Comments

Good point: Indonesia certainly has high rates and numbers of tobacco users. We would have liked to have included Indonesia in our study but it was simply budget and time constraints of the research budget that prevented us from doing so. We hope to do follow up estimates on Indonesia later on. Ian Anderson.

This is a very thought provoking piece and the points that are raised will resonate elsewhere in the region. I am very glad I read to the end before writing my comment because the point I would have made (and with which I will now agree emphatically) is the one made in the final paragraph which is about the importance of information in order to support planning. There are lots of questions about informal economic activity that need to be identified and then addressed in order for the identified investments in the various bits of infrastructure (organisational, administrative, financial as well as physical) to generate maximum returns. I would also agree that the qualitative issues are important although I also think there is a need to address quantitative issues. Looking forward to learning more about this.

Many thanks to Scott MacWilliam for highlighting the desperate situation at UPNG. Urgent and comprehensive action is needed to respond to the situation he outlines. The students at UPNG are forced to live in student accommodation that is not only slum-like, but also dangerous. Their health and wellbeing is under threat. New students residences should be given a high priority. The students also deserve improved facilities that ensure their security, health and capacity to read widely and learn deeply. In addition to new teaching facilities, laboratories, and related learning resources, they also need a swimming pool, decent playing fields and areas to develop their own gardens - these should be part of an over-all plan to totally redevelop the University. The UPNG library is a tragedy - ill-stocked, grossly over-crowded, books rotting because of the malfunctioning air-conditioning, out of date books and journals, hopelessly inadequate internet resources. Mr MacWilliam is correct - academic standards are shockingly low and deteriorating; many staff are under-qualified; research barely exists. A system of "parallel support" is needed - i.e., bringing in overseas academics and administrators to work closely with local staff to help improve the teaching and learning at UPNG. Nearly every building on the UPNG Waigani campus is sub-standard. ODA donors should take a long hard look at the University and really come to grips with the appalling conditions and inadequate education the University is providing. They should come up with a comprehensive plan to reconstruct the entire University. Any thing less will be simply whistling in the wind. Until such a plan is activated the human capacity deficit that is undermining all attempts to lift the quality of life for all PNGeans will continuing growing. That plan should also bring all the other public universities together under one administrative umbrella - i.e., create a new national UPNG (PNGNU) that has significant outreach to and strong support from universities in Australia and New Zealand. Certainly the need for immediate action is profound. By assembling a national approach to high education capacity building in PNG, the universities there can achieve economies of scale and teaching and research coordination that they presently lack - with very negative consequences for the peoples of PNG.

I note with concern comments from Marcus re. ‘contracting and procurement’, issues of significant concern as between 60% and 70% of all government expenditure, including SIG, is thru its procurement system. I do understand that the SIG is currently taking action to improve its procurement specifically by undertaking a review of the PFAA was expected to go to Cabinet in October 2012 with a plan to pass legislation in early 2013 and enact the new legislation in January 2014. I also understand that the Treasury Division may take the opportunity to update the FIs in relation to procurement and draft a Procurement Manual and a set of standard bidding documents, including draft contracts. However, implementation of new legislation can take time and can be difficult. Implementation must be well planned and properly resourced. All are important steps to ensure that the SIG procurement system operates effectively and efficiently. However, a procurement system consists of more than just legislation, regulations and standard bidding documents. The SIG procurement system also includes (1) various procurement structures including a central government procurement unit and ministry procurement units, various tender boards, etc; (2) professional procurement staff in each of these procurement structures; (3) a body to oversight of all procurement; and (4) readily available procurement data, information and reporting. Where is the emphasis on these four components of the SIG procurement system? I do hope that Marcus’ current perception of SIG procurement will change with the current and possible future initiatives to reform and to strengthen the SIG procurement system. E. John Blunt is a Procurement and Institutional Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments. He has recently completed a procurement reform assignment with the Southern African Development Community Secretariat and is currently on assignment with the Swaziland Revenue Authority to strengthen its procurement system.

Bob: I always find kernels of wisdom in your reviews. I am especially struck with your comment: "...in making the assumption that education equates with teaching and learning, whole areas of institutional and organisational change, school improvement, the economics of education, finance, management, governance, and leadership are all at risk of being overlooked. It is exactly the complex interplay of teaching and learning with these areas that occupies so much time and attention in development." After working 6+ years on a USAID basic education management and governance project, I'm convinced that teaching and learning improvements cannot take place without appreciating the economics and governance issues. As an over simplified example: projects/program promote pedagogies based on whole language which require children to write as they read which requires lots of paper and pencils.If parents cannot afford the paper or schools decide to build a new gateway to the school instead of buying paper, how does the pedagogy get applied?

Henry Thanks for your comment. I think this is worth responding to because you seem to have captured the essence of a wider reaction to this article, which I believe to be based on misunderstanding. I certaintly didn't mean to come across as some kind of rational-choice ideologue (and certainly not "depressingly narrow and robotic"). While I'm a professional economist, my initial academic background was in sociology, and I am very aware of the many short-comings of narrow "self interested utility maximiser" frameworks for considering human behavior. As I say repeatedly in both my blog post and my paper - "there is no single answer" and "the incentives that people act on are undoubtedly multifaceted and complex". Nevertheless, when it comes to public policy, I believe that economic frameworks have much to offer in understanding the likely impacts of institutions and policies on human behavior. On average and in aggregate, and taking account of other considerations, people tend to respond to strong material incentives. This is not an extreme position (and one that nearly all of those I love would share). We should therefore carefully consider the incentives established by institutions and policies in Solomon Islands when thinking about development problems (in the same way we do when thinking about policy questions in industrialised countries). This won't provide us with a comprehensive understanding of the full range of possible responses and outcomes. But it is more useful than a narrative of Solomon Islands exceptionalism in which "culture" is the catch-all explanation for every behavior that is inconsistent with better development outcomes. Yes, culture plays a role in human behavior. But material incentives also play a role. If people are acting in ways that are not useful for society, institutions and policies have a role in creating incentives that discourage, rather than encourage, such behaviors. Is that really so extreme?

Hi Ian, thanks for the post. I am curious as to why Indonesia was excluded from evaluation as it has the 5th(?) largest cigarette market in the world. The report mentions Indonesia a few times, but seemingly not why it was excluded in relation to the 'high-burden country' criteria.

My personal thanks to Tobias and Terence for their excellent contributions to these key questions of development effectiveness in the Solomons. The knowledge base is sparse, despite the avalanche of RAMSI / AusAID money spent in the last decade, and all well-informed public dialogue like this will add value to our joint enterprise. It seems we are focusing on the subject that has been variably described as political economy, behavioural economics, or even game theory. It’s a fascinating topic and for me it goes to the heart of human development. We are looking at political governance in the Solomons and seeking to understand WHY Solomon Islands seems so resistant to political and economic reform and change at the national level, yet so resilient at the village level. I don’t think Solomon Islanders are a different species to the rest of humanity so I will proceed on the basis that they process their human experience just as any other homosapien would. Of course there is individual variance, and the individual “experience” is inherently unique, but I would posit that using a representative sample we should expect to see the same patterns that occur everywhere else in the world since we started walking upright. I have gone back to this blog topic many times since Terence wrote it some months ago, and used many of the links to further my understanding. I’ve found some interesting patterns I’d like to share. I was reading <a href="http://www.rossgittins.com/2012/10/the-psychological-roots-of-morality-and.html" rel="nofollow">an article</a> by the Australian economic journalist Ross Gittins. He was discussing the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt and his recent book, “The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion”. Gittins makes the following observations about Haidt’s work. "Whereas the old view was that natural selection had caused us to evolve into self-seeking competitors, Haidt argues we're more accurately thought of as 'homo duplex' - a creature who exists at two levels: as an individual and as part of the larger society. In Haidt’s view, 'We evolved to live in groups. Our minds were designed not only to help us win the competition within our groups, but also to help us unite with those in our group to win competitions across groups," he says. 'We are not saints, but we are sometimes good team players.'" I really liked the term 'homo duplex'. We are so much more complex than the abstract concept 'homo economicus'. If not we’d be most of the way towards dealing conclusively with the over-emission of greenhouse gases (amongst the plethora of other intractable human problems). I think Game Theory holds promise for further enlightenment in respect of trying to understand how we behave and respond to our environment. Gittins <a href="http://www.rossgittins.com/2012/10/game-theory-can-be-practical.html" rel="nofollow">in another article</a> discusses the recent work of US Game Theorist / Economist and 2012 Nobel Prize winner Al Roth. Gittins has this to write about the game theory-based ‘market design’ work of Al Roth (http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~aroth/alroth.html): "Unlike conventional analysis, game theory allows the possibility of 'multiple equilibria' - more than one possible outcome the participants regard as satisfactory. And it studies 'decision-making under uncertainty' - having to make decisions without knowing what the future holds." And further: "He's expert in 'market design' - changing the rules in markets so they work more efficiently in producing the best outcomes for people. He says a 'free market' is one that moves freely in achieving efficient outcomes, not necessarily a market with no intervention by the government. In the United States, Roth has helped make changes that improve the pairing of medical interns with hospitals, the pairing of students with high schools and the matching of kidney donors with recipients. He's also done the last one in Australia, actually improving some people's lives." Personally I am salivating just thinking about having Al Roth work on a project to re-design the Solomons electoral system, or the way that aid donors fund public service delivery. Not that he’d provide ‘the definitive answer’ (mainly because ‘it’ doesn’t exist in this dimension), but this kind of thinking would represent a whole universe of improvement on the status quo. To ruminate on the fact that it isn’t just Solomon Islanders that vote partly because of ‘cultural’ reasons, the journalist Guy Rundle <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/22/rundle-prepare-for-a-minority-voted-president-america/" rel="nofollow">writes in Crikey</a> about the recent US elections, and how voting patterns (in one of the most economically developed and richest countries on earth) refuse to align neatly with notions of rational self-interest. Rundle observes: "Mississippi desperately needs some basic public services, but it will retain its steadfast self-defeating addiction to poverty, stupidity and the Republican Party no matter what is on offer. The fact that voting is now cultural, rather than economic or interest-derived, plays havoc with an electoral-college federalist system - and no-one, neither the Beltway professionals nor the Nate Silver-esque nerds understand this." And the venerable Economist <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21566020-does-it-make-sense-vote-x-factor" rel="nofollow">published an article recently</a> that pondered the question, ‘Isn’t the act of voting an irrational act for an individual?’ Our correspondent wrote, "The time and hassle involved in getting to polling stations, registering to vote or even deciding between the candidates mean that rational individuals should take a free ride on the efforts of others and stay at home." And further: "In the mature democracies of the rich world there may be a simpler explanation: like agonising over loose change, the costs of voting are so tiddly that it is easier just to go and do it than to fret about whether it is rational or not. It would be odd if something as important as democracy were safeguarded by a lack of thought." Personally I have often wondered why magazines that target the business community and the international jetset have so many advertisements for watches that cost more than $1,000, when a digital watch that lasts reliably for 5-10 years can be had for $20? Is the readership being taken advantage of because it’s dumb and ignorant? Or are there other forces at play? Thanks Terence and Tobias for your stimulating and good work.

Firstly, I apologise for this belated post. I suspect most of the devpolicy blogosphere has moved on, so it’s now much safer for me to enter these torrid waters. Here's my view of three of the main points discussed in this series? 1. Can electoral design change the game of political governance in Solomon Islands?; 2. Should donors (mainly AusAID) channel more of their funds through SI government systems?; and, 3. Can donors work with the slush funds (CDF) to improve their development effectiveness? I will try and use what I’ve learnt through Terence and Tobias (and others) to consider these questions. My lens appears to be incentives, incentives, incentives. 1.Electoral design? It would seem that the evidence supports the contention that at best, electoral design only works at the margins in respect of changing the underlying political equation. The wise Bill Standish <a href="http://www.cdi.anu.edu.au/_research/2005-06/D_P/2006_04_BR_Political_Reform_in_PNG_Testing_the_Evidence.pdf" rel="nofollow">always said</a>[pdf], despite the unbounded optimism of its proponents, that the OLIPPAC political stability laws of PNG were unlikely to alter the fundamental nature of electoral politics in PNG. I think history has proven him correct, on balance. Jon Fraenkel, and Alphonse Gelu would agree broadly with Standish on this issue, though considering that Dr Gelu is now Registrar of the OLIPPAC Commission he may believe he can do good work on the margins (as he evidently <a href="http://www.thenational.com.pg/?q=node/41191&utm_source=Devpolicy&utm_campaign=847cc68b03-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL&utm_medium=email" rel="nofollow">is now doing</a>, but the big changes come through the momentum of being part of a wider social and political movement. I would follow this view, and even though it is difficult to imagine an electoral system that is more disconnected from its society than the current regime in SI, I don’t think any changes to the architecture alone will alter the ground that the system sits on. No electoral system ‘makes sense’ (how does voting for the Australian Senate work, again??), but underlying political functionality of their polities can make them work regardless. 2. More budget support for SI government? I have to disagree with Tobias. The application of this principle in SI would represent the triumph of ideology over common sense. There is anecdotal evidence to support the contention that that there is a strong underlying culture of misappropriation and malfeasance in contracting and procurement in SIG Ministries, at the present time. If true, this is depressing for the many good public servants who struggle against this prevailing culture. The fact that donor resources continue to flow, and in fact are accelerating, further undermines the will of the coalition of those who oppose the dominance of this culture. If we accept the intellectual legitimacy of political economy concepts such as monopoly, oligopoly, competition, and incentives, then we understand that a strong state is infused with the energy of, and informed and held to account by, its citizens. Aid donor resources in SI are currently propping up a parasitical and enfeebled state that has little to no connection with its citizenry and is wholly focused on the state-centric programming of international donors to exist, with no good reason to answer the telephone just in case it's an ordinary Solomon Islander at the other end. (somebody please write something about the huge SI allocation of overseas tertiary scholarships in its education budget, when the majority of the population are functionally illiterate. Exclusive political institutions feeding off eachother?) When I hear an aid donor in Honiara saying, “We must partner with the SI government”, I am led to think, “Do they mean Namson Tran MP, Bodo Dettke MP, or Snyder Rini MP? Who is Minister for Fisheries, Aid Coordination, or Forestry this week?” I acknowledge the reality of the conundrum, “how do we support an effective centralized state if we by-pass its fiscal systems?” In response I think an idea worth pursuing is Collier’s ‘Independent Service Delivery Authority’. Which leads me to point 3. 3. Improving the effectiveness of slush funds? I think we need to give serious consideration to Collier’s idea of an <a href="https://devpolicy.org/big-picture-on-corruption/" rel="nofollow">Independent Service Delivery Authority</a> for Solomon Islands. An agency such as this would operate not unlike the PNG Sustainable Development Fund. Its mission would be to singly focus on delivering and maintaining grassroots health, education and infrastructure. It would be governed by a Board with a minority of government reps (say 1/3), with a majority of non-state, regional and international Directors (people with genuine expertise who can add value – not just aid donor staff nominees). The ISDA could say to MPs, “if you give us your CDF money and agree to use our systems, we will double your money. If it is grassroots services you want to deliver in your communities with your CDF, then we can double whatever you can deliver alone with your CDF”. Government agencies can contest these funds on merit with the private sector, or in PPPs. The ISDA would solely and wholly focus on and be held to account for the delivery of services to poor people - no vague and fuzzy goals of capacity-building, response to the demands of Ministers, the whim of the most influential donor head-of-mission, or the need to buy political capital from someone or somewhere. Public goods for poor Solomon Islanders. Em no moa. Thanks Terence and Tobias.

This way of thinking should be commended. And maybe this is what 'donor' countries should be promoting across the developing world as well. Think tanks in developing countries are unfortunately too dependent on foreign funds (directly or indirectly provided by aid agencies like AusAid for example). Local philanthropy is indispensable when it comes to promoting the battle of ideas that, I agree, is necessary to fight poverty (and the causes of poverty) because without it local think tanks, academic research centres, party affiliated think tanks, NGOs, etc, cannot thrive in the long run. I often think that instead of increasing their research funds to think tanks and research centres in developing countries donors should seek instead to mobilise local billionaires (and millionaires) to pick up the bill. They exist; but as is too often reported in countries like India they prefer to endow Harvard or Oxford than research centres in their own homes. This needs to change: new legal frameworks are necessary but peer pressure (or inspiration) may be sufficient to get the ball rolling. This kind of effort may not offer quick wins but is certainly cheaper and more sustainable in the long run. Without local philanthropists researchers will continue to operate within rather narrow spaces of manoeuvre -always trying to pre-empt the interests of their foreign funders or the 'northern' intermediaries who sub-contract them to work on text boxes or case studies using someone else's theories or frameworks. This is the difference between Chile and Bolivia! In the former, foreign funding kickstarted a process that led to the emergence of new philanthropists. In the latter, foreign funding remains the most important if only source of funding. .... It should be noted though that while the US does have independent think tanks dealing with international development policy (Brookings, CGD, etc.) this is not necessarily the case in the UK. There, all 'think tanks' are directly and indirectly funded by DFID. So DPC should consider itself as part of a very select club.

I have listened to Mr Mitchell each morning with ABC Local (666) when he is in town. I am very pleased that Mr Mitchell looks at the issues beyond our border. If Australia, a vast nation with a small population leads development in Asia and Pacific in the next 50-100 years, poverty could be reduced, diseases could be treated and local resources could be sustained. ANU's Development Policy Centre could save lives of many disadvantaged people in Asia and the pacific. However, very few local people in Asia and Pacific can read English and are able to understand policies and principles of Aid and Development. Can, we (Australians), led by ANU and Mr Mitchell also support those who wish to learn English in their home country? If more of the population could read and is able to access information online in 2020, then at least they are informed on what donors do and how they work in their country. In fact, access to Education and health is the foundation of development. If we look at poor school infrastructure in many countries such as Myanmar, my native county, it is clear that access to education is poor. If Mr Harold also wishes to help other poverty issues, I wish he could build 100 schools in poor country in his lifetime that also stamp his name on each school front gate. This is possible because he has the wisdom, knowledge and above all 'human touch' spirit. Thank you Mr Mitchell. God Bless You!

Pacific and Caribbean integration: between a rock and a hard place? I note comments regarding the performance and functionality of various regional bodies including the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and the Secretariat of the Association of South East Asian Nations. If such bodies are not operating effectively and efficiently their impact on any regional agenda will be minimal. In this context, the recent achievements by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Secretariat in building its capacity might provide guidance to other regional bodies and their funders of what might be possible. A major milestone has been achieved in the SADC Secretariat institutional reform process, which promises significant improvements in efficiency and value-for-money for both SADC member states and key international cooperation partners on whom the Secretariat depends for significant contributions to fund programs under the regional integration process. Newly established financial and internal control frameworks improve governance, transparency and accountability, are a major aid to decision-making and performance management. These achievements will greatly enhance SADC Secretariat effectiveness in supporting the regional integration process. E. John Blunt is an Institutional and Public Procurement Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments. He has worked in the Pacific, Asia and Africa. He is currently on assignment with the Southern African Development Community Secretariat in Botswana.