But the answer to that is fostering positive usage and productive online behavior. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

On 'adding balance to the above (below) comments': all my remarks on accountability, evaluation and transparency are sector-neutral and apply equally to all players, particularly to the public sector which we expect to practice what it preaches and lead by example. Same goes for private contractors, both of which have more resource capability for it. On the cash benchmark, I agree with the views in <a href="http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/cash-transfers-sorting-through-hype " rel="nofollow">this post</a> (particularly last few paras), so I won't repeat them. On 'we'd be spending more money on RCTs than programmes': this warrants a reply, as I think it is not the right way to frame this important issue: - Firstly, evaluation will only ever be a subset of program funding. Now, it is barely is a subset, but rather absorbed in a lot of cases, when not ex-ante earmarked or paid for after. There is little threat of evaluation becoming a major component of, let alone overtaking, program funding anytime soon. - Secondly, not all sound impact evaluations are RCTs*, nor should they be. RCTs or other quasi and non-randomised evaluations also need not be expensive as those ideologically against them like to make them out to be in their attacks - good, scaled research is often not cheap, true, but there are countless grad students are running innovative experiments and mechanism studies partnering with small scale NGOs, and may of these make it in to top journals without the dollar tag attached, with immensely useful lessons for practitioners and policy makers. A more productive approach is problem solving these costs and feasibility constraints down, rather than repeating the barriers that have already been knocked down in debates. Combining these two points and given the starting point of impact evaluations here in Australia and in our organisations and programs, there is no doubt we can do with more: asking the questions as well as trying to answer them, ideally with some kind of proof rather than rhetoric. On RCTs, I do however welcome <a href="http://www.povertyactionlab.org/southeast-asia" rel="nofollow">AusAIDs funding</a> of J-PAL to open a new office in Indonesia, and hope this catalyses more randomised evaluation in our region, particularly the Pacific.

NGOs often get a hard-time on the accountability front. I've done it myself. But to add some balance to the above comments, while I'd certainly like to see greater accountability from NGOs, I'd also like to see a great deal more accountability from private contracting firms who win aid-contracts, and any other entity that receives aid. Why pick on NGOs? Apparently 'aid for trade' takes-up about 17 per cent of the current aid budget. (See Robin Davies' post 'Separated at birth' for this statistic.) In this context, I'm not sure what is wrong with Australian NGOs asking for an increase in funding from two per cent to eight per cent. They provide important contributions to development, across a wide-range of sectors and often get help to people others don't reach. This may be imperfect and there is plenty of room for improvement. But if you scratch beneath the surface of any entity involved in the 'aid industry', you'll find the same. The cash benchmark is an interesting idea, and Blattman's blog certainly points out the potential and pitfalls of this. But how to benchmark every single aid-funded activity against simply giving cash, in the absence of the cash-giving counterfactual? We'd be spending more money on RCTs than programmes if we had to prove the counterfactual for every single intervention. For sure, over time the evidence-base will build-up but for now, perhaps it is more realistic to ask the question than be expected to prove it.

Seasonal Work is the best program in the Pacific with Australia and other countries. I am in a search to earn extra to cater for my family's need. I am a single mother who is unable to depend on my fortnightly wages and had an high interest to take part in seasonal work to develop relationship with other people as well as to earn extra. I still believe seasonal work provides best for others and I want to be part of it.

I really wanna first of all thank you Mr. Sam Koim for taking up this initiative and carrying out this most important job for the welfare of our country. As an ordinary concern citizen of this country I credit your for your intentional program against the corruption in our country. From my personal opinion and belief, I think that this is God's will that this anti- corruption agency is in-place. I really love my country and I really wanna see a change in my country so in that case I am really supporting you morally. What you are doing now can continue and progress.

That Chris Blattman blog post is excellent (as is the segment on This American Life discussing cash transfers). His emphasis of impact assessments is spot on, hopefully bringing more accountability from traditional aid sector partners, such as the NGOs affiliated under ACFID.

'Labour shortages' are the common excuse cited by various industry groups. Yet you very rarely see any, let alone good, empirical evidence to support these claims. While I don't agree the recent 457 visa changes were a positive thing, the Australian Dairy Farmers - like many other lobby groups - are making a mountain out of a molehill. Some additional regulations have been added but there wasn't any major changes to eligibility in accessing potential migrant employees. Dairy Cattle Farmer and MIxed Livestock Farmer both <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/csol.pdf" rel="nofollow">remain eligible under the program</a>[pdf]. Personally, I see constant change as the best way to hamper future growth in the SWP. Instead of continuously expanding eligibility through industries and pilots, we need a proper explanation to find out what exactly is limiting the program in the current form. At the moment, any future 'fixes' will be at best educated guesses. For instance, who knows if the <a href="http://ministers.deewr.gov.au/oconnor/seasonal-worker-program-expanded-across-wa-accommodation" rel="nofollow">recent addition</a> of the whole of Western Australia for the accommodation trial will see a substantial increase in numbers.