Comments

It is not a surprise that the highlands highway from Lae to Kassam Pass will be better than the rest of the highway. The reason is simple. The Markham Valley is flat and has good drains. The second reason is land compensation demands. This has to be resolved before any development infrastructure proceeds.

Thanks to both of you for this realistic assessment of the current level of Australian aid. Interestingly, despite the much higher aid levels in the UK, opinion surveys show that in both countries around 60% of the public have an exaggerated view of the share of the budget that goes to aid. In Australia only 1.4% of the budget goes to aid and a slightly higher percentage in the UK (as their total budget is a larger share of GNI). Yet in both countries a majority think it is much higher. When asked to nominate what share should go to aid a majority of the public in both countries propose levels that are significantly higher than are currently provided (for example see ComRes 2012 UK Overseas Aid Survey for ONE Campaign and Quantum 2009 World Vision Australia Island Nation Survey). In fact when we inform Australians that our current levels of aid are only 1.4% of the budget or 0.37% of national income their usual response is "we can do better than that". <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWtAukUPIY" rel="nofollow">This video</a> sums up the typical response.

Good article Joel. I don't think AusAID should follow DFID slavishly though. And I feel they are now and not necessarily learning from the mistakes DFID has made over the years. For example, value for money analysis is just hitting AusAID. But DFID has made a hash of this one, so will AusAID travel the same route? Counting beans? I would also add that AusAID is becoming DFAT-ised by stealth. It might still be an autonomous agency but the senior executive is largely ex-DFAT. Best, Cate

<a href="http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/01/win-west-papua-melanesia" rel="nofollow">This item</a> from Jason McLeod in New Matilda is (not surprisingly) quite strident - he claims that West Papua is now an international issue and reiterates the growing political significance of the MSG: In February, whilst in Canberra, I heard a Melanesian expert say that West Papua was a non-issue. It may or may not be that in the fullness of time that will be shown to be the case but at this particular moment, it is very much an issue in our part of the world.

Joel, I think you are right that support is wide and not deep, but this applies in all donor countries. When we survey Australians about their support of government aid 80% are in favour (eg see World Vision Australia 2009 Island Nation). This is a very similar figure to the UK and to most other donor nations (eg see UKaid 2010 Public Attitudes Towards Development) . While most people support aid to help people in poverty, I think it is quite understandable that the strength of this support is less than for issues close to home such as roads and hospitals that more immediately affect themselves and their families. It may be that the public are better informed in the UK (after all they have Richard Curtis), but I don't think the survey evidence suggests that levels of public support are higher. Given that aid makes up such a small proportion of the budget (only about 1.4% now and around 2% when we reach 0.5% of GNI) decisions about levels of government aid are generally made by a small number of senior MPs and bureaucrats. This means there is a tenuous relationship between public opinion in countries and levels of government aid. Around 80% of Australians are supportive of government aid and, when asked, they propose that aid spending should be significantly more than 2% of the budget. However it has been a battle to get Australian Government leaders to lift our relatively low levels of aid. Perhaps the difference between aid levels in the UK and Australia has more to do with the strength of aid campaigning in the two countries, or the beliefs of a small number of senior government MPs and/or perhaps it is a just a quirk of the different politics in the two countries.

Just to update Stephen's post, it seems that the issue has received some coverage in the Australian media today. In The Age: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/australianindonesian-carbon-project-abandoned-20130702-2p98w.html" rel="nofollow">Australian-Indonesian carbon project abandoned</a> ABC: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-02/government-ends-ausaid-reforestation-program-in-indonesia/4794554" rel="nofollow">Government ends AusAID reforestation program in Indonesia</a>

There clearly are methodology and applicability issues with the indicators, but it looks as though the Bank is being persuaded to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Particularly disturbing is the Panel's argument that the employing workers indicator should be abandoned because labour market regulation may contribute to reducing inequality. Such regulations may or may not reduce inequality (that is a proposition that would need pretty careful testing) but that is beside the point. Many of the other interventions covered by the Doing Business indicators may in principle serve useful regulatory functions: but if they are badly designed and poorly administered, the costs they impose are matter of policy concern. And the Doing Business indicators have been useful in prompting governments to consider if they could achieve business regulatory goals at lower cost.

Hi Garth, Thanks for your comments. With regard to the comment on support for aid: my impression is more from personal experience and discussions with people in Australia though I cannot confess to having my fingers on the pulse of all of Australia! Conversations I have about aid and development and developing countries here have led me to believe that understanding and support is relatively shallow. Perhaps the expression "a mile wide but an inch deep" captures it to some degree. Additionally, the quality of the public discussion (in blogs, newspapers, etc) about development in the UK is, to my mind, stronger than it is here (though devpolicy.org has certainly started to make important inroads there). You probably have a better sense of the situation and levels of support so I would be pleased to be corrected! Joel

This is an interesting article. I am particularly interested in the key argument from this research is "....corruption strengthen ties between marginalised citizens and the State...". Perhaps it is not only in Enga or Southern Highlands but all of PNG, where corruption is existing at all levels of the society. Corruption is not a 'one way street'; both the marginalised citizens and the Blue /White collar citizens are practicing it in most of the government departments. For example, a simple driver handing a K100 lunch money to a Motor car licensing officer to process the driving license very quickly. It is like, you scratch my back and I scratch your back! Formalising petty corruption may be one way of preventing weak states becoming failed states.

Thanks Joel, I think you make some very good points about needing a broad range of input into the aid program, but also agree that we could do a lot worse than be influenced by DFID. However, what makes you think that "There is also much stronger and deeper public support for aid in the UK (though this might be faltering in the face of economic challenges) as compared to Australia"? That is not my understanding from the survey literature. Garth Luke, World Vision Australia

Indeed an interesting article. I wonder how the question you raised (“how would developing countries know what the private sector is contributing to their development?”) can be answered by big miners in PNG. The answer to this question can be identified from the varying activities they are engaged in the mining areas. In terms of employment, these mining companies have recruited a local workforce (nationals and landowners), and in most of the mines we have a big number of locals and nationals. A policy issue that needs immediate attention is the issue of 'retrenchment' for local and national employees. 'Where will the retrenched local and national employees go after the mine closure?' A major challenge for PNG mining companies is how to effectively formulate, implement, plan and administer a workable retrenchment program that is consistent with sustainable development objectives. Developing strategies to address the formidable problem for mining companies in PNG, which is a contributor to the PNG mining, petroleum, oil and gas industries has become a priority. For far too long, retrenchment issues in the PNG mines have been neglected, even as landowner associations, parliamentarians, leaders and practitioners in many forums have attempted discussions on this topic. The question of implementing a strategic retrenchment program in the PNG mines is now very important and a valid focus of PNG leaders, practitioners, academics and other researchers to formulate a workable strategy in accordance with the PNG's Vision 2050 Millennium Goals developed by the government. Therefore, a holistic retrenchment strategy needs to be developed.

Andrew Mako's article truly reflects what is happening in the Enga Province, as well as other parts of Papua New Guinea. A similar perception I sometimes ask myself as an Engan. In a presentation by Deni ToKunai during the 2013 PNG Updates at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU he was making particular reference to the word 'Action' and he referred this word to the Enga Governor, Hon. Peter Ipatas as the Action Governor of Enga. There is no dispute on that word to the Governor in terms of implementing policies in relation to higher education. Mako's research reveals the lack of fundamental educational policies and in the case of Enga's Action Governor, priority is only given to the higher education and the lower primary, community and high schools are facing a great challenge. The ratio of student and teachers is unbalanced, there no class rooms, no educational materials and equipment, and there is no road network. A policy for linking higher and lower education in Enga is urgently needed here. The Enga Provincial Education Board and the Government needs strategic policies to bridge this gap. How can a Province preach about Human Capital Development in the province when the lower education level is getting bad to worst and they focus only on the higher education level? All in all, research needs to be done in this area to come up with strategic policies to bridge this missing linkage.