Comments

Hi Stephen, Thanks for your comment. PM O'Neill did indeed go to Jakarta rather than Noumea and his absence was the most significant factor in the MSG's deferral of a decision about the WPNCL's application for membership. As well as restating his belief in the territorial integrity of Indonesia, he signed an extradition treaty which has already caused a lot of concern about how this will affect West Papuans who have crossed the border into PNG. His actions have provoked something of a backlash in Moresby, with the leader of the opposition lashing out and saying that the PM is not a 'Melanesian' - O'Neill has retaliated by threatening defamation. The wording of the MSG communiqué is significant; the influence of Vanuatu is evident in the inclusion of the recognition of self-determination for the people of West Papua and the explicit reference to human rights atrocities in that region. The overall ambivalence of the MSG towards the Fiji situation does create something of a paradox and may cause problems in the future but at the moment whilst the issue is whether WPNCL can be members/observers it is unlikely to be in focus.

Tess, Thanks for this. I note that PNG PM O'Neill went to Indonesia instead of to the MSG, and there, among other things, he reiterated that Papua was an integral part of Indonesia, and that PNG's position hadn't changed on this issue. (http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/indonesia/1556/west-papua-part-of-indonesia-png-pm/). In light of this, do you think MSG will take up the Papuan independence cause in any serious way? With Fiji as part of the MSG, the organization might also find it hard to take a stand on human rights. Stephen.

Bishop Brown clearly doesn't understand much about the process of resolving civil war such as was in progress in Solomons. Extreme force such as RAMSI was needed in order to disarm the warring parties and to enforce the peace for a considerable time in order to see if the grievances giving rise to the conflict could be resolved. I believe that, unfortunately, the grievances giving rise to the conflict have not been resolved and the likelihood that the conflict will recur in the absence of RAMSI, or an external force of similar capacity will be required, is high. A second function of RAMSI was to assume the government responsibilities that local authorities were ill-equipped to undertake because of the pervasiveness of the conflict. These included, importantly, all aspects of law and justice. Areas such as education and health, which Bishop Brown says that RAMSI should have taken on, are areas that local authorities could be expected to manage, even if with the help of other donor assistance. So, do not judge RAMSI using the wrong criteria.

I believe that removing the rankings would basically destroy the usefulness of the DB. They have been an important tool for achieving progress in business environments.

Dear Ashlee Thanks for opening this conversation. The International Development Contractors (IDC) Australia certainly welcomes the announcement of a Minister for International Development. While we acknowledge the result is not exactly as was proposed by the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, we consider this a positive step. We agree with earlier commentary by Professor Stephen Howes regarding the “uncertainty around the aid program’s future” and how a lack of predictability of forward funding can impact effectiveness. Consequently, we hope this Ministerial elevation as a recognition of the size and importance of the aid program assists to ensure a good program is built upon and strengthened in its pursuit of delivering effective aid to help the world’s poor. MEL DUNN Chair, IDC Australia <em> The IDC brings together more than 20 Australian and international private sector organisations that manage the delivery of international aid to the world’s poorest countries, on behalf of multilateral and bilateral organisations including AusAID.</em>

The 2013 People's Survey has just been released and can be downloaded here: http://www.ramsi.org/Media/docs/FINAL-Peoples-Survey-2013-1-final-111900c1-79e2-4f41-9801-7f29f6cd2a66-0.pdf

It’s good to see this discussion on the DB reports. The methodology is far from perfect and clearly requires improvement. The issues around this have been discussed for quite some time, including the IEG’s evaluation published in 2008. I am not sure I agree with the recommendation to remove the index. While the rankings are crude, they are a powerful tool for getting countries to think about these issues. The media love it and it gets governments and business to at least begin to talk about the need for reform - unlike other more “sound” assessments undertaken by the World Bank and other agencies. My biggest problem with the DB rankings is how they have been misused and included as measures of success for development assistance programmes.

I agree this is a big deal, the rankings are quoted extensively by a range of actors so to critique them in such harsh terms is really significant - thanks for highlighting this

Great to read about Helen's contribution to all of us former students. She pushed, shoved and bullied us through our PHDs - and we are all so grateful for that. Part of her legacy is a vast alumni across many developing countries, all pushing and shoving in our own way for sensible economics.

I completely agree Joel. I also particularly like that all of the data inputted into it is in the IATI standardised format, meaning that you could technically use the same software platform to show all of the data that has been published to IATI over the years from the 150+ organisations that have published (some not as rigorously as others) so far. Whether DFID wants to tread on that many toes is another question!

Thanks for the correction Jo, I'll amend the text above.

Sam, well done.