Comments

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.

Joel. Nice article; balanced and sensible. As one of the ex-DFID people to whom you refer it sems to me that what matters is not whether AusAID follows DFID (or anyone else for that matter) - what matters is whether AuSAID seeks to do what is developmentally appropriate in the specific circumstances in question. The fact that some ex-DFID staff (and in reality there is only a handful) have come here suggests that AusAID does indeed want to do 'the right thing'. Seen from the inside there is no doubt about this. Graham Teskey

I can personally confirm that the health facilities and the service delivery in the rural areas of Gulf Province is near extinction. Being a health worker myself from the isolated mountains of Gulf-Kotidanga district (Kaintiba) I have felt the pain of living in Gulf and providing these services. The major problem lays between the Provincial health Department, and managers who relax and dream away on their comfortable chairs assuming that everything is just right. There is a lack of inspections, monitoring, and regular evaluation on the state and progress of service delivery. Furthermore, there is lack of funding, a shortage of staff, a lack of or no drug supplies, and no up skilling staff through in-services. These are all key contributing factors. Despite, the above problems I acknowledge the Church Services for whole hearted effot in proving the essential service on behalf. My appeal to PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and people in authority is to wake up and look into the vision 2010-2020 health care implementation strategies and work hand in hand with NDoH to up grade and delivery quality services to the people. To those health care workers serving in other provinces it is by time we should return to service our own province and our own people rather than attending only for funerals. Today is the day for change or else we will be left behind. Thanks.

This is certainly not an issue limited to developing countries, as the author (and, indeed, Huntington) state. Rather, much corruption in developed countries is stymied by formalising rewards for not engaging in corrupt acts, along lines of individual reward: classic carrot versus stick stuff. The clearest example of this is in political pensions, which are just juicy enough to convince deposed politicians to walk away rather than risk public ire and private equity on legal or other forms of challenge. One can only wonder what rewards would await an Assad or even a Bainimarama if they were to step aside…

Maree, thanks for this lovely (and warranted) piece on Helen. Margaret and Adam have known Helen better than most and I agree with their sentiments. Helen is owed much credit for my studies at the ANU, and I was fortunate to see the softer side of Helen. So mine are some very fond memories of this otherwise ferocious woman. She had a heart of gold, stood by her students even when they strayed, and was the first to offer help whenever required. What most people don’t know, and Maree correctly points out, is that Helen loved a good argument. In being purposefully provocative, Helen got the best out of her opponents.